📚 AS CIE Law: Core Knowledge Points Review | AS CIE 法律核心知识点梳理
The AS Level CIE Law syllabus (9084) introduces students to the fundamental structures and principles of the English Legal System, alongside substantive and procedural aspects of Criminal Law and the Law of Tort. This article distils the core knowledge areas, focusing on the source of legal rules, the operation of judicial precedent, statutory interpretation, police powers, criminal liability, key offences and defences, and the essentials of negligence. A firm grasp of these topics not only prepares students for examination success but also builds the analytical skills required for advanced legal study.
AS CIE 法律课程（9084）引导学生了解英国法律体系的基本架构与原则，同时涵盖刑法与侵权法的实体规则和程序要点。本文梳理核心知识点，重点包括法律规则的渊源、司法先例的运作、法律解释、警察权力、刑事责任、主要罪名与抗辩，以及过失侵权的基本要件。牢固掌握这些主题不仅能帮助学生在考试中取得好成绩，也为高阶法律学习培养必要的分析能力。
1. Classification of Law and the English Legal System | 法律分类与英国法律体系概述
English law is traditionally divided into public law and private law. Public law governs the relationship between the state and individuals, including constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. Private law deals with disputes between individuals or organisations, such as contract law, tort law, and property law. Another vital distinction is between common law and equity. Common law evolved from judicial decisions and precedents, while equity developed to mitigate the harshness of the common law by granting remedies such as injunctions and specific performance. These two streams were fused by the Judicature Acts 1873-1875, meaning all courts can now apply both common law and equitable rules, although the principles remain distinct.
英国法律传统上分为公法和私法。公法规制国家与个人之间的关系，包括宪法、行政法和刑法；私法处理个人或组织之间的纠纷，如合同法、侵权法和财产法。另一个重要分类是普通法与衡平法的区别。普通法源自司法判决和先例，而衡平法是为缓解普通法的严厉而发展出来的体系，可授予禁制令、特定履行等救济。1873-1875年的《司法组织法》将二者融合，所有法院均可适用普通法和衡平规则，但二者在原则上仍然有明确区分。
The English Legal System is based on an adversarial model in which two parties present their cases before an impartial judge. In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in civil trials the claimant must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains a cornerstone, meaning that Parliament is the supreme law-making body and no court can override an Act of Parliament. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 and membership in international treaties have introduced a more nuanced constitutional landscape.
英国法律体系采用对抗制模式，双方在公正的法官面前陈述各自主张。刑事审判中，控方必须排除合理怀疑地证明被告有罪；而在民事审判中，原告须在可能性权衡的基础上证明案情。议会主权原则依然是法律体系的基石，即议会是最高立法机关，法院不能推翻议会立法。不过，1998年《人权法》以及国际条约的加入，使得宪法图景变得更为复杂。
2. Sources of Law: Parliamentary Sovereignty and Legislation | 法律渊源：议会主权与立法
The most authoritative source of English law is primary legislation passed by Parliament. Acts of Parliament, also known as statutes, can create new laws, amend existing laws, or abolish outdated rules. Because of parliamentary sovereignty, statutes prevail over any conflicting judge-made law. The legislative process involves the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and Royal Assent. Public Bills usually originate in the House of Commons and pass through several stages, including first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading, before being considered by the Lords and eventually receiving Royal Assent.
英国法律最权威的渊源是议会通过的初级立法。议会法令（也称制定法）可以创设新法、修改现有法律或废除过时的规则。由于议会主权原则，成文法优先于任何与之冲突的法官造法。立法程序涉及下议院、上议院和御准。公法案通常由下议院提出，并经过一读、二读、委员会阶段、报告阶段和三读等若干阶段，再提交上议院审议，最终获得御准。
Parliamentary sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and any Act of Parliament is the highest form of law. However, this principle has been challenged by the UK’s former membership in the European Union and by the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires courts to read legislation compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights where possible. Even after Brexit, the principle remains largely intact, although the concept of sovereignty has been modified by the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
议会主权意味着任何一届议会都不能约束其继任者，议会法令是法律中的最高形式。但这一原则曾因英国加入欧盟以及1998年《人权法》而受到挑战，后者要求法院尽可能按照《欧洲人权公约》来解释立法。即便在脱欧后，议会主权原则基本保持不变，但向苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的权力下放已经对此概念进行了修正。
3. Delegated Legislation | 授权立法
Delegated legislation is law made by a person or body to whom Parliament has delegated authority through a Parent Act. The main types are Statutory Instruments (made by government ministers), Orders in Council (made by the Privy Council in emergencies), and By-laws (made by local authorities or public corporations). Delegated legislation saves parliamentary time, allows for quicker response to technical or local needs, and can be easily amended or revoked.
