Scope and prerequisites
Digital SAT framework; original paper practice is nonadaptive and gives no scaled-score prediction.
- Translate a rhetorical goal 修辞目标 into a specific information requirement
- Select relevant accurate details from notes
- Combine notes without inventing a relationship or including irrelevant material
Prerequisites: Read a stated rhetorical goal; preserve names, units and relations.
Explain and choose the method
Read the goal before the notes. Identify the action: introduce a subject, emphasise a similarity 相似, contrast two cases, give an example or explain significance. Turn it into a brief requirement such as mention both objects and their different materials. This determines which facts matter.
Select details that carry out that action. Accurate but irrelevant information can still fail the question. For a contrast, both compared objects and the relevant difference should be present; for a similarity, a shared property should be explicit. Do not assume that including more notes makes a stronger sentence.
Preserve relationships when combining facts. Notes saying a researcher visited a site and later published a book do not prove the visit caused the book. Avoid adding evaluative language such as revolutionary or superior unless the notes support it. Keep time, identity and numerical facts consistent.
Compare answer choices against both goal and factual accuracy. A sentence can meet the goal while misreporting a detail 细节, or be fully accurate while answering a different goal. The correct choice must satisfy both conditions. Clear referents and concise structure help make the requested relationship explicit.
Rhetorical synthesis 综合 修辞综合 selects facts for a purpose. Notes: A stores 12 litres; B stores 20; both use recycled glass. For a material similarity: “Both containers use recycled glass.” For a capacity difference: “B stores 8 litres more than A.” The same notes support different sentences.
Existing worked example: Original notes: Project Alder used recycled wood; Project Birch used clay; both were temporary outdoor installations; Alder opened in May; Birch opened in June. Goal: emphasise a difference in materials. Suitable synthesis: “Although both were temporary outdoor installations, Alder used recycled wood whereas Birch used clay.” Opening months are accurate but unnecessary for this goal.
Complete original context
Original research notes:
- The Bay project restored 3 km of walking paths in 2024.
- The Hill project restored 5 km of walking paths in 2024.
- Both projects used volunteer teams.
- Bay used local stone for boundary markers.
- Hill used recycled timber for boundary markers.
- The notes give no costs, visitor counts or durability measurements.
Independent practice and checked reasoning
Transfer 1
Write one sentence emphasising a similarity in staffing and a second emphasising the difference in distance restored.
Reasoning: “Both Bay and Hill used volunteer teams.” “Hill restored 5 km of paths, 2 km more than Bay.” These select staffing and distance respectively without adding a cause.
Transfer 2
A student writes “Hill restored more paths because recycled timber lasts longer.” Identify every unsupported relationship.
Reasoning: The notes do not report why Hill restored a longer distance, nor any durability comparison. They report kilometres, not the number of separate paths. A valid sentence is “Hill restored a longer total distance and used recycled timber for its markers,” without a causal link.
Transfer 3
Goal — contrast marker 转折标记 materials without including irrelevant detail. Write a sentence, then explain why the shared year can be omitted.
Reasoning: “Bay used local stone for boundary markers, whereas Hill used recycled timber.” The shared year does not establish the requested material contrast. Omitting it meets this goal; a historical comparison could require it under a different goal.
Limits and next use
Do not mistake a factually accurate sentence for one that satisfies the rhetorical goal. Avoid unsupported causal or evaluative additions.
All tasks here are public original practice with authored guidance. They are not official questions or fresh diagnostics. Existing protected tests and mocks remain separate.