Task 1
综合写作
【主题】基础设施私有化Infrastructure Privatization
Reading： Government应该把infrastructure出租给Private Company。infrastructure包括water system, railway等等。理由有三：(1)政府可以从私有公司collect money，这是一笔很大的财政收入，through toll fee。举例：芝加哥市政府将Chicago skyway出租给Private Company 99年，于是可以收钱99年。这么大笔财政收入用途广泛，可以from balancing budget to assist public schools);(2)私有公司提供更好的维护，政府倾向于不断建造新的基础设施，而不维护旧的基础设施，这就可以看到很多城市的基础设施维护不完善。而私有公司在这个行业里面，因此更专业，能提供更好的维护;(3)私有公司带来new technology。因为私有公司自己收钱，所以更有动力去更新技术，investment开发技术。
Listening：(1)政府会lose money in a long term。虽然政府在短期看似可以收到钱，但是长期将无法获利，反驳Chicago Skyway的例子: 政府将Chicago Skyway的经营权出让给私有公司99年，可是同时也将"收钱的权利"出让给了私有公司(also lease out the right to collect money)99年。私有公司收到的钱很有可能最终超过"建设费用"，而这笔钱还不如让政府修建更多的新公路(build new roads);(2)私有公司不会提供维护，私有公司只会关注short term profit),只顾着收钱，不会去维修基础设施。举例：南美一座城市的政府将water system出租给private company，结果私有公司只顾着收钱，根本不维修，使得供水系统条件in a bad condition，最后政府不得不收回供水系统自己维修;(3)私有公司不会引进新技术，通常一座城市只有一种基础设施，比如一个城市only one water system或者一套subway system,消费者没有选择。因此如果基础设施私有化，私人公司no competition around。这使他们能够维持垄断地位，从而没有动力去引进新技术。
Task 2(重复NA20081031)
独立写作
Do you agree or disagree with the statement? It is more fun to see a movie in a cinema (theater) with other people than see a movie at home
参考文章：Technology has made home theaters commonplace in today's society. Whereas before you needed to go to a movie theater to get a fully immersive cinematic experience, nowadays you can enjoy many of the benefits of a full-fledged theater from the comfort of your own living room. Despite this, however, I would still prefer to see a movie with other people in a cinema.
Firstly, going to a theater to watch movie turns the experience into more of an event. There's a ritual involved-you have to get ready, meet your friends, buy your tickets, pick up some snacks, find your seat, and watch a few trailers before the movie starts. Popping on a movie at home is convenient, but that convenience and lack of ritual makes the movie-watching experience feel like less of an activity and more like a routine way of killing time. I relish the ritual aspects of going to theater almost as much as I enjoy watching the actual movie.
Secondly, by going to a theater, you get to share the movie-watching experience with strangers. This makes watching movies more of a social activity and much more pleasurable. For example, when The Dark Knight came out, I first watched the movie at home with a friend. It was fun, but it was also totally different from the experience I had watching the movie again in a theater. At home, it was just me and my friend reacting to things happening on the screen. Our reactions were predictable, and while we did joke around during the movie, there was nothing too memorable outside of the movie itself. In the theater, though, people were randomly throwing out Batman jokes and wildly cheering during epic scenes. I could tell that these people were big Batman fans, and their passion for the source material made watching the movie much more gratifying.
Finally, watching a movie in a theater is more immersive because of the hardware a theater utilizes. While you approximate the theater experience with a good home entertainment setup, it's difficult to get that feeling full immersion without spending an exorbitant amount of money. To get cinema-level image quality you need a huge TV screen or a really good projector, and in order to mimic the audio of a theater you need a relatively pricy surround sound system. Most people just don't have the resources to put that kind of thing together. Going to a theater allows you to feel your seat shake with every explosion and your body swell with every orchestral arrangement.
All in all, watching movies at home just isn't as fun as watching movies in cinemas. It feels like less of an event, and while you could replicate the sensory experience if you had enough money, in the end you would still be missing the crucial social component that makes theaters so great. For those reasons, I think putting on a movie at home could never replace a trip to the cinema. (519, Richard)