issue8 （revised by tomatoeggs and gteryy）

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Syllabus:
Disagree;
1, it will do a severe detriment to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities.
2, there is a heavy odds in favor of corruption and abuse of power.
3, the means of entitling more freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected.

From the pragmatic perspective, it seems to be necessary or even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public, and which is especially true when there is a ever-lasting debate rooted in the great divergences of citizens in opinions or actual interests but a quick decision-making or a consolidated action is really needed. However, if we overemphasize the direct and immediate benefits from these information-withheld activities in political leaders, we will soon witness the rapid deterioration of morality and culture, and even the gradual collapse of modern political civilization that is intrinsic and crucial in the current western world to the permanent prosperity and progress. (不知在开头让步是否合适？)
   In the first place, if the politicians are encouraged to act in a dishonest or even deceptive way, however the purpose behind is lofty, it will do a severe detriment to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities. In a sense, government is acting as a guardian and protector of basic moral qualities by providing its citizens with proper education about morality and culture, and by penalizing immoral activities that brought about loss of other people’ practical interests. Now that the protectors of morality--government and political leaders—could be given the right to lie or deceive, other citizens such as the businessmen will also ask why they couldn’t do the same. When more and more people begin to keep information from each other, the feeling of unfaith and distrust will gradually pervade through all over the nation and inevitably lead to the collapse of this credit society that modern people are proud of.
More direct and severe danger is the heavy odds in favor of corruption and abuse of power. If political leaders are entitled to withhold information from public, they could easily find their ways to take some selfish or even illegal actions that would severally harm the public interests. Whether do they abuse this power completely depends on their moral qualities, no existing of other better way to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, in reality, seldom there were so creditable and reliable politicians, whether in the past or at present, in high-civilized western nations or in the poorest third world. Few people can stand up to this fatal temptation. Therefore, as long as this privilege of deceiving is entitled to politicians, the abuse of power and corruption will ensue inevitably. And the more freedom, the more corruption and abuse of power there is! The primary reason for why the modern western societies are far more developed and less suffered from the corruption and abuse of power than most developing countries, in some sense, is that western countries imposed a great deal of rigid restrictions and limitations upon their the political leaders while the developing countries failed to do so.
At last, when even the realistic concerns, which are widely regarded as the most favorable reasons for the information-withheld activities, is involved, the means of entitling more freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected. Maybe it is true under some circumstances  that by permitting politicians to withhold information from the public, a quick decision and consolidated actions can be elicited out. However, this will result in a significant and vivid degeneration in quality of decision and implementation. Take the environment preservation for example, there is a violent dispute between the environmentalists and the industries about how strong measures should be taken against the deterioration of environment: overprotection will lead to a large number of factories’ closedown and then the upsurge of unemployment while neglecting the problem will bring about severe contamination and consequently the decline in the level of citizens’ lives. If the public seek after quick decisions and immediate actions, and thus authorize the politicians to take actions without informing the public, these two improper implements are both likely to be put into force, which will finally happen rests with the personal propensity of political leaders. (回应开头处的让步)
In conclusion, if the political leaders obtain more freedom to act at their pleasure, the society as a whole will certainly lose much. Any civilized nation should impose enough restrains upon politicians to ensure its stability, probity and sustained prosperity.  (690 words)

gteryyUID: 114434

Issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Syllabus:
Disagree;
1, it will do a severe detriment to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities.
2, there is a heavy odds in favor of corruption and abuse of power.
3, the means of entitling more freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected.

From the pragmatic perspective, it seems to be necessary or even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public, and which is especially true when there is a ever-lasting debate rooted in the great divergences of citizens in opinions or actual interests 这里是不是要加个逗号啊，这个分句这么长，我看得头晕了先@_@but a quick decision-making or a consolidated action is really needed没觉得but后面的内容对说明你的观点有啥意义. However, if we overemphasize the direct and immediate benefits from these information-withheld activities in political leaders, we will soon witness the rapid deterioration of morality and culture, and even the gradual collapse of modern political civilization that is intrinsic and crucial in the current个人觉得modern比较好 western world to the permanent prosperity and progress. (不知在开头让步是否合适？)
在开头让步完全可以，而且也不失为一个好办法。但是觉得你太罗嗦了，呵呵。形容什么你都要XXXandXXX，看着不清爽不简练。第一段你完全简单明了地让步一下，然后阐明自己的观点就可以了，不要做过多说明，说多了你下面论证什么呀？

