KEY HOMEWORK 2

LISTENING ( 50 PTS)
Part 1. (10 pts)
1. D 2. B 3. C 4. A 5. D
Part 2. (10 pts.)
1. F 2. T 3. T 4.F 5. T
Part 3 (10 pts)
1. Compulsory and regular. 2. Full-time and flexible-time students.
3. People from off-campus. 4. No experimental facilities now.
5. Environmental Science.
Part 4. ( 20pts)
1. received
2. three (ranking) countries
3. 2600/ twenty-six hundred
4. single-payer
5. Singapore’s GDP
6. medical savings account
7. deducted (and set aside)
8. private and public care
9. bang for their buck
10. centralized healthcare/ single-payer healthcare
LEXICO – GRAMMAR ( 30 PTS)
Part I ( 10 pts)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C C D D C D C D D A
Part 2 ( 5 pts)

1. in 2.of 3. at 4. after 5. out

Part 3 ( 5 pts)
1. offended – offending 1. consumption – consumers 2. how – what
3. A few – few 5. childlike – childish
Part 4 ( 10 pts)
1. antisocial 2. criminality 3. marginalized 4. suppression 5. preventive
6. priorities 27. coercive 28. sensitize 29. socialization 30. underage

READING ( 60 PTS)
Part 1 ( 10 pts)
1.A 2.D 3. A 4.D 5.B
6.C 7.A 8. D 9. C 10.B

Part 2. ( 15 pts)
1. tip 2. exist 3. before 4. aspects 5. those
6. cross-cultural 7. personal 8.misunderstanding 9. other 10. arise

Part 3 ( 10 pts)
1.B 2.D 3. A 4.D 5.B
6.A 7.C 8. A 9. D 10.C

Part 4 ( 15 pts)

1. ii 2. iii 3. v 4. iv 5. viii
1. N 2. NI 3.Y 4. N 5. Y

Part 5 ( 10 pts)
1. E 2. C 3. A 4. B 5. F

WRITING (60 PTS)