授权立法是指议会通过授权法将立法权授予某人或机构所制定的法律。主要类型包括法定条规（由政府大臣制定）、枢密院令（由枢密院在紧急情况下制定）以及地方法规（由地方当局或公共机构制定）。授权立法节省了议会时间，可以更快地回应技术性或地方性需求，并且易于修改或废除。
Despite its efficiency, delegated legislation raises concerns about democratic accountability and scrutiny. Controls include parliamentary controls (affirmative and negative resolution procedures, and scrutiny by specialised committees), judicial controls (the doctrine of ultra vires – where a court can declare delegated legislation void if it goes beyond the powers granted), and procedural controls such as the requirement for consultation. The case of Aylesbury Mushrooms (1972) illustrates the importance of proper consultation: where a minister failed to consult the relevant body, the court held the statutory instrument to be invalid.
尽管授权立法效率较高，但其民主责任和审查问题引发关注。控制手段包括议会控制（肯定性和否定性决议程序，以及专门委员会的审查）、司法控制（越权原则——如果授权立法超出授权范围，法院可宣布其无效），以及如磋商要求等程序性控制。1972年的“Aylesbury Mushrooms 案”说明了适当磋商的重要性：因为大臣未咨询相关机构，法院裁定该法定条规无效。
4. Judicial Precedent | 司法先例
The doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis, is fundamental to common law systems. It means that courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts in earlier cases when the material facts are similar. The binding part of a judgment is the ratio decidendi – the legal principle necessary for the decision. Any other observations made are obiter dicta, which are not binding but can be persuasive. The ability to distinguish cases on their facts allows lower courts to avoid following a precedent if they find a material difference.
司法先例原则（即遵循先例）是普通法体系的基石。它意味着下级法院受上级法院在先前类似案件中判决的约束。判决中具有约束力的部分是判决理由（ratio decidendi），即为达成判决所必需的法律原则。其他附带的意见称为附带意见（obiter dicta），虽不具有约束力但可能具有说服力。法院可以通过区别案件事实来规避遵循先例，只要能找出重大差异即可。
To operate effectively, a clear hierarchy of courts is essential. In the current English system, the Supreme Court (which replaced the House of Lords in 2009) binds all courts below it. The Court of Appeal (Civil and Criminal Divisions) is bound by the Supreme Court and generally binds itself, subject to the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944). The High Court binds lower courts but is not strictly bound by its own previous decisions, though it follows them for consistency. The system promotes certainty and fairness, yet allows flexibility through the Practice Statement 1966, which permits the Supreme Court to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so.
为了有效运作，清晰的法院等级不可或缺。在当前的英国体系中，最高法院（2009年取代上议院）约束其下所有法院。上诉法院（民事庭和刑事庭）受最高法院约束，通常也约束自身，但受1944年“Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd 案”中确立的例外情况限制。高等法院约束下级法院，但不受自身先前判决的严格约束，尽管为求一致性通常会遵循。该体系增进了确定性与公正性，同时又通过1966年实务声明提供灵活性，允许最高法院在认为适当时偏离自己先前的判决。
5. Statutory Interpretation | 法律解释
When courts are called upon to apply legislation, they must interpret the words used by Parliament. Several rules of interpretation have been developed. The literal rule requires judges to give words their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an absurd result. In Whitely v Chappell (1868), the defendant was acquitted of impersonating a person entitled to vote because the deceased person on the electoral register was literally not ‘entitled to vote’. The golden rule allows a departure from the literal meaning where it would produce an absurdity; it has a narrow application (choosing between meanings) and a wider application (modifying the result) as in Re Sigsworth (1935), where a son who murdered his mother was prevented from inheriting her estate.
当法院需要适用立法时，必须解释议会使用的词语。于是发展出了几种解释规则。文义规则要求法官按照词语平常的、字典中的含义来解释，即使会导致荒谬的结果。在1868年“Whitely v Chappell 案”中，被告被判决不成立冒充有投票权者的罪名，因为选民登记册上的死者从字面上看并不“有投票权”。黄金规则允许在文义规则导致荒谬结果时偏离字面含义；它有狭义适用（在不同含义间选择）和广义适用（修正结果），如1935年“Re Sigsworth 案”中，杀害母亲的儿子被阻止继承其遗产。
The mischief rule looks at the gap or ‘mischief’ in the former law that the statute was intended to remedy, as established in Heydon’s Case (1584). This rule gives judges more discretion to interpret the Act in a way that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. The purposive approach is a broader, modern method that seeks to discover Parliament’s true intention by looking at the overall purpose of the Act. It is heavily used in relation to European-derived legislation and human rights. Pepper v Hart (1993) allows courts to refer to Hansard (parliamentary debates) when the legislation is ambiguous or obscure, but only under strict conditions.
