【NINE小组】第八次作业—by wywcgs

wywcgsUID: 2565269

这次貌似写多了……

Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

----------------------------------

The problem that whether the political leads should show the information to public is controversial. Some people believes that keeping information secret is necessary or even desirable in order to make the working of government easier, while the others persist that people have the rights to know everything they want to. I fundamentally agree with the latter statement, where the difference is I don’t think the fully informed rights of public is unrestrained.

Admittedly, keeping information full secret would be beneficial to the society in a short period. Without publishing its choice, government leader will suffer from fewer impediments made by people who against it hence can finish many work rapidly. For instance, Soviet Union’s initial development is the contribution of full information secretion. Without impediments, Soviet government expressed surprising acting ability and high efficiency, which contributed to the thriving of Soviet Union at the beginning of its development. In this aspect, secretion seems to be good for a society.

However, such secretion is proved to be detrimental to the stability of a society in long term. Without publishing information, government will receive no supervising. The government officer who owned unrestrained power will eventually abuse it, which leads to a seriously corrupted government at last. When people become more and more unsatisfied with this government, the society is at a risk of going to chaos. Despite the initial development, the Soviet Union collapsed at last due to the corruption led by the absolute government power. The outgrowth of development led by full information secretion was in fact an illusory devastated by the secretion itself. It’s sufficient to illustrate that the information secretion is harmful to society.

In the aspect of right and duty, the public’s informed right also has its justification. People make their contribution to the society via many ways such as taxing, so they have the rights to know the information of things they contribute to. The government is only a manager of public possession but not the owner of it, so it’s the duty of government to publish information related to the cost of people. Information in these fields should be published with no excuse.

But it doesn’t mean that the informed right is no bounds. In some specific conditions, keeping information secret is necessary. We should not anticipate that people were all rational and composed, so it’s better to keep the information secret if it would cause a widespread chaos, such as the information about the shortage of food, water and so on, until it was well solved. In my home city, once a day there was an accident about the pollution of the source of water, and everyone brought superfluous water after they knew this information, worrying about they have no water to use or drink otherwise. In fact it was not so serious as everyone thought, and most water they brought were kept intact when the water source were successfully purified. If such information was kept secret at first, there should be no so many trouble caused by the ignorance of people.

To sum up, publishing information is good for a society in general, but it is also required caution in some significant fields. The government leader should use his wisdom to discriminate these conditions carefully.

gengshuUID: 3012360

The problem that whether the political leads should show the information to public is controversial. Some people believes that keeping information secret is necessary or even desirable in order to make the working of government easier, while the others persist that people have the rights to know everything they want to. I fundamentally agree with the latter statement, where the difference is I don’t think the fully informed rights of public is unrestrained.
开头观点简洁易懂，同意后一种看法

Admittedly, keeping information full secret would be beneficial to the society in a short period. Without publishing its choice, government leader will suffer from fewer impediments made by people who against it hence can finish many work rapidly. For instance, Soviet Union’s initial development is the contribution of full information secretion. Without impediments, Soviet government expressed surprising acting ability and high efficiency, which contributed to the thriving of Soviet Union at the beginning of its development. In this aspect, secretion seems to be good for a society.
完全的信息保密可能有好处
However, such secretion is proved to be detrimental to the stability of a society in long term. Without publishing information, government will receive no supervising. The government officer who owned unrestrained power will eventually abuse it, which leads to a seriously corrupted government at last. When people become more and more unsatisfied with this government, the society is at a risk of going to chaos. Despite the initial development, the Soviet Union collapsed at last due to the corruption led by the absolute government power. The outgrowth of development led by full information secretion was in fact an illusory devastated by the secretion itself. It’s sufficient to illustrate that the information secretion is harmful to society.
但长远来讲还是不好（我觉得这段如果和上一段合起来会不会更好一点呢？毕竟例子还是有关联的）
In the aspect of right and duty, the public’s informed right also has its justification. People make their contribution to the society via many ways such as taxing, so they have the rights to know the information of things they contribute to. The government is only a manager of public possession but not the owner of it, so it’s the duty of government to publish information related to the cost of people.（这块感觉cost of people概念有点模糊，在说清楚一点就好啦） Information in these fields should be published with no excuse.
公众有知情权
But it doesn’t mean that the informed right is no bounds. In some specific conditions, keeping information secret is necessary. We should not anticipate that people were all rational and composed, so it’s better to keep the information secret if it would cause a widespread chaos, such as the information about the shortage of food, water and so on, until it was well solved. In my home city, once a day there was an accident about the pollution of the source of water, and everyone brought superfluous water after they knew this information, worrying about they have no water to use or drink otherwise. In fact it was not so serious as everyone thought, and most water they brought were kept intact when the water source were successfully purified. If such information was kept secret at first, there should be no so many trouble caused by the ignorance of people.
有些时候还是要信息保密
To sum up, publishing information is good for a society in general, but it is also required caution in some significant fields. The government leader should use his wisdom to discriminate these conditions carefully.
每段都有各自的分论点，而且很明确，这点不错。有一点，我觉得你说信息要保密的观点是不是用的篇幅有点多呢，毕竟你还是认为信息要公开的。
都是个人观点啊，有说的不到的还请见谅
加油加油~~

wywcgsUID: 2565269

An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where consumption of the plant beneficia is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of beneficia can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of nutritional supplements derived from beneficia. We predict this will dramatically reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

---------------------------

In this argument, the arguer is trying to persuade us that the nutritional supplements derived from beneficia have the function to reduce absenteeism. To prove his conclusion, he argues that beneficia is able to cure colds by observing a phenomenon that people eating beneficia in a specific region can prevent colds which is believed to be the major reason of absenteeism. Although the statement seems to be plausible, the arguer fails to notice some essential questions, which makes his reason less convincing.