1. Students ‘answers (15pts)

2. Students’ answers(15 pts)
3. Students’ answers (30pts)
Tapescript:
Part 1: (Proficiency Testbuilder 4th Edition – Listening Test 3 – Part 3)
Interviewer: I’m talking to Paddy Burt, who has a weekly hotel review column in a national
newspaper and who has just compiled a collection of those reviews for a forthcoming book.
Paddy, when you go to a hotel to review it, what’s your attitude?
Paddy: I always have high hopes – a “bet this one going to be good” feeling. But you can never
tell. Hotels that look so idyllic in one of the guides can be a terrible letdown, which is why
readers who say they enjoy the column invariably add “particularly the bad ones’. For example,
I recently got this letter from a reader, who says:” It used to be every other week that you gave
some poor hotelier a bashing. Now it’s a rare treat to read about one you’ve been severyly
critical of, and that’s a pity since I love it when you lay into a pretentious but bad one. Of
course, it’s helpful when you recommend a good hotel, but, for entertainment’s sake, do try to
find some awful ones, too.”
Interviewer: So are you always aiming to find fault? Are you glad when you find something
you can be critical of?
Paddy: I don’t have to try. And while I’m always happy to slam into any pretentious hotel that
doesn’t come up to scratch. It’s a different matter when the people are nice and their hotel isn’t.
I still have to write about it and sometimes it hurts. Hotel-keeping, it has been said, is akin to
show business and, in the ones I like best, there is always a leading man or woman who is
sometimes so good I think he or she has missed their true vocation. Such hoteliers usually have
a sense of humour. They may not like what I have written about them, but will respond in a
good-humoured way. They are professionals. Many of them have become friends.
Interviewer: What kind of hotels do you prefer? Is it possible to generalise about that?
Paddy: Well. I admit I have a penchant for owner-run hotels: they are more personal than the
chains. With a few exceptions, I like the owners of small hotels. Which is why I have had such
fun researching my book of review pieces that have appeared in the newspaper – calling them if
they haven’t responded to the questionnaire I sent them and either telling them who I am or, if I
think they’re going to shout at me, pretending to be the assistant I haven’t got, Emily. “ She
didn’t give us a very good review, did she?” some said. Well, no – but maybe they have since
made improvements and would like people to know about them? Thus encouraged, the majority
of these hoteliers have entered not just into the book but into the spirit and have contributed
interesting behind-the-scenes stories.
Interviewer: So some of the hotels you reviewed and wanted to put in the book haven’t been
included?
Paddy: That’s right. There’s one, for example, where the owner said – I recorded all the calls –
“ After insulting us and lying in her article, there is no way we would help her perpetuate her
grievances against the world in a publication.” To specify the lies, he pounced on a remark I
had made expressing surprise on being served certain vegetables in his restaurant. “ She doesn’t
understand proper food.” he said. I was enthusiastic about it, actually, and if he wasn’t being so
disagreeable, I would have liked to include his hotel in the book. On and on he went. “ Since
her visit, we’ve noticed that a lot of people read her articles and then cross hotels off their
potential list as a result of what she’s said. They then go to hotels where she’s been fawned over
and where they probably won’t be fawned over. We’ve also noticed she prefers staying in hotels
that are almost empty because that’s when they have time to make a fuss of her.” Actually,
being fawned over is the last thing that I want.
Interviewer: So your column can provoke quite a reaction, then?
Paddy: Oh, yes. In fact, the same owner also said:” After she stayed here, we had four hotels
asking for her description. They wanted to know what car she was driving and what credit card
she had. Unfortunately, we couldn’t give a description because she’s fairly nondescript.” But
the peculiar thing is that when it finally clicked that being in the book wasn’t going to cost him
a penny, he said he wanted to be included. Maybe it was because he remembered that I had
remarked on his resemblance to a much-loved comedian, sadly now dead. I declined his kind
offer.
Interviewer: I can see why. Paddy Burt, thanks for talking to me.
Part 2:
Presenter: Now, every time I switch on the television, there seems to be some programme
about houses. Property development, that is, buying houses, working on them to increase their
value, and then selling them on again, seems like an attractive money-making opportunity to
many people. But the property development is a difficult thing to get right, and in the studio
today, we have Marcus Lawton who is going to tell us a bit about where a lot of people make
mistakes. Marcus, is it true that making money from property development isn’t as easy as it
looks on TV?
Marcus: Absolutely. There are several reasons why people go wrong, and the first is that
many people fail to realize that in property development, you make your money when
you buy a house, not when you sell it.  If you spend too much money on a house, you will
never make a profit out of it.  So you really need to learn how to haggle over the asking price.
Every pound you can knock off is money in your pocket.
Presenter: Is buying a house at an auction a good idea?
Marcus: Oh, it is.  It’s a great way to pick up a bargain.  But it’s easy to get too excited about
making a purchase, and you can end up paying more than a house is worth. It’s important to
give yourself a limit and stick to it.  It’s also tempting at auctions to buy a house that you
know nothing about, and that’s a real mistake too. You need to really do your homework
before you make such a big purchase.
PAUSE
Presenter: What sort of things do you need to find out?
Marcus: All sorts. One important thing is the location. Property is always sought after if it’s
near a good school, and has nice green areas nearby.  People often assume that the best
property to invest in is one that’s in the nicest, smartest part of town. But you’ll pay over the
odds for a house there, and you’re profit margins won’t be any bigger. Things like access to
public transport and shops and services are actually far more important. You’ve also really got
to consider how much the cost of refurbishing the place is going to be and how much you will
realistically get for the property once you’re ready to sell it. Don’t go overboard when doing
the place up. Many people fall into the trap of trying to recreate their dream home. But you
need to consider who is likely to want to live there in the future, and what sort of decor and
fitting they will need. A professional couple may want a nice finish, but if you plan to let it out
to students, for example, there’s no point spending a fortune on a nice kitchen or bathroom. 
Presenter: So, how can you ensure that you’re getting a bargain?
Marcus: Look for the right seller.  An estate agent will be able to tell you about anyone who
needs a quick sale and will be prepared to sell for less.  People might be moving abroad, or
getting a divorce and those are the types of people who are more likely to accept a lower offer.
Don’t just rely on agencies either, look at ads in the newspaper.  People often advertise there if
 they want to keep their fees low. You can do a deal directly with them, and you won’t have to
go through an estate agent. And keep an eye open as you’re driving around. If you see an old,
