📚 AS WJEC Law Past Papers In-Depth Analysis | AS WJEC 法律：历年真题深度解析
Past papers are the most reliable resource for understanding examiner expectations and refining your legal reasoning. This article provides an in-depth analysis of AS WJEC Law past papers, covering the structure, command words, mark schemes, and how to apply legal principles to both scenario-based and essay questions. We also examine common pitfalls and offer strategies to elevate your answers from a pass to an A grade. By the end, you will have a systematic approach to tackling every component of the AS WJEC Law examination.
历年真题是了解考官要求并完善法律推理最可靠的资源。本文深度解析 AS WJEC 法律历年真题，涵盖试卷结构、指令词、评分方案，以及如何将法律原则应用于情景题与论述题。我们还分析常见失分点，并提供将答案从及格提升至 A 等级的策略。阅读本文后，你将掌握系统应对 AS WJEC 法律考试各组成部分的方法。
1. Understanding the AS WJEC Law Exam Structure | 理解 AS WJEC 法律考试结构
The AS WJEC Law specification comprises two units: Unit 1 (The Nature of Law and the Welsh and English Legal Systems) and Unit 2 (The Law of Tort). Unit 1 is assessed by a 1-hour 45-minute written paper worth 80 marks, while Unit 2 is a 1-hour 30-minute paper also worth 60 marks. Both papers include a mix of short-answer questions, scenario-based problem questions, and extended essay questions. The distribution of Assessment Objectives (AO1: knowledge and understanding, AO2: application, AO3: evaluation) varies across question types, so understanding this balance is critical for effective revision.
AS WJEC 法律考试大纲包含两个单元：单元一（法律的本质以及威尔士与英格兰法律体系）和单元二（侵权法）。单元一考试时长 1 小时 45 分钟，满分 80 分；单元二为 1 小时 30 分钟，满分 60 分。两份试卷均包含简答题、基于案例情景的题和长篇论述题。考试目标（AO1：知识理解；AO2：应用；AO3：评价）在不同题型中分布不同，理解这一平衡对高效复习至关重要。
Unit 1 typically starts with Part A (about 40 marks) focusing on AO1 and AO2 through a series of short-answer and structured questions on topics such as delegated legislation, statutory interpretation, judicial precedent, and the court hierarchy. Part B (40 marks) is a choice of one from two essay questions, heavily weighting AO1 and AO3. Unit 2 follows a similar pattern: Part A involves problem-solving scenarios requiring application of tort law principles (AO2), while Part B offers a choice of evaluative essays on topics like negligence, occupiers’ liability, or vicarious liability.
单元一通常以 A 部分开头（约 40 分），侧重 AO1 和 AO2，通过一系列简答和结构化问题考查委任立法、法律解释、司法先例和法院等级等主题。B 部分（40 分）为从两道论述题中选一题作答，AO1 和 AO3 占较大权重。单元二遵循类似模式：A 部分为需要应用侵权法原则的案例分析题（AO2），B 部分则提供评估性论述题选项，内容涉及过失侵权、占有人责任或替代责任等。
2. Mastering Command Words in WJEC Law | 掌握 WJEC 法律试卷中的指令词
Exam questions use specific command words that signal the required response. ‘Identify’ or ‘state’ questions demand a concise factual answer worth 1–2 marks, with no elaboration needed. ‘Describe’ requires a detailed factual account of a legal rule or process, testing AO1. ‘Explain’ adds an element of reasoning – why something works the way it does. ‘Apply’ or ‘advise’ signals a scenario-based problem question where you must identify legal issues, cite relevant case law, and reach a reasoned conclusion (AO2). Finally, ‘discuss’ or ‘evaluate’ requires critical analysis of a legal principle or area of law, presenting arguments for and against, and offering a well-supported judgment (AO3).
