看到问题的瞬间……真的是太巧了！我们刚出了一篇同题的文章，在文章里对询证题进行了很详细的分析，这里就摘录其中的部分文字分享给题主，希望可以帮到你！在营长看来，所谓“超能力”，都是“自信+策略+毅力”共同作用的结果，而任何看似疑难的任务，包括留学考试在内，都需要“策略”，营长要分享策略如下：☑ 先把整体拆解（which our teachers have done for you）☑ 重新在头脑中按照便于处理的模式分组（which our teachers have done for you）☑ 创造分组中的线索关联（which our teachers have done for you）☑ 掌握关联策略并提取使用（You've got to do something by yourself, right? Go practice！）☑ 得到答案（Last but not the least.）接下来说说题主提出得主角儿，询证题（一道听起来最像推理比赛的题目），做好询证题需要启动的能力有：词汇，语法，基本逻辑辨识，同义改写辨识，文章结构辨识，段落逻辑辨识，句间逻辑辨识，倾向词辨识，感情色彩辨识，高级逻辑推断和感情色彩辨识。
不要被这么多能力吓到哦！不要害怕，这些能力都是综合运用的，就像每次微笑都要牵动连上200多块肌肉，谁也没见紧张过是吧，只要融会贯通就好。
要说明的一点是，在乐听的教研体系中，SAT阅读的询证题不仅仅包括试卷上的上下互联题目，也包括单独的，就文章的细节或结论的出处、原因等提问的题目。
这样划分的原理就是上面提到的能力种类——运用同样能力种类来解答的题目，我们都视为同类题目。
举个例子可能更容易理解一些，比如下面这篇文章：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 StudiesA = correlation between individuals' self-perception and those individuals' predictions of how others perceive themB = correlation between individuals' self-perception and actual perception of those individuals by othersC = correlation between individuals' predictions of how others perceive them and actual perception of those individuals by othersAdapted from Erika N. Carlson and Simine Vazire, "meta-Insight: go People Really Know How Others See Them)”©2011 by American Psychological Association.11Which 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”)讲真，高难度题目就是需要策略来解，策略就是步骤，把每步都走踏实，初看起来是费时不讨好，但是最后的结果是能做到超高的正确率和超稳定的发挥。
靠灵光一现或者小聪明跳过步骤做对一些题不是长远之计。
第一步：文章拆解成逻辑线 ——首段首句即全文中心：人们很难了解自己的名声。
并介绍一系列实验， 研究方法。
第二段起介绍实验结果，先是积极实验结果：整体上人们猜测他人第三段对自己的评价比较准确。
第三段和第四段讲对应首段首句的实验结果：人们对特定某个人对自己的印象的评估类似于随意猜测的正确率（不准确）。
第五段进行分析并提出下一问题：如果只猜测自己的受欢迎程度是否会简单。
第六段用实验结果回答上段问题：人们的预估同样不准确。
第二步：把题干问题处理一下：要求寻找最能支持首句的句子。
第三步：处理选项，找到选项和前两步骤的关联【A】 本文首句为全文中心， 意为了解自己的名声是一件非常困难的事情。
看选项中那句话， 转述了同一语义。
（这里要运用选项和一步骤的关联——第二句虽与目标句离得最近， 但没有指明首句“了解自己的名声是一件非常困难的事情”只说明有一个相关的系列研究）【B】 本句在首段结尾介绍实验方法的部分中，没有直接证明首句的“了解自己的名声是一件非常困难的事情”这一中心。
【C】 同选项B , 本句仍在首段结尾介绍实验方法的部分中，讲计分方法，没有直接证明首句的“了解自己的名声是一件非常困难的事情”这一中心。
【D】本句在第四段，属于直接介绍实验结果， 主要意思为人们对某个具体同事对自己的印象并不知情， 实验结果直接证明了首句的“了解自己的名声是一件非常困难的事情”这一中心。
是正确答案。
掌握正确的方法，才能事半功倍。
希望以上的例子能让题主对询证题的解答方法有一定的了解！另外想补充说明的是上面提到的方法也适合单词的学习——如果你的单词都是以碎片的形式进入大脑，而没有任何背景，逻辑上的关联，是会很快遗忘的；在应用的时候呢，从大脑中提取的如果只是单词，就很容易不符合场景下的语意；如果使用单词的时候大脑把单词和它的应用场景一同提取，就不容易出错。
连最简单的单词应用都是如此，那一段语言逻辑的应用就更是这样了。
做任何事情都遵循科学可复制的方法和步骤是永远不会错的，套用一句已经不太流行的话就是“不要用你战术上的勤奋掩盖战略上的懒惰。
”题主在SAT学习方面还有哪些问题，欢迎私心给营长，我们一起探讨学习！
