可以毫不夸张的说，对比是一个几乎你可以在任意一篇SAT写作中可以找到的写作手法。这样的说法，原因很简单：任何一个议论类文章的作者都会试图通过对比的手法来强调自己的观点。纵观这两年的考试，无论是北美还是亚太的写作真题，我们都可以找到比较明显的对比论证的手法。所以，在今天的公众号中，我们就来了解一下对比在SAT写作中的应用和分析。
很多考生都对这两个概念混淆，但其实他俩的区别还是比较大的：
Contrast是侧重事物之间的differences来突出和强调；
compare是侧重寻找事物之间的similarity，主要是为了突出共性而不是特性，所以强调的感觉并不强烈。
而因此，在SAT写作中，Contrast用的很多，而compare也时有发现，但几乎不值得我们去分析。
contrast的分类
Contrast大致可以分为两种：
1. 向内对比：通俗的讲，今夕对比，即A in the past 与A today 的对比。这种对比主要是为了凸显同一个事物在不同的时间所发生的变化。当然，SAT写作中大部分涉及到向内对比的都是作者为了突出某一事物在发展的过程中变的越来越不好了，所以需要我们去重视、去改变，否则会产生问题。
2. 向外对比：不同事物之间的对比。这种对比在SAT中最为常见。作者通过这种对比手法主要是为了寻找事物之间的不同和差距。而这种不同或差距可以帮助作者强调其观点并巩固其立场。
当然，如果从文学的角度讲，光是Contrast还可以细分为更多种情形，但是对于SAT写作而言，我们完全没有必要浪费时间去纠结那么多文学概念。
我们所做的就是找到“一般规律”，而Contrast的一般规律就是 “differences”或者 “changes”。只要我们发现了作者在文章中对比了不同或变化，我们就可以统称他们为contrast。刚好，你发现的contrast与主旨的关系又恰好在你可以建立联系的能力范围内，那你就可以尽情的分（扯）析（淡）了。
下面，我们来看一下contrast在SAT写作中的一些实际运用：
Today, genetic engineering may seem to provide an effective way to protect crops from insects, but pests have already developed resistance to some of these products. Insects also readily evolve resistance to chemical insecticides, and increased use of these chemicals would come at a great cost to human health. But bats have shared the night skies with insects for at least 50 million years, and they know how to hunt and eat them.
Protect Our Bats
Model
The authors also employ contrast to demonstrate that bats are worthy of protecting. In paragraph 11, they differentiate the use of genetic engineering to combat insects from bats as natural efficient pest fighters: the former faces the challenge of insects’ evolved resistance and causes detriments to human health, whereas the latter are naturally adept predating insects and pose no danger to human life. This differentiation highlights the obvious merits of bats as pest controllers, helping readers to clearly see the superior value of bats. The authors use this stark contrast to appeal to reader’s logic, leading them to logically conclude that it is of tremendous benefit to protect the bats. In so doing, they add more potency to their argument for reversing the diminishing populations of the North America bats.
The BLM manages 245 million acres of our public lands, with livestock grazing permits on 155 million acres. Wild horses are designated to share a mere 26.9 million acres. That means only 17 percent of BLM-managed public land is made available to wild horses. Wild horse populations vary between 32,000 and 50,000, while livestock grazing allocations accommodate numbers in the millions. Yes, in the millions.
Robert Redford: Protect Our Wild Horses
Model
To further strengthen his audience’s determination to protect wild horses, Redford employs statistics and contrast. In paragraph 5, he points out that wild horses are only designated “17% of BLM-managed public land”, which accommodates “32,000 -50,000” wild horses, while the land allocated to livestock can accommodate “numbers in millions”. This statistical contrast is a hard fact to prove that wild horses are being treated unfairly, corroborating Redford’s “victim” depiction of wild horses in paragraph 3, making his argument more credible. Moreover, it also reveals that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fails to fulfill its Congress-mandated duty to “protect free wild horses and burros”. In so doing, Redford is appealing to readers’ logic: since BLM has failed to carry out its obligation, it is reasonable that Congress should intervene and take actions accordingly. In capitalizing on statistical contrast to bolster his claim and inspire his readers’ logical conclusion, he makes his argument to convince Congress of doing more to protect wild horses more powerful.