今天小编为大家带来的是6月4日亚太地区SAT写作优秀范文三篇，希望对即将参加SAT的朋友们有帮助。

范文1：

　　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.”

　　范文2：

　　To the extent that Sita Slavov presented a strong and convincing argument claiming that the practice of carbon tax charge is a better policy compared with a pure Vacuum Ban, the author has managed to achieve so by using both psychological as well as semi scholarly sources to support her argument, and by listing a number of real-life examples to gain an echo from her audiences in an empirical way.These strategies suggest that Sita Slavov structured her persuasion by adopting both pure-rational and emotional means.

　　Starting from analyzing the big picture, the methodology and structure that Slavov adopted to construct her think piece is fairly creative. To review her article from a macro prospective, the author did not start to pose out her own argument until the last two paragraphs. As a matter of fact, Slavov used a significant length of lines to introduce her readers the background knowledge as well as relevant disputes around the issue at present. In doing so, Slavov could not only offer her readers’ a comprehensive abstract of the issue’s core but could also do foreshadowing for her personal arguments as follow----since the present disputes make sense respectively while cannot pose out a reasonable evaluation of the ban policy, a third party train of thought is necessitated, hence Slavov used these introductory sections as a perfect guiding stone for her body partand conclusion. Moreover, such high percentile of introductory length would inspire her readers’ brown study on the issue’s essence by themselves rather than merely ponder over current disputes.

　　From a comparatively micro point of view, the author adopted both rhetorical as wellas academic strategies to frame her paragraphs.

　　Firstly, Sita Slavov took a quite prominent political prospective, mainly because she is trying to comment on the core and influence of an EU policy. Although thepolicy itself aims to improve human environment and is hence categorized as an environmental public policy, the author didn’t try to take an environmental stand of point and construct her piece into academic. Rather, she attempted to criticize the authority of the European Union’s bureaucratic legislation itself. In doing so, she has successfully managed to interpret the core of the issue into “the government’s violation towards people’s freedom of choice inconsumptions” rather than “if the vacuum ban policy itself would be effective and environmental friendly”. In doing so, Sita Slavov further took an anthropological prospective to convince her readers that the vacuum ban policy is deeply lack of legitimacy. Specifically, the author used two constant rhetorical questions to emphasize on the government’s “lack of legitimacy” and accuse the government of “taking intrusion into even the most minute of personal decisions”. By using such methodologies, Sita Slavov could successfully evoke her readers’ aversion towards the authority’s behavior and would hence turn to support his argument.

　　Moreover, to strengthen her demonstrations, the author quoted a comparatively largeamount of evidence. Specifically, in the second paragraph, Sita Slavov mainly referenced semi scholarly data and statistics to claim why the negative influence of EU’s public policy would be so profound. Meanwhile, in the third paragraph, Sita intended to use real life evidence to convey the message that such policy is absurd in practice. The style of language, by itself, has made Slavov’s think piece into a more easy to read format, and thus would successfully attract the her audiences’ interests of reading.

　　Though with her great success in persuasion, Slavov has also made a few errors interms of reasoning. For example, she didn’t manage to make intelligent and relevant criticisms of the authority’s public policy. Rather, he intended to delude her readers with petty and wild accusations against the government while didn’t provide his audiences enough scholarly evidences and sources to argue against the rationality and scientific necessity of the policy as well as its influence.

　　范文3：

　　Environmental protection should be more than a catchy phrase. Though awareness of its importance runs high, intrusive measures, like a vacuum ban, are ineffective and potentially counterproductive. In this article, the author first voices strong criticism of the currently employed, simplisitc measures, and then proposes a new solution, namely a carbon tax. By employing clear reasoning, strong evidence and effective stylistic elements, the author makes a compelling case for imposing a carbon tax.

　　The reasoning in the whole passage is clear enough to support the policy of carbon tax. By running through a list of undue restrictions on consumer products already in place, the author highlights the absurdity of the status quo. Then the author explains the rationale behind what he proposes as an alternative measure, which can make consumers either reduce carbon footprint or pay higher prices. At the same time, consumers do not have to sacrifice their freedom of choice. The expected benefits form a stark contrast to the problems associated with the traditional approach mentioned in the first 3 paragraphs. Readers can feel at ease and be satisfied with the new policy. Then in paragraph 6, the author uses comparison and contrasts to illustrate the benefits of targeting a carbon tax. After that, the author cites a poll of leading economists as his support. The author’s logic runs coherently and shows the readers that a carbon tax is more feasible and effective than the current bans in place.

　　Strong evidence plays an equally important role in this article. In paragraph 6, the term “rebound effects” may sound unfamilar to readers. So the author uses some everyday experience, like the use of vacuum cleaners and cars, to illustrate the concept that because of behavioral responses, expected gains from technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use may in fact lead to reduction. Hence the carbon tax without the “rebound effect” is better aimed. In paragraph 7, in order to emphasize that the carbon tax approach is comprehensive “along every dimension”, the author cites a hypothetical scenario in which a Prius driver that drive a lot could end up paying more than an SUV driver that seldom drives, so that the real culprit, carbon emission, is targeted. In addition, the authoritative ideas from some leading academic economists in paragraph 8 are presented to show the author also has strong theoretical framework and support from academic circles. The combination of these two types of evidence lends credibility to this article.

　　Furthermore, some stylistic and persuasive elements are employed. In paragraph 2, the author uses parallel structures to show the absurdity and intrusiveness of current bans to make his view resonate with readers. In paragraph 3, there are some rhetorical questions intended to lend force to the author’s argument and bring readers along in his opposition to bans. These questions can strike a chord with readers and win them over to the author’s side. Besides, in paragraph 7, the word choice “real culprit” is worth contemplating. By using this emotionally charged phrase, the author forcefully targets the real problem, that of global warming and climate change. With this metaphor, readers know that carbon tax is urgently needed to address the problem.

　　To conclude, reasoning, evidence and stylistic elements are woven into a cohesive argument to help convince the readers of the need to support a carbon tax over “a vacuum ban”.