考题使用特定指令词来表明所需回答的类型。“识别”或“陈述”类问题要求给出简洁的事实性答案，分值 1–2 分，无需展开。“描述”要求对法律规则或程序进行详细的事实性说明，考查 AO1。“解释”增加了推理因素——为什么某事物以特定方式运作。“应用”或“建议”提示情景分析题，你必须识别法律问题、援引相关判例并得出有逻辑的结论（AO2）。最后，“讨论”或“评价”要求对某一法律原则或领域进行批判性分析，提出正反论点并给出有支撑的判断（AO3）。
A common mistake is writing a descriptive response when evaluation is required. For instance, a question that says “Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the literal rule” is not asking you merely to explain what the literal rule is; you must weigh its benefits (e.g., certainty, respect for parliamentary sovereignty) against its drawbacks (e.g., absurd results, injustice), and then reach a conclusion about its overall effectiveness. Examiner reports consistently note that candidates who merely describe lose access to higher AO3 marks. Always highlight the command word and plan your answer around the assessment objective it targets.
一个常见错误是在要求评价时写出了描述性答案。例如，一个问题说“讨论字面规则的优缺点”，并非仅仅让你解释字面规则是什么；你必须权衡其优点（如确定性、尊重议会主权）和缺点（如荒谬结果、不公），然后就整体有效性得出结论。考官报告一贯指出，仅是描述答案的考生无法获得更高的 AO3 分数。务必圈出指令词，并围绕它所指向的考核目标规划答案。
3. Decoding the Mark Scheme: What Examiners Reward | 解码评分方案：考官奖励什么
WJEC mark schemes reveal a consistent pattern: knowledge is not enough. For high marks, candidates must demonstrate accurate legal knowledge, precise application to the given facts, and evaluative depth where required. In problem questions, marks are allocated for identifying the relevant area of law, stating the legal principle, citing a precedent (case name and brief facts where relevant), applying it to the client’s situation, and reaching a clear conclusion on liability. A bare conclusion without reasoning earns very few marks; the bulk of credit comes from the application process.
WJEC 的评分方案揭示了一个一致的模式：仅靠知识是不够的。要获得高分，考生必须展示准确的法律知识、对给定事实的精准应用以及必要时深入的评估分析。在案例分析题中，分数分配在识别相关法律领域、陈述法律原则、引用先例（案例名称和简要事实）、将其应用于当事人的处境，并就责任得出明确结论。没有推理过程的简单结论得分很低；大部分分值来自应用过程。
For essays, the mark scheme divides responses into bands. A top-level answer (Band 4, typically 13–15 marks for a 15-mark question) shows excellent knowledge, uses legal terminology fluently, discusses leading cases and sometimes academic commentary, and presents a sustained critical argument. It must have a clear introduction, a balanced exploration of arguments, and a persuasive conclusion. By contrast, a Band 2 answer might list some advantages and disadvantages without linking them into a coherent argument. Studying past marker annotations on sample answers, available on the WJEC secure website, can train you to see your own writing through the examiner’s eyes.
对于论述题，评分方案将答案分成若干等级。最高等级答案（通常 15 分题得 13–15 分）展示出色的知识、熟练使用法律术语、讨论重要案例并有时引用学术评论，且呈现持续深入的批判性论证。答案必须有清晰的引言、对论点的均衡探讨以及有说服力的结论。相比之下，二级答案可能仅列出一些优缺点，而未能将它们连接成连贯的论证。研究 WJEC 安全网站上提供的样卷评分旁注，可以训练你以考官的视角审视自己的写作。
4. Tackling Scenario-Based Questions in Tort | 应对侵权法案例分析题
Unit 2 Part A presents a hypothetical scenario where a person has suffered harm, and you must advise on potential claims in negligence or occupiers’ liability. Past papers show a recurring structure: a duty situation (e.g., driver and pedestrian, shop and customer), a breach involving an identifiable act or omission, and damage that is both factual and legally causative. The key is to use the IPAC formula – Issue, Principle, Application, Conclusion. First, identify exactly which tortious issue arises. Then state the legal rule, preferably with a supporting case. Third, apply the rule to the specific facts, pointing out similarities or distinctions with the precedent. Finally, conclude with a predicted outcome.
