SAT写作官方样题高分范文：Let there be dark（8）

北京sat培训,sat备考资料,sat网课,sat培训机构,sat保分班,sat真题

本文给大家分享SAT写作样题“Let there be dark”的一篇范文，本文得分4 4 4，作文题目及更多分数段范文，请点击入口。

本话题各分数段范文汇总及解读，请点击进入

Sample Student Essays of“Let There Be Dark.” ©2012 by Los Angeles Times. Originally published December 21, 2012.

Scores: 4 4 4

In response to our world’s growing reliance on artificial light, writer Paul

Bogard argues that natural darkness should be preserved in his article “Let

There be dark”. He effectively builds his argument by using a personal anecdote,

allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions.

Bogard starts his article off by recounting a personal story – a summer spent

on a Minnesota lake where there was “woods so dark that [his] hands disappeared

before [his] eyes.” In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the

audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural

darkness void of artificial light. By drawing in his readers with a personal

encounter about night darkness, the author means to establish the potential for

beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess. He

builds his argument for the preservation of natural darkness by reminiscing for

his readers a first-hand encounter that proves the “irreplaceable value of

darkness.” This anecdote provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find

credence with the author’s claims.

Bogard’s argument is also furthered by his use of allusion to art – Van

Gogh’s “Starry Night” – and modern history – Paris’ reputation as “The City of

Light”. By first referencing “Starry Night”, a painting generally considered to

be undoubtedly beautiful, Bogard establishes that the natural magnificence of

stars in a dark sky is definite. A world absent of excess artificial light could

potentially hold the key to a grand, glorious night sky like Van Gogh’s

according to the writer. This urges the readers to weigh the disadvantages of

our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting. Furthermore, Bogard’s alludes

to Paris as “the famed ‘city of light’”. He then goes on to state how Paris has

taken steps to exercise more sustainable lighting practices. By doing this,

Bogard creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the

reality of what Paris is becoming – no longer “the city of light”, but moreso

“the city of light…before 2 AM”. This furthers his line of argumentation because

it shows how steps can be and are being taken to preserve natural darkness. It

shows that even a city that is literally famous for being constantly lit can

practically address light pollution in a manner that preserves the beauty of

both the city itself and the universe as a whole.

Finally, Bogard makes subtle yet efficient use of rhetorical questioning to

persuade his audience that natural darkness preservation is essential. He asks

the readers to consider “what the vision of the night sky might inspire in each

of us, in our children or grandchildren?” in a way that brutally plays to each

of our emotions. By asking this question, Bogard draws out heartfelt ponderance

from his readers about the affecting power of an untainted night sky. This

rhetorical question tugs at the readers’ heartstrings; while the reader may have

seen an unobscured night skyline before, the possibility that their child or

grandchild will never get the chance sways them to see as Bogard sees. This

strategy is definitively an appeal to pathos, forcing the audience to directly

face an emotionally-charged inquiry that will surely spur some kind of response.

By doing this, Bogard develops his argument, adding gutthral power to the idea

that the issue of maintaining natural darkness is relevant and multifaceted.

Writing as a reaction to his disappointment that artificial light has largely

permeated the prescence of natural darkness, Paul Bogard argues that we must

preserve true, unaffected darkness. He builds this claim by making use of a

personal anecdote, allusions, and rhetorical questioning.

This response scored a 4/4/4.

Reading—4: This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source

text through skillful use of paraphrases and direct quotations. The writer

briefly summarizes the central idea of Bogard’s piece (natural darkness should

be preserved; we must preserve true, unaffected darkness), and presents many

details from the text, such as referring to the personal anecdote that opens the

passage and citing Bogard’s use of Paris’ reputation as “The City of Light.”

There are few long direct quotations from the source text; instead, the response

succinctly and accurately captures the entirety of Bogard’s argument in the

writer’s own words, and the writer is able to articulate how details in the

source text interrelate with Bogard’s central claim. The response is also free

of errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, the response demonstrates advanced

reading comprehension.

Analysis—4: This response offers an insightful analysis of the source text

and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task. In

analyzing Bogard’s use of personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and

rhetorical questions, the writer is able to explain carefully and thoroughly how

Bogard builds his argument over the course of the passage. For example, the

writer offers a possible reason for why Bogard chose to open his argument with a

personal anecdote, and is also able to describe the overall effect of that

choice on his audience (In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the

audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural

darkness void of artificial light. By drawing in his readers with a personal

encounter...the author means to establish the potential for beauty, glamour, and

awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess.... This anecdote

provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find credence with the author’s

claims). The cogent chain of reasoning indicates an understanding of the overall

effect of Bogard’s personal narrative both in terms of its function in the

passage and how it affects his audience. This type of insightful analysis is

evident throughout the response and indicates advanced analytical skill.

Writing—4: The response is cohesive and demonstrates highly effective use and

command of language. The response contains a precise central claim (He

effectively builds his argument by using personal anecdote, allusions to art and

history, and rhetorical questions), and the body paragraphs are tightly focused

on those three elements of Bogard’s text. There is a clear, deliberate

progression of ideas within paragraphs and throughout the response. The writer’s

brief introduction and conclusion are skillfully written and encapsulate the

main ideas of Bogard’s piece as well as the overall structure of the writer’s

analysis. There is a consistent use of both precise word choice and well-chosen

turns of phrase (the natural magnificence of stars in a dark sky is definite,

our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting, the affecting power of an

untainted night sky). Moreover, the response features a wide variety in sentence

structure and many examples of sophisticated sentences (By doing this, Bogard

creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the reality

of what Paris is becoming – no longer “the city of light”, but moreso “the city

of light…before 2AM”). The response demonstrates a strong command of the

conventions of written English. Overall, the response exemplifies advanced

writing proficiency.