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。

　　范文：

　　In an effort to fight off negative impacts of carbon emissions on the environment, the EU has decided to impose a strict ban on vacuum cleaners using more than 1,600 watts of power. Is this the right action to take? Obviously, Sita Slavov, a US News contributor, does not side with the decision in her article A Carbon Tax Beats a Vacuum Ban, in which she claims that a carbon tax would work as a better solution than the ban. She employs logical reasoning and mainly rhetorical questioning to sway the readers into her side.

　　Logical reasoning serves as the most powerful strategy utilized to present reasons against the vacuum ban and for the tax. Stating the carbon tax as a better solution, Slavov starts her claim off with the reason – the tax is “set to reflect the spillover costs of carbon emissions.” This reason clearly addresses the vacuum ban backers’ claim that those who “buy powerful vacuum cleaners and incandescent bulbs” do not consider their spillover costs, so the readers would begin to deem the tax as at least one of the alternatives to the ban. What would persuade the audience to believe that the tax is a better option is the author’s next argument: it gives customers free choice. In a democratic country, no one would like to be told or forced by “government bureaucrats” to do their business, even a small decision like buying energy-efficient vacuum cleaners and light bulbs. Another argument,the tax targeting directly at the real culprit – carbon, would enable the readers to realize that the ban might have a major defect: the “rebound effects”could decrease its effectiveness. Having realized the point, the audience would be more reluctant to support the ban. The final statement made by the author to bolster her claim would function as the last straw to break the back of the ban. In the statement, Slavov mentions that “economists of all political stripes” agree with her points, citing a 2011 poll to add soundness of her claim. Those ready to take her side would feel that they are not alone, backed up by all these professionals. By repeatedly pointing out the incredibility of the ban proponents’ reasons and the drawbacks of the ban, the author establishes and strengthens solidarity and authenticity of her claim that the tax is a better choice.

　　Logical reasoning aside, rhetorical questioning is flexibly employed to play to the readers’ emotion. The two rhetorical questions, “Want an incandescent light bulb?” and “How about a gas guzzling car?”, demonstrate how the government rudely intrudes people’s daily life and makes decisions for them. This would arouse the readers’ distaste, as it is ridiculous that someone else rather than oneself could meddle in one’s own affairs. Therefore, they would definitely say no to the next question, “Do we really want the government telling us what kind of vacuum cleaner or lightbulb to buy?”. When reading the subsequent question, “Don't policy makers have better things to think about?”, they would begin to ponder upon whether there would be a “better thing” than the government’s manipulation of their life via bans and regulations. This rhetorical device, clearly a strategy of appealing to emotions, makes it much easier for the audience to embrace the author’s solution—a carbon tax—proposed immediately afterwards.

　　All in all, logical reasoning and rhetorical questions strongly champion the author’s claim that a carbon tax performs much better than a compulsory ban on vacuum cleaners. Persuaded by her article, the readers would choose the former, a less political option, the next time they need to address “climate change while protecting consumer freedom and raising revenue that can be used to lower other taxes.”

　　备考建议：

　　总之，本次写作考试的阅读文章以及分析要素的难度和OG上面的文章的难度基本持平，比较“人性化”和具有“亲切感”;

　　1、认真研读OG的阅读文章以及范文，着重记住各类论证手法的独特优势以及分析方法;

　　2、注意分析练习目前亚洲考过的2篇真题和北美考过的3篇真题;

　　3、要养成每天阅读主流报刊杂志上面的opinion, idea, editorial等版块的说服性文章的习惯;

　　4、文章体裁仍旧是与当下时事紧密的社科类议论文，所以大家平时有必要多读这类英文社论来提升阅读理解能力和阅读速度，以及提升对特定话题的熟悉程度。