单元二 A 部分给出假设情景，某人遭受损害，你需要就可能存在的过失侵权或占有人责任索赔提供建议。历年真题显示反复出现的结构：存在注意义务的情形（如司机与行人、商店与顾客），涉及可识别的作为或不作为的违反义务行为，以及具备事实与法律因果关系的损害。关键是使用 IPAC 公式——问题、原则、应用、结论。首先，准确识别出现的侵权法问题。然后陈述法律规则，最好附上支持性判例。第三，将规则应用于具体事实，指出与先例的相似或区别之处。最后，以预测的结果作为结论。
For negligence, the Caparo three-stage test (foreseeability, proximity, fairness) must be addressed when evaluating duty of care in novel situations, though for established relationships, you can simply cite the relevant precedent (e.g., Nettleship v Weston for learner drivers). Breach is evaluated using the objective standard of the reasonable person, factoring in the magnitude of risk, cost of precautions, and social utility (Bolton v Stone, Paris v Stepney BC). Causation requires both factual (‘but for’ test, Barnett v Chelsea Hospital) and legal causation (remoteness, The Wagon Mound). Defences such as consent or contributory negligence should also be considered if the facts suggest them. Past papers often include a subtle twist, like a claimant who is a trespasser, requiring analysis under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 instead of 1957.
对于过失侵权，在新型案件中评估注意义务时必须应用 Caparo 三阶段测试（可预见性、邻近性、公平性），但对于既定关系，可直接引用相关先例（如 Nettleship v Weston 适用于学员司机）。违反义务通过理性人的客观标准评估，并考虑风险的大小、预防措施的成本和社会效用（Bolton v Stone, Paris v Stepney BC）。因果关系要求具备事实因果关系（“若无则不”标准， Barnett v Chelsea Hospital）和法律因果关系（损害遥远性，The Wagon Mound）。如果事实显示存在同意或混合过失等抗辩，也应予以考虑。历年真题常包含微妙转折，如索赔人是侵入者，需根据《1984 年占有人责任法》而非 1957 年法进行分析。
5. Writing High-Scoring Legal Essays | 撰写高分法律论述题
Unit 1 and Unit 2 essays are predominantly evaluative. For instance, a Unit 1 essay may ask “Evaluate the extent to which judicial precedent allows for judicial creativity.” Your response must not merely recount the hierarchy of courts and the doctrine of stare decisis, but discuss how devices like distinguishing, overruling, and the 1966 Practice Statement enable the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to develop the law. Use cases such as R v R (marital rape), Hedley Byrne v Heller (negligent misstatement), and the slow evolution of the law on psychiatric harm to illustrate creative law-making. Contrast this with the constraints of binding precedent at the lower courts, and comment on whether enough flexibility exists to prevent injustice.
单元一和单元二的论述题主要是评价性的。例如，单元一可能问“评价司法先例在多大程度上允许司法造法”。你的回答不能仅仅复述法院等级和遵循先例原则，而要讨论区分案例、推翻先例和 1966 年实践声明等手段如何使最高法院和上诉法院发展法律。使用 R v R（婚内强奸）、Hedley Byrne v Heller（过失性虚假陈述）以及精神损害法律的缓慢演变等案例来说明创造性司法。与此相对，应分析下级法院受约束性先例的限制，并评论现行机制是否具备足够灵活性以防止不公。
A strong essay demonstrates synoptic understanding, linking different parts of the syllabus. For a question on law reform in Unit 1, you might integrate the role of the Law Commission, the impact of pressure groups, and how political factors shape legislative priorities. Avoid mere description of the Law Commission’s procedures; instead, critically assess its effectiveness by referencing successful reforms like the Land Registration Act 2002 and failures such as the repeated delays in reforming the law on murder defences. Top essays also show awareness of recent developments – for example, referencing the Law Commission’s current project on reforming consumer pre-contract information shows engagement beyond the textbook.
一篇出色的论文展示综合性理解，将大纲不同部分联系起来。对于单元一中关于法律改革的问题，你可以整合法委会的作用、压力团体的影响以及政治因素如何塑造立法优先顺序。不要仅描述法律委员会的程序；相反，引用《2002 年土地登记法》等成功改革和诸如谋杀抗辩法律改革的反复延迟等失败案例，来批判性评估其效能。顶尖论文还展示对近期发展的关注——例如，提及法律委员会当前关于改革消费者订约前信息项目，显示超出教科书的参与度。
6. Navigating Judicial Precedent Questions | 应对司法先例问题
Judicial precedent is a perennial favourite in WJEC Unit 1. Past questions have focused on the hierarchical court structure, the operation of the doctrine of precedent, and its advantages and disadvantages. When explaining the court hierarchy, be precise: the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) binds all lower courts, the Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court and binds the High Court and below, and the High Court binds lower courts but is usually bound by its own previous decisions. However, you must also explain the exceptions, especially the Young v Bristol Aeroplane exceptions for the Court of Appeal (conflicting decisions, implied overruling by Supreme Court, per incuriam).