In the first place, if the politicians are encouraged to act in a dishonest or even deceptive way, however the purpose behind is loftylofty应该放到however后面, it will do a severe detriment 一般都说do harm吧？to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities. In a sense, government is acting as a guardianguardian就是protector的意思，你是不是想说guard? and protector of basic前面是vital，这里又是basic，尽管有很多词可以修饰，不过我觉得前后一致地强调moral的某个特性比较好 moral qualities by providing its citizens with proper education about morality and culture, and by penalizing immoral activities that brought about lossloss一般指自己的损失吧，损害别人利益可以用detriment的 of other people’ practical 这个词可以不要嘛interests. Now that the protectors of morality--government and political leaders—could be given the right to lie or deceive提干是隐瞒信息，并不等于撒谎和欺骗，你偏颇了, other citizens such as the businessmen will also ask why they couldn’t do the same. When more and more people begin to keep information from each other, the feeling of unfaith and distrust will gradually pervade through all overall over也可以不要 the nation and inevitably lead to the collapse of this credit society that modern people are proud of.
这段讲到欺骗和撒谎就有些偏题了，其他地方都还可以。隐瞒个人信息并不存在道德问题；只有隐瞒有关大众利益的信息才有问题。

More direct and severe又来了吧，呵呵 danger is the heavy odds in favor of corruption and abuse of powerdanger从哪来？原因简单说一下嘛. If political leaders are entitled to withhold information from public, they could easily find their ways to take some selfish or even illegal actions that would severally这个单词的意思你再查查？严重的你也可以用serious，不要老是severe。感觉severe用于疾病比较多 harm the public interests. Whether do放个do在这对吗？！ they abuse this power completely depends on their moral qualities, no existing of other better wayno better way就可以了，你这样表达实在是画蛇添足 to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, in reality, seldom there werewere放there前面 so creditable and reliable我看不出creditable和reliable在这里有啥区别 politicians, whether in the past or at present, in high-civilized western nations or in the poorest third world这句话有语法错误，而且观点很不好。哼哼，你也是第三世界国家的啊。古埃及也可以说是高度文明的啊. Few people can stand up toresist this fatal temptation. Therefore, as long as this privilege of deceiving这个词又偏了 is entitled to politicians, the abuse of power and corruption will ensue inevitably. And the more freedomfreedom是个很美好的词，美国人也无比喜欢。不要乱用，即使用也要强调一下是什么样的freedom, the more corruption and abuse of power there is! The primary reason for why the modern western societies are far more developed？？？ and less suffered from the corruption and abuse of power than most developing countries你有偏见。发达国家的腐败不比我们少, in some sense, is that becausewestern countries imposed a great deal of rigid restrictions and limitations upon their the political leaders while the developing countries failed to do so.
这段观点倒是很好的。但是没有表达好

At last, when even the realistic concerns这个分句语法有问题。什么呀？, which are widely regarded as the most favorable reasons for the information-withheld activities, is involved, the means of entitling more不是more，是too much freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected. Maybe it is true under some circumstances that by permitting politicians to withhold information from the public, a quick decision and consolidated actions can be elicited out. However, this will result in a significant and vivid这俩形容词都是好东西，想不出你咋能用来形容degeneration。而且腐败堕落用decay/deterioration好点吧 degeneration in quality of decision and implementation. Take the environment preservation环境保存？ for example, there is a violent dispute between the environmentalists and the industries about how strong measures should be taken against the deterioration of environment: overprotection will lead to a large number of factories’ closedown and then the upsurge of unemployment while neglecting the problem whichwill bring about severe contamination and consequently the decline in the levellevel改成quality好点 of citizens’ lives. If the public seek after quick decisions and immediate actions你已经三次提到这个目的了，可是提干丝毫没有, and thus authorize the politicians to take actions without informing the public, these two improper implements are both likely to be put into force, which will finally happen rests with the personal propensity of political leaders. (回应开头处的让步)
这段没怎么明白

In conclusion, if the political leaders obtain more freedom to act at their pleasure, the society as a whole will certainly lose much. Any civilized nation should impose enough restrains upon politicians to ensure its stability, probity and sustained prosperity. (690 words)[QUOTE]
结尾一般