弊端规则考察先前法律中的漏洞或“弊端”，即某项立法意在补救的对象，该规则确立于1584年“海登案”。这一规则赋予法官更多裁量权，以能够压制弊端并促进救济的方式解释法律。目的解释法是一种更宽泛的现代方法，通过审视法令的整体目的来探寻议会的真实意图。此法大量适用于源自欧盟的立法和人权领域。1993年“Pepper v Hart 案”允许法院在法律条文模糊或费解时参考议会辩论记录（汉萨德），但必须满足严格条件。
6. The Court Hierarchy and Appeals | 法院等级与上诉制度
The English court structure includes both civil and criminal courts. In criminal matters, the lowest courts are the Magistrates’ Courts, which handle summary offences and either-way offences (if the defendant chooses summary trial). Serious indictable offences are tried in the Crown Court before a judge and jury. Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court go to the Crown Court or by way of case stated to the King’s Bench Divisional Court. From the Crown Court, appeals go to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and potentially to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final appellate court for all UK cases.
英国法院结构包括民事和刑事法院。在刑事案件中，最低级法院是治安法院，处理简易罪和可选择审判方式的罪行（若被告选择简易审判）。严重可诉罪由皇室法院在法官和陪审团面前审理。对治安法院判决的上诉可提交皇室法院，或通过案件呈述方式提交王座庭。对皇室法院判决的上诉则提交上诉法院（刑事庭），并可能最终提交最高法院。最高法院是所有英国案件的终审上诉法院。
In civil cases, the County Court and the High Court (with its three divisions: King’s Bench, Chancery, and Family) hear cases at first instance depending on the complexity and value. Appeals generally lie to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and then to the Supreme Court. The doctrine of precedent operates across this hierarchy. Additionally, tribunals exist alongside courts to resolve specialist disputes in areas such as immigration, employment, and mental health, providing a more accessible and less formal alternative to traditional litigation.
在民事案件中，郡法院和高等法院（下设王座庭、大法官庭和家事庭）根据案件复杂程度和标的金额初审管辖权。上诉通常提交上诉法院（民事庭），再提交最高法院。先例原则在整个法院等级中运作。此外，法院系统外还存在着裁判所，负责解决移民、雇佣、精神健康等专业领域的争端，提供了比传统诉讼更易获得且不太正式的选择。
7. Police Powers and Criminal Process | 警察权力与刑事程序
Police powers in England and Wales are primarily regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its Codes of Practice. The most significant powers include stop and search (s.1 PACE), which requires an officer to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person is carrying stolen or prohibited articles. An arrest (s.24 PACE) can be made where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed. Detention before charge is generally limited to 24 hours, extendable for serious offences to 36 or up to 96 hours on application to a magistrates’ court.
英格兰和威尔士的警察权力主要由《1984年警察与刑事证据法》（PACE）及其执行守则规范。最重要的权力包括拦截与搜查（PACE第1条），要求警官有合理理由怀疑某人携带赃物或违禁品。逮捕（PACE第24条）可在警官有合理理由相信已发生或即将发生犯罪时进行。起诉前的羁押一般限为24小时，严重犯罪可延长至36小时，经治安法院申请可延长至96小时。
During detention at a police station, suspects are entitled to rights such as free legal advice, having someone informed of their arrest, and access to the Codes of Practice. The custody officer must keep a detailed custody record and ensure that questioning complies with the rules. Interviews are recorded and must not be oppressive. Evidence obtained in breach of PACE may be excluded under s.78 if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
在警局羁押期间，嫌疑人有权免费获得法律咨询、通知他人其被捕情况，并查阅执行守则。羁押官必须保留详细的羁押记录，并确保讯问符合规定。讯问必须录音，且不得具有压迫性。以违反PACE的方式获取的证据，可依据第78条规则被排除，若采纳该证据会对程序公正性造成不利影响，以致法院不应采纳。
8. The Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 刑法：犯罪行为与犯意
Criminal liability generally requires proof of both the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind). The actus reus can consist of an act, an omission (where a duty to act exists, such as a contractual duty, a duty arising from a special relationship as in Gibbins & Proctor (1918), or a duty assumed voluntarily), or a state of affairs. Causation must also be established: factual causation using the ‘but for’ test (White (1910)) and legal causation where the defendant’s conduct was a substantial and operating cause of the result (Cheshire (1991)). An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation.
