記得最強大腦裡有一個環節叫做「釘子畫廊」，要選手在規定時間裡找到5萬分之1的不同顏色的釘子。這個環節被當時的評委章子怡（普通人）稱為「不可能完成的任務」。但小選手黃政（對，就是和我們的黃老師一個名兒）還是在5分鐘之內完成了任務……
大多數人會不加分辨地驚嘆這種不可複製的「超能力」，但在了解到他們艱苦的訓練過程之後，才知道這哪裡是超能力，明明就是「自信+策略+毅力」 which is also the core of approaching the tests we take.
任何看似疑難的任務，包括留學考試，都需要「策略」，——
先把整體拆解（which our teachers have done for you）
重新在頭腦中按照便於處理的模式分組（which our teachers have done for you）
創造分組中的線索關聯（which our teachers have done for you）
掌握關聯策略並提取使用（You've got to do something by yourself, right? Go practice！）
得到答案（Last but not the least.）
所以，知道為什麼一些同學總覺得自己那麼委屈了吧，做了所有的題啦，練了很久方法啦，花費了好久的時間精力金錢啦……一點兒不委屈，付出再多但不正確也是沒有效果的。
多說一句，上面的方法也適合單詞的學習——如果你的單詞都是以碎片的形式進入大腦，而沒有任何背景，邏輯上的關聯，是會很快遺忘的；在應用的時候呢，從大腦中提取的如果只是單詞，就很容易不符合場景下的語意；如果使用單詞的時候大腦把單詞和它的應用場景一同提取，就不容易出錯。
連最簡單的單詞應用都是如此，那一段語言邏輯的應用就更是這樣了。
好的，說今天的主角兒——詢證題（一道聽起來最像推理比賽的題目）
做好這道題需要啟動的能力有：
詞彙，語法，基本邏輯辨識，同義改寫辨識，文章結構辨識，段落邏輯辨識，句間邏輯辨識，傾向詞辨識，感情色彩辨識，高級邏輯推斷和感情色彩辨識。
不要害怕，這些能力都是綜合運用的，就像每次微笑都要牽動連上200多塊肌肉，誰也沒見緊張過是吧，只要融會貫通就好。
要說明的一點是，在樂聽的教研體系中，SAT閱讀的詢證題不僅僅包括試卷上的上下互聯題目，也包括單獨的，就文章的細節或結論的出處、原因等提問的題目。這樣劃分的原理就是上面提到的能力種類——運用同樣能力種類來解答的題目，我們都視為同類題目。
看看這篇文章和後面的一道題目吧
Knowing your own reputation can be surprisingly difficult. Consider, for instance, a study that analyzed a set of published experiments all sharing the same Line basic design. In these experiments, people working in a group would be asked to predict how the other group members would rate them on a series of different traits. Researchers then compared these predicted ratings to the other group members』 actual ratings on the very same traits. The traits varied from one experiment to another and included qualities like intelligence, sense of humor, consideration, defensiveness, friendliness, and leadership ability. The groups varied in familiarity, with the members of some groups being fairly unfamiliar with one another (such as having met only once, in a job interview) and the members of other groups being ver. familiar with one another (such as having lived together for an extended time as roommates). If people knew exactly what others were thinking, then there would be a perfect correspondence between predicted and actual ratings. If people were clueless, then there would be no correspondence between the two. Statistically speaking, you measure relationships like these with e correlation, where perfect correspondence yields a correlation of 1 and no correspondence yields a correlation of 0. The closer the correlation is to 1，the stronger the relationship.
First, the good news. These experiments suggested that people are pretty good, overall, at guess.ng how a group of others would evaluate them, on average. The overall correlation in these experiments between predicted impressions and the average actual impression of the group was quite high (.55, if you are quantitatively inclined). To put that in perspective, this is roughly the same magnitude as the correlation between the heights of fathers and the heights of sons (around .5). It is not perfect insight, but it is also very far from being clueless. In other words, you probably have a decent sense of what others generally think of you, on average.
Now the bad news. These experiments also assessed how well people could predict the 「impression of any single individual within a given group. You may know, for instance, that your 45 coworkers in general think you are rather smart, but those coworkers also vary in their impression of you. Some think you are as sharp as a knife. Others think you are as sharp as a spoon. Do you know the difference?