你这篇文章我看完的感受就是比较累。不要生气啊，咱有话直说。
你的用词造句很不地道而且太复杂了。我们强调过很多次，不要刻意去复杂化这个东西。你老是XXXandXXX，然后就是XXXofXXX，可以有用‘S代替的嘛。看得我有点晕了。
而且对于这题，审题有点问题。注意一下很多简单的词的用法以及同义词之间微妙的变化。
有不同意见欢迎提出来。

happyman2000UID: 136936

非常感谢gtergg细致的批改，你的意见对我实在是太太重要了！

happyman2000UID: 136936

仔细看了gteryy斑竹的批改，真是受益无穷！
这个题目主要谈政治家是否有权向公众隐瞒信息。一般而言，政治家的信息包括两种，一种是政治家私人的问题，如克林顿的性丑闻；另一种是涉及公众利益的信息。对于前者，一般认为政治家有权保留个人信息，但也有不少人说公众人物无隐私。至于后者，多数情况下政治家是不应该隐瞒信息的，但也有例外，如涉及军事、外交等机密问题时，还有就是当公众对某些问题意见分歧较大悬而不决，引发严重的决策缓慢和效率低下问题时，政治家适当地隐瞒一下信息可能更有利于国家和公众利益。所谓善良的撒谎，就是这个意思。
如果把以上内容全部写上，可能我至少要花2000字。所以，我舍弃了第一点，只谈公众信息隐瞒问题。而且我觉得ets的这个题目好像就侧重于此。美国不是经常谈论中情局和总统权力过大的问题吗，实际上与这里的论题是很接近的。
我的这篇文章基本意思是，善良的撒谎（或者是隐瞒）也是靠不住的，它会导致：一，社会道德的滑坡；二，权力的滥用（美国人对中情局就没好印象）；三，决策质量的下降（缺乏充分讨论）。
我的毛病是语言能力太差，但又总想表达一个相对复杂的idea, 因而经常写出这种不知所云的文章。
有高人不辞劳累帮我挑出毛病，我感激都来不及，怎们会生气？指出的毛病当然是越多我越感谢！
衷心地希望gteryy斑竹以后多帮我改改文章！我相信我后面的文章会让你读起来越来越（又是more and more）轻松！
再次致谢！！

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Some people believe that for many realistic concerns, it is necessary or even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public. I strongly oppose this view. Political leaders, as the governors and protectors of public interests, at all events, shouldn’t undertake any information-withholding activities.
In the first place, it will result in corruption and abuse of power. If political leaders are entitled to withhold information from public, they could easily take some selfish or even illegal actions, which would seriously harm the public interests. Whether they abuse their power completely depends on their moral qualities, no better way existing. Unfortunately, in reality, seldom were there politicians such creditable, whether in the past or at present, in high-civilized western nations or in the backward developing countries. Therefore, as long as politicians obtain this privilege of withholding information, the abuse of power and corruption will ensue inevitably. And the more privilege they obtain, the more corruption and abuse of power there will be! This is why the modern western societies usually imposed a great deal of rigid restrictions upon their political leaders. By contrast, the developing countries failed to do so, and thus seriously suffered from corruption and abuse of power.
Secondly, withholding information surely is a dishonest behavior, which will do harm to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities. To a large extent, by providing its citizens with proper education about morality and culture, and by penalizing immoral activities that damage other people’ interests, government is acting as a protector of honesty, probity, credit or other valuable moral qualities. Now that the protectors of these qualities--government and political leaders—could act dishonestly, other citizens such as the businessmen would also ask why they couldn’t. When more and more people begin to keep information from each other, the feelings of unfaith and distrust will gradually pervade through the nation and inevitably lead to the collapse of modern credit system in western societies.  
   Last but not least, the information-holding activities in political leaders, even if out of good-heart, sometimes, will often bring about hurried or false decision-makings, incurring a great detriment to public benefits. There is an illustrating event recently occurred in China. In the spring of this year, a mysterious fatal epidemic, SARS, burst out in Guangdong, a province in southern China. Worrying that it would cause unnecessary panics and negative influence upon economic growth, Chinese government resolved to withhold information from the public. Because Chinese government neglected the strong power of this virus and failed to take strong measures in time, soon, this virus spread into Hong Kong，Beijing, Singapore，Canada and then all over the world. As a consequent, numerous people were quarantined or infected, and among them many were killed. This vividly illustrates that any information-holding activity is really a gamble.  
In conclusion, if the political leaders obtain the privilege to act without informing the public, certainly the society as a whole will lose. Any civilized nation should impose enough restrains upon politicians to ensure its stability, probity and sustained prosperity. (510 words)

