今日独立写作真题回顾：The internet access is as important as road building adn so forth, d.o you think government should provide internet access to all citizens at no cost?
It takes little imagination to visualize that for those well-off regions, where people are not concerned so much about the basic needs of their life as about the satisfaction of their secondary needs, providing free internet access bodes well for the development of these places.
a treasure trove of information, essential propagator of knowledge, a remarkable avenue for the academically disadvantaged, vast reach over a variety of products and services
It takes even less imagination to think that for those poverty-stricken areas, where billions of poor people need a lot more energy to pull them out of poverty and drive economic development, improve life expectancies, and bolster human health, it is unjustifiable to opt for free internet connection.
文章主旨：在美国easten coast政府建了high-speed rails,阅读认为在 San Francisco 和Los Angeles之间建一个相似的system,会benefit as well.
1: 修路花费很高，如果人们都take the train instead，there will be less damage to the road.
2: rails 是the most popular way to travel，更多的人乘坐会relieve the congestion.
3：it is more environmentally friendly, 因为速度更快，就会更fuel efficient,减少污染排放。
1：修路确实会省一些钱，但是建这个铁路需要花100 billion, 是人们一年交的tax的75倍，人们就付不起loan了。
2：如果这个station can be easily accessed，确实会有助于缓解交通拥挤，但是there is a lacking of the rail station, 而公共交通非常easily access, 所以不能缓解交通拥堵。
3：并没有减少emission, 因为是高速列车，所以速度快才能保证排污少，一些tracks of some parts可以快，一些不可以，在不可以快速行驶的轨道上不得不减速，减速就会导致污染，所以会much less fuel efficient.
Despite the huge impact of the Internet, as a convenient tool for educational, vocational and recreational purposes, offering free Internet access should be viewed as a short-sighted, ill-considered proposal. For both personal and commercial concerns, Internet with no charges will inevitably bring about unexpected fallout. Therefore, I hold my point that under no circumstances should the government provide free Internet access for the public.
First, for the users of Internet, free of charge means declination of quality. So limited is the total bandwidth of Internet access, that more computers and phones connected to the Internet means slower speed for each individual user. Now, as Internet could be available only after payment, those unwilling to spend money on the Internet leaves fairly enough bandwidth for the registered users. However, were Internet free of charge for citizens, almost everyone, whether with urgent or irrelevant aims, would have connected to the Internet for 24 hours 7 days. Then, without doubt, so many citizens watching online videos, downloading large-scale softwares or chatting via video cam with more than 10 friends, the Internet must be slower than those using a primitive 14.4k modem. So, for the rights to access fast enough Internet, government should never make it free.
Second, for the businesses providing Internet access, free Internet services will ruin their future. As Internet become an essential part for people’s life, many companies working on offering fast, stable Internet access become strong business tycoons. For instance, Vodafone, one of the largest Internet service provider, has established 14 branches in different countries and recruited over 1.4 million employees. However, were free Internet service emerged, what would probably happen to these fast-growing business? Internet users, finding ways to download music or send voice mails without any charge, will soon abandon these Internet business sending bills to them every month. Then, not only such business would go bankruptcy, all the staff would thus become unemployed, which could be a huge economic and social disaster for government.
In conclusion, both considering the privileges for Internet users and the destiny of Internet service providers, I strongly believe that government should never try to make Internet access free.