Evidently, no. The accuracy rate across these experiments was barely better than random guessing (an overall correlation of .13 between predicted and actual evaluations, only slightly higher than no relationship whatsoever). Although you might have some sense of how smart your coworkers think you are, you appear to have no clue about which coworkers in particular find you smart and which do not. As one author of the study writes, 「People seem to have just a tiny glimmer of insight into how they are uniquely viewed by particular other people.」
But perhaps this is holding your mind-ref ding abilities to too high s standard? It’s hard, after all, to define traits like intelligence and trustworthiness precisely, so it might not be so surprising that we have difficulty guessing how others will evaluate us on these ambiguous traits. What about predicting something simpler, such as how much other people like you? Surely you are better at this. You learn over time to hang around people who smile at you and avoid those who spit at you. You must have a much better sense of who likes you and who hates you within a group. Yes?
I’m afraid not. These studies found that people are only slightly better than chance at guessing who in a group likes them and who does not (the average correlation here was a meager .18). Some of your coworkers like you and others do not, but I wouldn’t count on you knowing the difference. The same barely-better-than-guessing accuracy is also found in experiments investigating how well speed daters can assess who wants to date them and who does not, how well job candidates can judge which interviewers were impressed by them and which were not, and even how well teachers can predict their bourse evaluations. Granted, it’s rare that you are completely clueless about how you are evaluated. Accuracy tends to be better than chance in these experiments, but not necessarily by very much.
Mean Correlations of Perceptions of Individuals among New Acquaintances and Old Acquaintances in Twenty-One Studies
A = correlation between individuals' self-perception and those individuals' predictions of how others perceive them
B = correlation between individuals' self-perception and actual perception of those individuals by others
C = correlation between individuals' predictions of how others perceive them and actual perception of those individuals by others
Adapted from Erika N. Carlson and Simine Vazire, "Meta-Insight: go People Really Know How Others See Them)」2011 by American Psychological Association.
11
Which choice best supports the claim in the first sentence of the passage?
A) Lines 2-4 (「Consider... design」)
B) Lines 21-23 (「If people ... two」)
C) Lines 26-27 (「The closer ... relationship」)
D) Lines 54-58 (「Although ... not」)
再插一句啊（今天營長喜歡插話），很多娃喜歡質疑，比如「沒有必要啊，我一下就可以」，或者喜歡diss，比如「這個不對」……講真，高難度題目就是需要策略來解，策略就是步驟，把每步都走踏實，初看起來是費時不討好，但是最後的結果是能做到超高的正確率和超穩定的發揮。靠靈光一現或者小聰明跳過步驟做對一些題不是長遠之計。
第一步：文章拆解成邏輯線 ——
首段首句即全文中心：人們很難了解自己的名聲。並介紹一系列實驗， 研究方法。
第二段起介紹實驗結果，先是積極實驗結果：整體上人們猜測他人第三段對自己的評價比較準確。 第三段和第四段講對應首段首句的實驗結果：人們對特定某個人對自己的印象的評估類似於隨意猜測的正確率（不準確）。
第五段進行分析並提出下一問題：如果只猜測自己的受歡迎程度是否會簡單。
第六段用實驗結果回答上段問題：人們的預估同樣不準確。
( 怎麼樣，這一步你做了麼？做到了麼？)
第二步：把題幹問題處理一下：
要求尋找最能支持首句的句子。
第三步：處理選項，找到選項和前兩步驟的關聯
【A】 本文首句為全文中心， 意為了解自己的名聲是一件非常困難的事情。 看選項中那句話， 轉述了同一語義。（這裡要運用選項和一步驟的關聯——第二句雖與目標句離得最近， 但沒有指明首句「了解自己的名聲是一件非常困難的事情」只說明有一個相關的系列研究）
【B】 本句在首段結尾介紹實驗方法的部分中，沒有直接證明首句的「了解自己的名聲是一件非常困難的事情」這一中心。
【C】 同選項B , 本句仍在首段結尾介紹實驗方法的部分中，講計分方法，沒有直接證明首句的「了解自己的名聲是一件非常困難的事情」這一中心。
【D】本句在第四段，屬於直接介紹實驗結果， 主要意思為人們對某個具體同事對自己的印象並不知情， 實驗結果直接證明了首句的「了解自己的名聲是一件非常困難的事情」這一中心。是正確答案。
我們可能沒什麼興趣把自己練成「最強大腦」，但是做任何事情都遵循科學可複製的方法和步驟是永遠不會錯的，套用一句已經不太流行的話就是「不要用你戰術上的勤奮掩蓋戰略上的懶惰。」（考試戰略哪家精，中國北京找樂聽！）