另外新SAT增加了統計類的題目，根據同學們的回憶，考試考到了probability(概率), linear regression(線性回歸) 等統計學的知識。這個是中國考生比較欠缺的，備考的時候要著重訓練。
這里提醒同學們萬萬不要輕敵，之后在數學的學習方面還要注意細心，尤其是“多項式拆分”、“求根公式”、“解方程”、和“閱讀分析題”;其中的“閱讀分析題”是大家普遍存在的“讀不懂，做不對，做不完“的部分，需要大家在平時大量練習。
第四部分：寫作(Essay)
Essay(作文)是SAT改革中題型變動最大的部分，除了由必考變成了選考之外，作文部分的題型設計、考試時長及評分標準都與舊SAT完全相異。SAT作文改革后，Essay的寫作將從原本根據準備的例子組成的文章變成根據題目給出的文章進行分析性評論和拓展的結構。這樣的改革使得SAT作文的難度增加，考生無法在考試前提前準備素材和語言表達，對考生的閱讀能力、分析能力和寫作表達能力的綜合要求提高。改革后的SAT作文更加注重考生的閱讀和分析能力，這樣的能力也是今后在大學中常用的論文寫作方式。
據考生回憶，此次新SAT首考的作文題的閱讀文章源自E.J. Dionne Jr.于2013年7月3日發表在The Washington Post(《華盛頓郵報》)文章名為 A Call for National Service。這次作文讓考生感覺到一定的難度，好在國內考試作為都是這種模式，中國考生有種似曾相識的感覺，美國學生反倒覺得不自然了。
讓我們來看看張卉老師針對本篇文章批注和解析。(以下為引用)
Adapted from E.J. Dionne Jr., “A Call for National Service”© 2013 by Washington Post. Originally published July 03, 2013.
Here is the sentence in the Declaration of Independence we always remember: “We hold thesetruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they areendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And here isthe sentence we often forget: “And for the support of this Declaration, with afirm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge toeach other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.”
作者在前兩段引用了(allusion)獨立宣言的原文，從權威的角度喚起讀者對歷史文獻所賦予公民的責任的反思，并引出下第四段中要說明的社會問題。
This, thevery last sentence of the document, is what makes the better-rememberedsentence possible. One speaks of our rights. The other addresses our obligations. The freedoms we cherish are self-evident but not self-executing.The Founders pledge something “to each other,” the commonly overlooked clause in the Declaration’s final pronouncement.
作者針對獨立宣言中某個詞匯(diction)進行深度挖掘，尤其使用了“self-evidentbut not self-executing”來提醒讀者對自由精神的狹義解讀的問題。
We find ourselves, 237 years after the Founders declared us a new nation, in a season of discontent, even surliness, about the experiment they launched. We are sharply divided over the very meaning of our founding documents, and we aremore likely to invoke the word “we” in the context of “us versus them” than inthe more capacious sense that includes every single American.
作者多次使用“we”，從訴諸于德(ethos)的角度拷問讀者內心是否已經背離了建國文獻的初衷，并解釋到所謂的“we”是一種更廣義的公民意識。
There are no quick fixes to our sense of disconnection, but there may be a way to restore our sense of what we owe each other across the lines of class, race, background— and, yes, politics and ideology.
作者用過渡段引出下文談及的社會問題，即我們可以重建人與人之間的平等和互助的公民意識。
Last week,the Aspen Institute gathered a politically diverse group of Americans under the banner of the “Franklin Project,” named after Ben, to declare a commitment tooffering every American between the ages of 18 and 28 a chance to give a yearof service to the country. The opportunities would include service in our armed forces but also time spent educating our fellow citizens, bringing them healthcare and preventive services, working with the least advantaged among us, and conserving our environment.
本段作者用軼事(anecdote)的手法來引出某權威機構宣布了18-28歲的美國公民需要參加1年以上的包括了各個領域的國家公共服務。這一手法讓讀者感受到了共鳴。
Service would not be compulsory, but it would be an expectation. And it just might become part of who we are.
“Not compulsory,but it would be an expectation”，這個措辭(diction)讓作者站到了讀者的立場，讓讀者意識到這一措施是合乎情理的，從心里上更能接受公共服務的要求。
The call for universal, voluntary service is being championed by retired U.S. Army Gen.Stanley McChrystal, in league with two of the country’s foremost advocates ofthe cause, John Bridgeland, who served in the George W. Bush administration,and Alan Khazei, co-founder of City Year, one of the nation’s most formidable volunteer groups. The trio testifies to the non-ideological and nonpartisan nature of this cause, as did a column last week endorsing the idea from Michael Gerson, my conservative Post colleague.