司法先例是 WJEC 单元一常年重点。历年问题集中在法院等级结构、先例原则的运作及其优缺点。在解释法院等级时务必精确：最高法院（原上议院）约束所有下级法院，上诉法院受最高法院约束并约束高等法院及以下法院，高等法院约束下级法院但通常受自身先前判决约束。然而，你也必须解释例外情况，特别是上诉法院的 Young v Bristol Aeroplane 例外情形（相互冲突的判决、被最高法院默示推翻、疏忽大意）。
For evaluative essays on precedent, balance certainty with rigidity. The doctrine provides predictability, enabling lawyers to advise clients with reasonable confidence, and it ensures consistency in judicial decision-making. These are strong arguments for fairness and the rule of law. However, rigidity can cause injustice when a bad decision remains binding for years, and the incremental nature of precedent means development is piecemeal and dependent on litigants with the resources to appeal. Use examples like Anderton v Ryan (mistakenly overruled by R v Shivpuri within a year) to show both the strength of the Practice Statement in correcting errors and the potential uncertainty created when the highest court reverses itself.
对于关于先例的评价性论文，要平衡确定性与僵化性。该原则提供可预测性，使律师能够以合理信心为客户提供建议，并确保司法裁决的一致性。这些都是支撑公平和法治的有力论据。然而，僵化可能导致不公，当一项糟糕的判决保持约束力多年，而先例的渐进性意味着法律发展是零碎的，且依赖有资源上诉的诉讼当事人。使用诸如 Anderton v Ryan（一年内被 R v Shivpuri 错误推翻）等例子，既可展示实践声明在纠正错误方面的优势，也可体现最高法院自我推翻时产生的潜在不确定性。
7. Statutory Interpretation: Bringing Rules to Life | 法律解释：赋予规则生命力
Examiners often ask candidates to explain and evaluate the rules of interpretation – the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule, and the purposive approach. Each rule must be explained with precise case law. For the literal rule, Whitely v Chappell (the dead voter case) and Fisher v Bell are classic illustrations. The golden rule can be explained in its narrow sense (R v Allen, bigamy) and wider sense (Re Sigsworth, son murdering mother). The mischief rule requires the four-part Heydon’s case analysis: what was the common law before the Act, what was the mischief not remedied, what was Parliament’s remedy, and the true reason for the remedy. The purposive approach, influenced by EU law, looks at the Act’s overall purpose, as in Pepper v Hart (use of Hansard) and R v Registrar General ex p Smith.
考官常要求考生解释并评价法律解释规则——字面规则、黄金规则、弊端规则和目的解释法。每条规则都必须用精确的判例法来说明。对于字面规则，Whitely v Chappell（死者投票案）和 Fisher v Bell 是经典例证。黄金规则可从狭义（R v Allen，重婚）和广义（Re Sigsworth，儿子谋杀母亲）两方面解释。弊端规则要求运用赫登案四步分析：法案前普通法是什么，未补救的弊端是什么，议会提供了什么补救措施，以及补救的真正理由。受欧盟法影响的目的解释法则关注法案的整体目的，如 Pepper v Hart（使用汉萨德会议记录）和 R v Registrar General ex p Smith。
Evaluation should address the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial law-making. The literal rule respects the literal words and avoids judicial legislating, but can lead to absurd outcomes. The golden rule allows judges to avoid absurdity, but is unpredictable in application. The mischief and purposive approaches give judges considerable discretion, arguably usurping Parliament’s role. Yet they can be justified as fulfilling Parliament’s real intention. Discuss how the Human Rights Act 1998 s.3 requires courts to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights so far as possible, further enhancing the purposive approach. The best answers assess these tensions using specific examples from past cases.
