今天小编为大家带来了6月4日SAT作文真题回顾与写作指导，希望对各位SAT考生有帮助。

　　本次SAT考试写作的主题是吸尘器和碳排放税，有点类似OG里面的购物袋那一篇文章，Evidence段可以轻松搞定;另外里面提到了政府原来的做法(而不是抽税)会导致许多人日常生活的不便，这个可以看成是利用了人们的self-interest来进行议论。文章选自US.News 2014年的一篇文章，比较新，可以说体现了CB选择题材越来越与时俱进的特点。

　　原文再现：

　　A Carbon Tax Beats a Vacuum Ban

　　Starting in September, the European Union will ban vacuum cleaners using more than 1,600 watts of power, with the limit slated to be lowered to 900 watts by 2017. This ban won't just affect a handful of the worst offenders. According to the European Commission, the average vacuum cleaner sold today uses 1,800 watts.

　　Intended largely to reduce carbon emissions, the vacuum cleaner ban joins numerous other regulations throughout the world that severely restrict consumers' choices. Want an incandescent light bulb? Too bad – they're banned. How about a gas guzzling car? Sorry – they're being squeezed out by tighter fuel economy standards.

　　Rules like these rub many people the wrong way because they represent government intrusion into even the most minute of personal decisions. Do we really want the government telling us what kind of vacuum cleaner or light bulb to buy? Don't policy makers have better things to think about? Backers of such regulations counter that, when people buy powerful vacuum cleaners and incandescent bulbs, they don't take into account the spillover costs they impose on others by contributing to climate change.

　　Fortunately, there's a better solution. A carbon tax – set to reflect the spillover costs of carbon emissions – would eliminate the need to micromanage the kinds of vacuum cleaners and light bulbs that people can buy. Instead, the tax would provide consumers with an incentive to act in a socially responsible manner by ensuring that those who operate such products pick up the tab for the climate harm they cause.

　　The main advantage of the carbon tax is that it leaves consumers free to decide whether to buy energy-efficient vacuum cleaners and light bulbs or whether to reduce their carbon footprint in other ways. That's a big improvement over the regulatory approach because individual consumers are in a better position than government bureaucrats to figure out the least painful way to reduce their contribution to climate change.

　　A carbon tax is also better targeted than vacuum cleaner bans and other regulations. Some critics of the EU's new rule claim that consumers will need to run their less powerful vacuum cleaners for longer periods of time to achieve their desired level of cleanliness, which might actually increase the amount of electricity they use. Similarly, improving fuel economy through tighter standards may increase the amount of driving that people do. These "rebound effects" might not be big enough to actually cause a net increase in emissions, but they still reduce the effectiveness of the regulations.

　　A carbon tax avoids these problems by directly targeting the real culprit – carbon. Under a carbon tax, there's an incentive to cut back on carbon emissions along every dimension. In other words, because tax payments are in line with actual emissions, a Prius owner who drives a lot could very well pay more than an SUV owner who hardly ever drives.

　　Economists of all political stripes agree on these points. In a 2011 poll of leading academic economists representing a variety of demographic backgrounds and political views, 90 percent agreed with the statement: "A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as 'corporate average fuel economy' requirements for automobiles." There's no doubt that economic advisers offer similar advice when policy makers consider regulations like the vacuum cleaner ban. Unfortunately, these misguided policies often turn out to be more politically feasible than a carbon tax.

　　That may change going forward, however. As policy makers look to trim budgets and find additional sources of revenue, a carbon tax could represent a good compromise between conservatives and liberals – a way to address climate change while protecting consumer freedom and raising revenue that can be used to lower other taxes.

　　认真研究过OG上的写作文章的同学都会感觉这篇文章无论从话题内容上还是写作风格上都很“亲切”，比5月7日亚洲考的写作文章词汇和话题难度明显要低。这是本次考试同学应该感到庆幸之处。相信认真练习过OG上面6篇文章和真题的同学都会得心应手地完成这次作文考试。

　　首先，从内容上看：这篇文章属于环保话题，和OG上面203页的那篇“Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment”以及OG第一套模拟题关于“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”,OG第四套模拟题，关于“Let There be dark”,以及5月7日北美考题“Air Conditioning will be the end of us”一样，都是关于环保话题的文章。可见，环保话题这样的世界性热门话题是最容易被选择作为分析文章来考察的。同学们今后要注意多阅读各类环保话题相关的文章。

　　其次，从写作风格上：这篇作文的写作思路和手法和OG上面203页“Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment”这篇文章有很多神似之处。这两篇文章都属于驳论文，都是为了反驳某一种环保措施。OG上面的文章是为了反驳“禁止塑料袋来保护环境”这样的政策措施;这篇文章是为了反驳“禁止一些真空吸尘器的使用来保护环境”这样的措施。

　　两篇文章都认为保护环境的初衷是对的，但是不应该用这样粗暴的政治强制力来干涉人们对于购物袋的使用、荧光灯的选择、真空吸尘器的选择等这些细小方面的选择权利。两篇文章都用了很多篇幅来引用了一些权威和数据来说明这样的措施有很多方面的危害。不同之处在于这篇文章提供了替代措施以及理由。这篇文章作者认为用收税的方式来控制碳排放是更有效的措施。

　　如果同学们认真学习过OG第203页的这篇文章及其后面的两篇满分作文，一定能够轻松分析这篇文章。

　　下面介绍这篇文章可以分析的重点：

　　1、可以从证据方面分析：比如“According to the European Commission, the average vacuum cleaner sold today uses 1,800 watts.”“In a 2011 poll of leading academic economists representing a variety of demographic backgrounds and political views, 90 percent agreed with the statement: "A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as 'corporate average fuel economy' requirements for automobiles." 这些官方和权威的证据证明了：实施禁止真空吸尘器政这样的政策的危害，以及采用征税的方式的好处。

　　2、可以从reasoning方面分析：文章在5、6、7、8段分别分析解释了禁止某些真空吸尘器使用的坏处和采用税收政策的好处，比如：给消费者更多的选择的自由和权利;更能针对性地解决“碳”排放的问题;这样的措施更加的less expensive; 以及政府也能够从税收中获益。这样多角度多方面的理由对比分析，加强了作者观点的说服力。

　　3、还可以从rhetorical devices角度分析：本文最为突出使用的修辞策略是rhetorical questions, 比如：“Want an incandescent light bulb? Too bad – they're banned. How about a gas guzzling car? Sorry – they're being squeezed out by tighter fuel economy standards.Do we really want the government telling us what kind of vacuum cleaner or light bulb to buy? Don't policy makers have better things to think about?”这样大量的问句的使用是为了凸显了政府使用禁止真空吸尘器的不合理性。同学们还可以从讽刺irony、抒情appeal to emotion、一些特殊的措词diction, 以及让步(concession)思维的角度来分析作者的写作修辞策略。