刑事责任通常要求同时证明犯罪行为（actus reus）和犯意（mens rea）。犯罪行为可以包括作为、不作为（当存在作为义务时，如合同义务、特殊关系产生的义务——参见1918年Gibbins & Proctor案、或自愿承担的义务），或状态犯。还必须证明因果关系：以“若无则不”检验标准（White案，1910年）确定事实因果关系，以及法律因果关系，即被告的行为是结果的实质性且起作用的致因（Cheshire案，1991年）。介入行为（novus actus interveniens）可能打断因果链条。
Mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence. The highest level is intention (direct or oblique); a defendant intends a result if it is her aim or purpose, or under oblique intention if the result was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that (Woollin (1998)). Recklessness involves taking an unjustified risk; the test is subjective: was the defendant aware of the risk and went on to take it unreasonably (Cunningham (1957)). Some crimes, such as strict liability offences, do not require proof of mens rea; they are often regulatory and aim to protect public safety, as in Sweet v Parsley (1970).
犯意指犯罪的心理要素。最高层级为故意（直接或间接）；若被告追求某一结果，或根据间接故意，结果几乎是必然发生的且被告也认识到这一点，则构成故意（Woollin案，1998年）。轻率指冒不合理的风险；检验标准是主观的：被告是否意识到风险，并仍然不合理地冒险（Cunningham案，1957年）。某些犯罪，如严格责任犯罪，不要求证明犯意；它们通常具有规制性，旨在保护公共安全，如Sweet v Parsley案（1970年）。
9. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身犯罪
The main non-fatal offences are structured under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence; battery is the infliction of unlawful force. Both are common law offences charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault may be committed by words or gestures (Ireland (1997)), and battery can be the slightest touching (Thomas (1985)).
主要的非致命人身犯罪规定于《1861年人身侵害罪法》和《1988年刑事司法法》中。企图伤害是指使被害人担心即将遭受非法暴力；殴击是实施非法武力。两者均为普通法上的犯罪，依据《1988年刑事司法法》第39条起诉。企图伤害可由言语或动作构成（Ireland案，1997年），而殴击可以是最轻微的碰触（Thomas案，1985年）。
Section 47 of the 1861 Act creates the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The actus reus is an assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm, which includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (Miller (1954)). The mens rea is the same as for the basic assault or battery. Section 20 creates malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH); the mens rea requires intention or recklessness as to some harm (Mowatt (1968)). The most serious offence is s.18, wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist arrest. This requires a specific intent and carries a maximum life sentence.
《1861年法》第47条设立了“实际身体伤害的企图伤害”罪。其犯罪行为是造成实际身体伤害的企图伤害或殴击，伤害包括任何足以干扰被害人健康或舒适感的伤害（Miller案，1954年）。犯意为与普通企图伤害或殴击相同的犯意。第20条规定了恶意伤人罪或重伤罪；犯意要求对某种伤害具有故意或轻率（Mowatt案，1968年）。最严重的犯罪是第18条，故意造成重伤或拒捕的伤人罪。这要求特殊故意，最高可判处终身监禁。
10. Property Offences: Theft and Robbery | 财产犯罪：盗窃与抢劫
The Theft Act 1968 defines theft under s.1 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Each element must be proved. Appropriation (s.3) can include assuming any of the rights of an owner. Even an unauthorised assumption is sufficient (Morris (1984)). Property (s.4) includes money, real and personal property, things in action, and other intangible property but not wild plants or confidential information. Belonging to another (s.5) extends to property over which another has possession, control, or a proprietary interest (Turner (No 2) (1971)).
《1968年盗窃法》第1条将盗窃定义为：以不诚实方式侵占属于他人的财产，并意图永久剥夺他人财产。每个要素均须证明。侵占（第3条）可包括行使所有者的任何一项权利，哪怕未经授权也足够（Morris案，1984年）。财产（第4条）包括金钱、不动产和动产、无体权利和其他无形财产，但不包括野生植物或机密信息。属于他人（第5条）延伸至他人所占有的、控制的或享有财产权益的财产（Turner (No 2)案，1971年）。
Dishonesty is a key mens rea element, assessed originally by the Ghosh test (1982) but now more clearly by the Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) test: what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The intention to permanently deprive includes treating the property as if it were one’s own, regardless of the other person’s rights (Lloyd (1985)). Robbery (s.8) is theft aggravated by the use of force or the threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. The force must be used on a person, not on property.