评价应针对议会主权与司法造法之间的张力。字面规则尊重字面措辞，避免司法立法，但可能导致荒谬结果。黄金规则使法官避免荒谬，但其适用不可预测。弊端规则和目的解释法赋予法官相当大的自由裁量权，可以说篡夺了议会的角色。然而，它们也有理由被认为是实现议会的真实意图。讨论《1998 年人权法》第 3 条如何要求法院尽可能以符合公约权利的方式解读立法，进一步加强了目的解释法。最佳答案会利用过往案件的具体例子来评估这些紧张关系。
8. Common Pitfalls That Lower Scores | 导致扣分的常见误区
Examiner reports repeatedly highlight the same weaknesses. One is failing to relate legal principles to the specific facts given. A generic statement such as “The defendant breached their duty of care because they did not act as a reasonable person” is too vague. Instead, anchor the reasonable person standard to the scenario: “As a plumber, Dave would be expected to follow standard industry practice when installing a boiler; his failure to check the gas seal falls below the standard of a reasonably competent plumber, as supported by Wells v Cooper.” The second pitfall is naming cases without any indication of their relevance. It is insufficient to state “Caparo Industries plc v Dickman established the three-stage test” without then applying that test to the client’s situation.
考官报告反复强调相同的弱点。其一，未能将法律原则与给定的具体事实联系起来。泛泛而谈如“被告违反了注意义务，因为他们没有像理性人那样行为”过于模糊。相反，应将理性人标准锚定于情景：“作为一名水管工，Dave 在安装锅炉时理应遵循行业标准做法；他未检查气封的行为低于一个合理称职的水管工的标准，这正如 Wells v Cooper 案所支持的那样。”第二个常见误区是提及判例名称却未说明其相关性。仅说“Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 确立了三阶段测试”是不够的，必须随后将该测试应用于当事人的处境。
Third, time management is critical. Many candidates spend too long on Part A short answers, leaving insufficient time for the essay, which carries up to 40% of the total marks. Allocate time proportionally: in a 90-minute paper, if Part A is worth 40 marks and Part B 20, you should spend roughly 60 minutes on A and 30 on B, with some time for planning. Lastly, write with legal precision: avoid colloquial language, use correct terminology (e.g., ‘claimant’ not ‘plaintiff’ in tort, ‘defendant’, ‘appellant’, and ‘respondent’ correctly), and maintain formal academic tone throughout. Sloppy expression undermines the quality of legal analysis.
第三，时间管理至关重要。许多考生在 A 部分简答题上花费过多时间，导致留给分值高达总分 40% 的论述题时间不足。应按比例分配时间：在 90 分钟的试卷中，如果 A 部分占 40 分，B 部分占 20 分，你应在 A 部分花大约 60 分钟，B 部分 30 分钟，并留出规划时间。最后，写作需具备法律精确性：避免口语化语言，正确使用术语（如侵权法中用 ‘claimant’ 而非 ‘plaintiff’，准确使用 ‘defendant’、’appellant’ 和 ‘respondent’），并始终保持正式的学术语气。草率的表达会损害法律分析的质量。
9. Using Past Papers as a Diagnostic Tool | 利用真题作为诊断工具
Effective revision with past papers is not just about completing questions under timed conditions. After writing an answer, compare it against the mark scheme and examiner’s commentary. Identify the points you missed and ask why. Did you lack knowledge of a particular case? Did you misapply the test? Did you fail to consider a defence? Build a personal error log categorizing mistakes as knowledge gaps, application failures, or evaluation weaknesses. Then revisit your notes on the weak area and practice another similar question within a few days. Research in cognitive psychology shows that this ‘retrieval practice with feedback’ is significantly more effective than re-reading notes.
用真题进行有效复习不仅仅是限时完成题目。写完答案后，对照评分方案和考官评语进行对比。找出你遗漏的要点并问为什么。是缺乏某个具体案例的知识？是错误应用了测试标准？还是没有考虑抗辩理由？建立一个个人错误日志，将错误分类为知识缺陷、应用失误或评价不足。然后重新回顾薄弱领域的笔记，并在几天内练习另一道类似问题。认知心理学研究表明，这种“带反馈的提取练习”远比反复阅读笔记有效。
Furthermore, map out the frequency of topics over the past five to eight years. WJEC tends to avoid setting exactly the same essay question in consecutive sessions, but certain themes recur cyclically. For example, Unit 1 essays on delegated legislation appear roughly every other year, while the law reform essay has been set less frequently recently, meaning it could be due. This does not guarantee a prediction, but it helps prioritize revision. For Unit 2, all major tort topics – negligence, occupiers’ liability, and vicarious liability – appear regularly, but past papers show a trend of combining occupiers’ liability with negligence in Part A scenario, testing cross-topic application.
