- 最后登录
- 2013-3-19
- 在线时间
- 100 小时
- 寄托币
- 221
- 声望
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-29
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 3
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 159
- UID
- 2565269
- 声望
- 30
- 寄托币
- 221
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-29
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 3
|
It has been long known a person who is given excessive power will eventually tend to dictatorship, especially in the case without any oversight. As taxpayers, people, in a democratic society, surely hold the right to be informed about the leader's motives and agenda and to supervise political leaders and their government. Nevertheless, full disclosure might risk throwing the nation and its people in to (去掉) danger, since nowadays terrorist attacks and other threatening activities are increasingly serious. Therefore, I strongly endorse the opinion that it is sometimes necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to conceal information from the public.
To be a democratic and sophisticated government, political leadership calls for forthrightness as to what policy would be carried out, what the motives are, and other information about privacy, such as agenda. Because deceit and withholding can earn a political leader nothing but query (在我理解query貌似是中性词?如果是贬义应该可以用reproach之类) and distrust. What is more, reactionaries will take advantages of such an opaque political condition and make the whole country fall into upheaval, even in wars, by demagoguery. Just consider the typical examples of feudal dynasties in the long history of China. Monarchs who attempted to maintain their powers and ulteriorly (打错了?我甚至看不出来“原型”是哪个词) manipulate their people by deceiving and concealing, were proved to be severely wrong after their being overthrowing (overthrow?). Moreover, constitution endues people the right to know. Effective democratic supervision helps a lot to avoid and reduce corruption and malfeasance.
(
1.
我总觉得对那个中国朝代的例子缺少进一步分析,就像是例子列出来,然后就完了。比如我觉得可以接着写:他们认为对人民保密是必要的,但是最后正是保密导致了社会的混乱。等等。
2.
感觉你这段的逻辑不太紧密,说几句就跑到了另一个关系不大的因素上。而你的例子却只能对应其中的一个。所以我觉得这样会使得整段的结构不严谨。个人觉得挑其中一个原因细致展开会更好。
)
To think deeper, however, the requirement of pure forthrightness is irrational and adverse. Undue revelation might set the public in a dangerous case. If the United States government released the information, prior to actions, about a plan to apprehend Saddam Hussein, the security of America and its citizenry would be threatened while the objective would have a chance to escape from punishment. Otherwise, moderate concealing to the public is also of significant benefit for avoiding the public panic. I cannot imagine what will happen if the government confirms 2012 as the end of the world and immediately informs its people. There is no denying that an immeasurable number of people will die from accidents, such as stampede, due to mass panic and depression. As a result, a would-have-been natural disaster will become a man-made one. Evidently, (这是什么?)
(
这段看起来像是两个不同论点——直言不讳的坏处 & 有保留的好处——融合在一起?虽说这两个的意思是差不多的,但是终究还是有区别的吧。我觉得一段还是写一个比较好。再加上看过下面一段,你好像还是在说有保留的好处,我觉得这两段可以改一下结构,相同的意群并到一起。
)
From the perspective of personal interests, a political leader, who shows the information, in the nude, to the public, will be considered as immature and be assailed for his or her vulnerability by the political opponents. To gain and consolidate political leadership, it is essential for a leader to withhold information, from the public, about personal foibles, sociable defects, and detailed private life. As media has become an influential factor, which could not be ignored, in an election, the flaws of a candidate will be unfairly enlarged, which might mislead voters and lead to a completely different result.
All in all, government and political leaders should strike a balance in the extent to which they disclose to the public while citizenry cannot require complete disclosure and should reasonably employ rights. Because the ultimate purpose of moderate withholding is to ensure the security and interests of the public and even the nation.
嗯。措辞什么的就不改了,你的水平远高于我,我基本没什么好说了。
不过结构方面,总觉得这篇文章的结构不严谨,段落之间的逻辑很松散,还有论点相重叠的现象。给人的感觉像是没有规划好的样子。
还有,我觉得你揭示中心的应该是首段末句吧。也就是说你倾向于同意掩蔽信息。那么我觉得你说掩蔽信息不好的第二段就应该往后放,因为你着重强调的是掩蔽信息necessary和desirable的地方,而不是说他不好的地方。这一段的作用相当于让步,应该往后放,而且我觉得篇幅不宜过长。
你后面两个论述段逻辑松散,前面非重点的部分又靠得太前,所以总体的感觉是没有很好的说明中心。总体来讲,我感觉可能是写之前没想好,就像我上一次写的I&A一样(跑题了-_-),呃。
仅仅个人意见。 |
|