First of all, the arguer didn’t answer the question that whether beneficia was the major factor of cold prevention in East Meria. It’s not necessary true that beneficia can prevent colds only by observing the simultaneous occurrence of both of them. People in East Meria may have many habits of which eating beneficia is only one. Maybe there is another habit independent to beneficia which is good for preventing colds. It’s also possible that people in East Meria is used to add some seasoning when cooking beneficia, and it’s such seasoning but not the beneficia itself that is good to immune colds. There are many possible reasons to explain why people in East Meria can prevent colds, and eating beneficia is mere common one.

Even we concede that the beneficia is good to immune colds, the arguer failed to prove the nutritional supplements have the same function as beneficia. Without experiments, we don’t know which chemical matter in beneficia make it good to prevent colds. Maybe the company which made the supplements didn’t refine correct elements in beneficia, which led to the result that the supplements were useless to prevent colds. It’s also possible that the supplements were made for patients suffering from other diseases which beneficia had substantially proved to be useful to cure hence could not used to prevent colds. The arguer should provide more experiments to illustrate the function of nutritional supplements before he persuaded people to take them.

Even the arguer answered all above questions perfectly, he could not conclude that the absenteeism eventually decreased. For one reason, one may not actually catch a cold although he claimed that. When someone doesn’t want to go to school or workplace, catching a cold is usually a good excuse because of its commonplace. A research is required to find how much absenteeism in all of them was actually directed by colds. Suggestion about taking supplements is meaningful only when the percentage is heavy. Another reason is that we don’t know the byproduct of these nutritional supplements. If it could cause some serious diseases which hadn’t appeared before, absenteeism may even ironically increase.

To sum up, the efficiency of a medicine is so not easily studied as the arguer thought. Though his target that reducing absenteeism is good enough, a further research is required to make all affects of the medicine clear.

gengshuUID: 3012360

In this argument, the arguer is trying to persuade us that the nutritional supplements derived from beneficia have the function to reduce absenteeism. To prove his conclusion, he argues that beneficia is able to cure colds by observing a phenomenon that people eating beneficia in a specific region can prevent colds which is believed to be the major reason of absenteeism. Although the statement seems to be plausible, the arguer fails to notice some essential questions, which makes his reason less convincing.
提出了观点并呼应了写作要求

First of all, the arguer didn’t answer the question that whether beneficia was the major factor of cold prevention in East Meria. It’s not necessary true that beneficia can prevent colds only by observing the simultaneous occurrence of both of them.（这句话要支持主题句的话最好还是要写清楚一点，让人理解起来有点困难） People in East Meria may have many habits of which eating beneficia is only one. Maybe there is another habit independent to beneficia which is good for preventing colds. It’s also possible that people in East Meria is used to add some seasoning when cooking beneficia, and it’s such seasoning but not the beneficia itself that is good to immune colds. There are many possible reasons to explain why people in East Meria can prevent colds, and eating beneficia is mere common one.
beneficia不一定是预防感冒的主要因素

Even we concede that the beneficia is good to immune colds, the arguer failed to prove the nutritional supplements have the same function as beneficia. Without experiments, we don’t know which chemical matter in beneficia make it good to prevent colds. Maybe the company which made the supplements didn’t refine correct elements in beneficia, which led to the result that the supplements were useless to prevent colds. It’s also possible that the supplements were made for patients suffering from other diseases which beneficia had substantially proved to be useful to cure hence could not used to prevent colds. The arguer should provide more experiments to illustrate the function of nutritional supplements before he persuaded people to take them.
nutritional supplements 不一定和beneficia有同样的效果

Even the arguer answered all above questions perfectly, he could not conclude that the absenteeism eventually decreased. For one reason, one may not actually catch a cold although he claimed that. When someone doesn’t want to go to school or workplace, catching a cold is usually a good excuse because of its commonplace. A research is required to find how much absenteeism in all of them was actually directed by colds. Suggestion about taking supplements is meaningful only when the percentage is heavy. Another reason is that we don’t know the byproduct（我觉得用副作用更好一点side effect） of these nutritional supplements. If it could cause some serious diseases which hadn’t appeared before, absenteeism may even ironically increase.
请假的人不一定真的感冒了

To sum up, the efficiency of a medicine is so（这个读者有点别扭） not easily studied as the arguer thought. Though his target that reducing absenteeism is good enough, a further research is required to make all affects of the medicine clear.

其实你写的思路和我基本上是一样的，感觉写的比我好
加油~

senmUID: 3236085

2# gengshu mark!!