不诚实是关键犯意要素，其判断标准原本采用Ghosh案（1982年）的双重检验，但现在更清晰地沿用Ivey v Genting Casinos案（2017年）的检验方法：被告对事实的实际认知或信念如何，以及根据普通正派人的标准，该行为是否属不诚实？永久剥夺的意图包括将他人财产当作自己的财产来处置，而置他人权利于不顾（Lloyd案，1985年）。抢劫（第8条）是盗窃的加重形态，要求在盗窃实施之前或实施当时，为盗窃而使用武力或威胁使用武力。武力必须施加于人，而非财产。
11. Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法抗辩
Defences play a crucial role in criminal law and can either negate liability entirely or reduce it. Insanity is a general defence established in M’Naghten (1843): at the time of the act, the defendant was labouring under a defect of reason, caused by disease of the mind, such that they did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know it was wrong. Automatism is available where the defendant has suffered a complete loss of voluntary control due to an external factor, such as a blow to the head (Hill v Baxter (1958)). Intoxication is not a straightforward defence; voluntary intoxication can only negate mens rea for crimes of specific intent but not for basic intent, where getting drunk is considered reckless (Majewski (1977)).
抗辩在刑法中扮演关键角色，可以完全免除责任或减轻责任。精神错乱是 M’Naghten（1843年）案中确立的一般抗辩：被告在行为时因精神疾病导致理智缺陷，致使其不知道行为的性质和品质或不知道行为是错误的。无意识行为适用于被告因外部因素（如头部受到重击）而完全丧失自主控制能力的情形（Hill v Baxter案，1958年）。醉态并非直接的抗辩；自愿醉态只能否定特定意图犯罪的犯意，而不能否定基本意图犯罪的犯意，因为醉酒本身被视为轻率（Majewski案，1977年）。
Self-defence and the prevention of crime allow reasonable force to be used in defence of oneself, another, or property. The force must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be (Palmer (1971); s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). Duress is a defence to most crimes except murder or attempted murder, where the defendant commits an offence because of a threat of death or serious injury, provided a reasonable person with the same characteristics would have responded in the same way (Graham (1982)). Duress of circumstances has been developed for situations where no person makes the threat but similar pressure exists.
自卫和制止犯罪允许在为防卫自己、他人或财产时使用合理的武力。武力必须在被告真诚相信的情形下是合理的（Palmer案，1971年；《2008年刑事司法与移民法》第76节）。胁迫是大多数犯罪（谋杀或谋杀未遂除外）的抗辩，指被告因死亡或严重伤害的威胁而实施犯罪，但须一个具有同样特征的理性人也会做出同样反应（Graham案，1982年）。情况胁迫已发展用于虽无人发出胁迫但存在类似压力的情形。
12. Introduction to Tort Law: Negligence | 侵权法导论：过失侵权
Tort law concerns civil wrongs for which the law provides a remedy, typically damages. The most significant tort is negligence. To establish negligence, a claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and the breach caused the claimant’s damage which was not too remote. The modern test for duty of care was set out in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): (1) was the damage reasonably foreseeable? (2) was there sufficient proximity between the parties? and (3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
侵权法涉及法律提供救济（通常是损害赔偿）的民事过错。最重要的侵权类型是过失。要证明过失成立，原告必须证明被告对其负有注意义务，违反了该义务，并且该违反造成了原告遭受的损害且损害并非过于遥远。现代注意义务的判定标准在Caparo Industries plc v Dickman案（1990年）中确立：（1）损害是否合理可预见？（2）当事人之间是否存在充分的近邻性？（3）课加义务是否公平、正当且合理？
Breach of duty occurs when the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable person. The standard is objective, though certain allowances are made for professionals (Bolam test) and for children (Mullin v Richards (1998)). The risk factors relevant to breach include the probability and seriousness of harm, the cost and practicality of taking precautions, and the social value of the defendant’s activity. Causation is tested by the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)), and the damage must not be too remote (The Wagon Mound (1961)). Defences include contributory negligence, volenti non fit injuria, and illegality.
当被告的行动低于合理人的标准时，即构成义务违反。该标准是客观的，不过对专业人士（Bolam检验标准）和儿童（Mullin v Richards案，1998年）会有一定宽容。与违反义务相关的风险因素包括损害发生的可能性和严重性、采取预防措施的成本和可行性，以及被告行为的社会价值。因果关系采用“若无则不”检验标准（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital案，1969年），而且损害不能过于遥远（The Wagon Mound案，1961年）。抗辩包括共同过失、危险自愿承担与不法性。
Published by TutorHao | AS Law Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导