If you have a good solid background in math and have read plenty of literature and publications like the New York Times and the Economist, you will do well on the SAT.
I respectfully disagree. The timed aspect of the SAT (and ACT) make this statement somewhat superficial.
I also respectfully disagree, and not only due to the timed aspect which HK mentions. I think that there is a degree to which ability plays into what a student is able to pull out and synthesize information when reading publications such as the NYT etc that will enable a HG+ student to be leaps and bounds ahead of a typically "average" ability student even if they both sit down and read the same NYT articles every day of secondary school.
I can't speak directly to the SAT at this point as my children haven't taken it yet, but I can see a world of difference in verbal achievement and verbal reasoning ability test scores between my EG ds and my MG dd - both of whom are avid readers and both of whom read equally challenging articles and books (for the most part - it's of course a very not-well-constrained comparison lol!)
Ironically, though, my DD's scores indicate to me that the tests skew wildly toward a mechanical rather than actual/fluent level of "literacy" particularly in written fluency, and that the math favors raw calculation speed above everything else. So my DD's actual ability and potential is, I think, misrepresented significantly by such a test.
We see this with my ds too - in real life it's clear that his greatest abilities are in mathematics/engineering/science but if you only knew him through his standardized testing scores he would look like a very different student!
Best wishes,
polarbear