tomatoeggsUID: 82073

呵呵，原来好心的gteryy  mm已经如此细心的改了，不过还得上船我的拙作。

tomatoeggsUID: 82073

Issue 8 "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Syllabus:
Disagree;
1, it will do a severe detriment to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities.
2, there is a heavy odds in favor of corruption and abuse of power.
3, the means of entitling more freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected.

From the pragmatic perspective, it seems to be necessary or even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public, and which is especially true when there is a ever-lasting debate rooted in the great divergences of citizens in opinions or actual interests but a quick decision-making or a consolidated action is really needed. However, if we overemphasize the direct and immediate benefits from these information-withheld activities in political leaders, we will soon witness the rapid deterioration of morality and culture, and even the gradual collapse of modern political civilization that is intrinsic and crucial in the current western world to (改为towards)the permanent prosperity and progress. (不知在开头让步是否合适？可以的，不过就是别整天用太多的复杂句，因为这样很危险，表达会出问题的，我就是在这方面失分过。)

In the first place, if the politicians are encouraged to act in a dishonest or even deceptive way, however the purpose behind is lofty, it will do a severe detriment(这一句直接用will be detrimental to就行了。) to citizens’ beliefs in honesty and other vital moral qualities. In a sense, government is acting as a guardian and protector of basic moral qualities by providing its citizens with proper education about morality and culture, and by penalizing immoral activities that brought about loss of other people’ practical interests. Now that the protectors of morality--government and political leaders—could be given the right to lie or deceive, other citizens such as the businessmen（加however） will also ask why they couldn’t do the same. When more and more people begin to keep information from each other, the feeling of unfaith and distrust will gradually pervade through all over the nation and inevitably lead to the collapse of this credit society that modern people are proud of.

More direct and severe danger is the heavy oddsheavy odds?? in favor of corruption and abuse of power. If political leaders are entitled to withhold information from public, they could easily find their ways to take some selfish or even illegal actions that would severally harm the public interests. Whether do they(改为whether they have abused) abuse this power completely depends on their moral qualities, no existing of other better way to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, in reality, seldom there were so creditable and reliable politicians, whether in the past or at present, in high-civilized western nations or in the poorest third world. Few people can stand up to this fatal temptation. Therefore, as long as this privilege of deceiving is entitled to politicians, the abuse of power and corruption will ensue inevitably. And the more freedom, the more corruption and abuse of power there is! The primary reason for why the modern western societies are far more developed and less suffered（改为suffer less） from the corruption and abuse of power than most developing countries, in some sense, (少用插入语，以表达清晰为基准)is that western countries imposed a great deal of rigid restrictions and limitations upon their the political leaders while the developing countries failed to do so. 这里可以举一下“三权分立”的例子。

At last, when even the realistic concerns, which are widely regarded as the most favorable reasons for the information-withheld activities, is involved, the meansthe ways to of entitling more freedom to politicians does not always work well as expected. Maybe it is true under some circumstances that by permitting politicians to withhold information from the public, a quick decision and consolidated actions can be elicited没有这种表达 out. However, this will result in a significant and vivid degeneration in quality of decision and implementation. Take the environment preservation for example, there is a violent dispute between the environmentalists and the industries about how strong measures should be taken against the deterioration of environment: overprotection will lead to a large number of factories’ closedown and then the upsurge of unemployment while neglecting the problem will bring about severe contamination and consequently the decline in the level of citizens’ lives. If the public seek after quick decisions and immediate actions, and thus authorize the politicians to take actions without informing the public, these two improper implements are both likely to be put into force, which will finally happen rests with the personal propensity of political leaders. (回应开头处的让步) 建议最后一句重新整理一下。

In conclusion, if the political leaders obtain more(改为excessive 或者overdue) freedom to act at their pleasure, the society as a whole will certainly lose much. Any civilized nation should impose enough restrains upon politicians to ensure its stability, probity and sustained prosperity.

说理部分是不错的，但可以再加上比较具体的事例。这样会更加好。

happyman2000UID: 136936

多谢tomatoeggs！