此外，绘制过去五到八年各主题的出现频率。WJEC 倾向于避免在连续考次中设置完全相同的论述题，但某些主题会周期性重复出现。例如，单元一有关委任立法的论述题大约隔年出现一次，而法律改革论述题最近出得较少，可能即将出现。这并不能保证预测，但有助于安排复习的优先顺序。对于单元二，所有主要侵权法主题——过失侵权、占有人责任和替代责任——都定期出现，但历年真题显示出一种趋势，即在 A 部分情景题中将占有人责任与过失侵权结合，测试跨主题应用能力。
10. Sample Past Paper Question Deconstruction | 典型真题解构示例
Unit 1 Sample Essay: “Evaluate the role of the judiciary in the law-making process.” (15 marks).
A top response would begin by acknowledging that under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, judges are supposed to interpret, not make law. It would then demonstrate how the doctrine of precedent and statutory interpretation necessarily involve creative elements. Discussion should cover the declaratory theory (once a fiction), judicial activism through distinguishing and overruling in cases like R v R and R v Jogee (joint enterprise), and the constraints of the Practice Statement. The essay could contrast judges’ limited role in some areas (contract law) with expansive judicial development in tort and human rights law. The conclusion should offer a measured view: while judges do make law, they do so within constitutional boundaries, and their role is more prominent in some contexts than others.
单元一论述题示例：“评价司法机构在法律制定过程中的作用。”（15 分）。
优秀答案会首先承认根据议会主权原则，法官理应解释法律而非制定法律。然后展示先例原则和法律解释如何必然包含创造性元素。讨论应涵盖宣告理论（曾是虚构）、通过区分和推翻先例实现的司法能动主义（如 R v R 和 R v Jogee（共同犯罪意图）），以及实践声明的限制。论文可以比较法官在某些领域（合同法）的有限作用与在侵权法和人权法中广泛的司法发展。结论应提供一种权衡的观点：虽然法官确实制定法律，但他们在宪法界限内行事，且其作用在某些情况下更为突出。
Unit 2 Problem Question: “Mia, a customer at a supermarket, slips on a pool of spilled yogurt that had been on the floor for thirty minutes with no warning sign. She breaks her ankle. Advise Mia on any claim she may have under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.” (10 marks).
Identify the OLA 1957 as the governing statute, state that Mia is a lawful visitor entering under the implied permission of the occupier (supermarket). OLA 1957 s.2(2) requires the occupier to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe. Apply the ‘reasonable care’ test: thirty minutes without a warning sign or clean-up would likely breach the duty (Ward v Tesco Stores). Consider if the spillage was caused by another customer, but the occupier’s system of inspection may still be inadequate. Conclude that Mia has a strong claim. For higher marks, briefly mention the possibility of contributory negligence if she was not paying attention, reducing damages.
单元二案例分析题：“Mia 是某超市的顾客，她踩到洒落在地面上的酸奶滑倒，该摊酸奶已在地面半小时且无警示标志。她脚踝骨折。请就 Mia 可能根据《1957 年占有人责任法》提起的索赔提供建议。”（10 分）。
确定 OLA 1957 为适用法律，陈述 Mia 是合法访客，基于占有人（超市）的默示许可进入。OLA 1957 第 2(2) 条要求占有人采取合理谨慎措施，确保访客处于合理安全状态。应用“合理注意”测试：半小时内没有警示标志或清理，很可能违反义务（Ward v Tesco Stores）。考虑溢出物是否由其他顾客造成，但占有人检查制度仍可能不充分。结论是 Mia 的索赔理由充分。为获更高分数，可简要提及如果她本人未注意脚下，可能存在助成过失，从而减少损害赔偿。
Published by TutorHao | 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Cancel reply