run down house that looks as if it has potential, just knock on the door and ask if the owner
has considered selling. That’s how I bought my first house. It might seem a bit daunting, just
going up to the door like that, but what’s the worst that can happen?  They can only say no.  If
you come across a house that doesn’t look lived in, you can always contact the land registry
and find out who owns it. They may be prepared to sell it, but they just aren’t actively looking
for buyers.
Part 3
STUDENT: Hello ... are you Professor Van Diezen?
PROFESSOR: Yes, I am. And who might you be?
STUDENT: Oh! Sorry, my name is Tina. I'm a freshman here. They told me I should ask you
for advice in choosing courses.
PROFESSOR: Well, that's part of what I'm here for. Please come in and sit down. Now, what
are your questions?
STUDENT: I, I almost don't know! Everything is so confusing! Like what is a "specialised
course"?
PROFESSOR: Oh, easy. A specialised course is one that is compulsory, meaning it's a
requirement for your major and regular, so you can't place out by taking a proficiency exam.
STUDENT: That sounds pretty strict. Then what are all these general courses? I seem to have to
take so many.
PROFESSOR: Nothing to be alarmed over. These are courses open to all students and not
directly related to your major. The university offers these general courses to choose so that you
can become more well-rounded individuals. For example, I see you're a Microbiology major. So
it might be a good idea to take some literature or history courses so that you can know
something besides all science.
STUDENT: You mean these courses are, like, for fun?
PROFESSOR: That might be one way to look at it, but don't tell the literature professor such a
thing. Think of a general course as the opposite of a specified course. A specified course is one
that pertains directly to your major.
STUDENT: So can I take any Microbiology course I want?
PROFESSOR: Let's see. Oh, those courses used to be open to Microbiology students only. The
good thing is, now it's open to students on a flexible schedule, so it's not only for full-time
students. So the answer is yes, if you have the instructor's permission. May I ask you why you
chose Microbiology?
STUDENT: Well, I also like plain old Biology, too. You know, full-sized animals. I might even
become a veterinarian. Could I take some Biology classes?
PROFESSOR: Well, they are open to full-time students only, which I believe is what you are. I
don't know how a freshman would get along with Microbiology, though. I mean, most of the
students presently looking into it are from off-campus.
STUDENT: Off-campus?
PROFESSOR: Yes, you know, people who use it in their work at hospitals, laboratories, even a
police detective. Why did you choose Microbiology, if I may ask? I don't think you quite
answered that.
STUDENT: Well, eventually I want to be a doctor. At least my dad tells me so.
PROFESSOR: If I may say so, young lady, you seem a little uncertain.
STUDENT: Still, I think that might be a good idea for a career. Of course, if you're thinking
about being either a doctor or a vet, you should take some Medical Science classes before
you even think of applying to med school.
STUDENT: Great! What should I take?
PROFESSOR: There is one small problem. The new Medical Sciences building is under
construction, so there are no experimental facilities available until next year. I'm afraid you'll
have to wait. But don't forget to take those courses at the first opportunity!
STUDENT: Oh, bummer. Is there any other course you'd recommend for someone like me?
PROFESSOR: Well, since you seem to like animals, have you ever thought about looking into
Environmental Science?
STUDENT: No, I never really thought about it before. Is it worthwhile?
PROFESSOR: Quite! In fact, it's the fastest growing subject on this campus.
Part 4.
In June 2017, the United States Senate rejected a third attempt under President Donald Trump
to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This failure was the latest development in the US’s slow
move towards socialized healthcare. But in fact, the United States has long had one of the worst
balances between what healthcare costs each citizen, and what benefit they get out of it.
In the rest of the world, citizens pay much less, or nothing, and often receive higher quality
care, with higher life expectancy and lower rates of disease.
So, we wanted to know, which countries get Whicthe most out of their healthcare?
Well, since 2012, the Bloomberg Health-Care Efficiency Index has measured exactly this
balance. As of 2016-2017one of the top three ranking countries was Spain.
3. Spain
Spain is an above average representation of healthcare in OECD countries and spends roughly
twenty-six hundred dollars per person with an average life expectancy of nearly 84 years. About
ten percent of the country’s GDP goes towards healthcare costs, which are largely subsidized by
the government.
This system of socialized medicine is globally known as “single-payer”, and most citizens see
no out-of-pocket expenses when they visit public hospitals. In fact, the right to healthcare is
guaranteed in Spain’s constitution. However, this system also leads to complaints about delays
in seeing doctors beyond primary care or getting specialized surgeries.
Ranking Second on the Efficiency-Index is another country with universal healthcare,
Singapore.
2. Singapore
Unlike Spain, Singapore requires that care is NEVER provided for free, in order to avoid
wasteful use of the system. Instead, healthcare costs are kept artificially low through
government subsidies, which compared to Spain, only use 1.6% of Singapore’s GDP.
In addition to implementing price controls on medical care and medication, the country uses a
system known as Medisave. This is a medical savings account, where up to 9 percent of
employee salaries are required to be deducted and set aside and can be used for personal or
family care. This combination means that costs are low, while the quality of care is one of the
highest in the world.
But overall, the best, and most efficient healthcare system is reportedly in the autonomous
territory of Hong Kong.
1. Hong Kong
Interestingly, the territory uses a combination of private and public care, with one of the highest
life expectancies in the world, costing just $2000 dollars per citizen, and comprising just 3% of
the GDP.
However, Hong Kong’s high ranking healthcare may not be exactly what it seems at first
glance. First of all, while public healthcare plans can be purchased at low costs, the wait to see
specialists or to get certain surgeries can be excessive, with some sources claiming 5-year wait
lists.
On the other hand, private hospitals are reportedly speedy but very expensive. This combination
of low-cost care for routine visits and medication, with high priced elective or specialized care,
makes Hong Kong’s system incredibly efficient, and difficult to overburden, thereby avoiding
raising costs for everyone.
While these three countries get the most bang for their buck, with very high standards of care
and life expectancy, they are also difficult to apply broadly around the world.
Singapore and Hong Kong have populations of under ten million people, meaning that most
health factors are uniform throughout the region and population. By comparison, the United
States is enormous, with a population of over 320 million, making centralized, or single payer
healthcare more difficult to implement without serious complications.
Nonetheless, US healthcare costs are astronomical, with medical bills being the number one
cause of bankruptcy for Americans.