【NINE小组】第八次作业--by spin.q(更新argue&issue已修改重新上传）)

ashtray_sUID：3008202

I concede that it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public ,especially when it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principal, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.

In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. Thus, the public is undoubtedly the only possible and the most powerful watchdog of the government. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to inspect his behavior, which is quite likely to lead to the abuse of power. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison eventually and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft during his 8-years time in power. While in 2000, when he was just elected as the leader of Taiwan, he was praised as the son of Taiwan who had been claiming integrity, democracy and honesty in front of his people. How many political leaders could promise that he could refuse temptation every time, especially when withholding information from the public becomes justifiable and the leaders are allowed undue freedom to use public resource to gain profit for himself?

Apart from that, the political leaders' holding information from the public is to some extent lying to their people and would greatly challenge the government's credibility. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. And after the scandal, in 1994, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result because how could citizens trust any leaders abusing their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all.

The government's willingness to reveal information to the public is more of an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.

oncoUID：3114426

I concede that it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, especially when it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principal, in principle? principal做主要的意思只放在名词前面，不然就是校长的意思== 还有为啥要加两个修饰词？ the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.




In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed breed我真没想到用这个词啊，不错╮(╯▽╰)╭political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. Thus, the public is undoubtedly the only possible and the most powerful watchdog of the government. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to inspect his behavior, which is quite likely to lead to the abuse of power. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison eventually (个人建议：可不可以把eventually 换个词或者去掉，总觉得有点奇怪的)and condemned by its people (as) the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft during his 8-year(要去掉s吧？好像记得要用单数)time in power. While in 2000, when he was just elected as the leader of Taiwan, he was praised as the son of Taiwan who had been (用was?后面用mention会不会好点)claiming integrity, democracy and honesty in front of his people. How many political leaders could promise that he could refuse temptation every time, especially when withholding information from the public becomes justifiable and the leaders are allowed undue freedom to use public resource to gain profit for himself? (这句话有点散乱…建议删减内容，或者变成两个句子，或者，调整顺序重新试一下。还有，they, he, himself的问题)




Apart from that, the political leaders' holding information from the public is to some extent lying to their people and would greatly challenge the government's credibility. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. And after the scandal, in 1994, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result because 去掉because, 请拆成两句话how could citizens trust any leaders abusing their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all. 最后一句没懂
这一段主要用水门事件和之后政府民意的下降来论证，隐瞒的第二个坏处，影响领导自身的支持率。我觉得例子的篇幅太多，论述可以增加一点点，例子能够精炼就精炼一点吧，虽然我觉得很难。



The government's willingness to reveal information to the public is more of an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.


这篇文章有很多我觉得比较出彩的词语和句型，可见作者是下了一番功夫的。论证也还比较清晰，虽然感觉事实上内容性并不强（我在写的时候也觉得没有写出什么东西）。

有一个很重要的问题要说，我也有点这个问题。就是有种故意制造一个句子的感觉，并不流畅。我感觉你在写作文的时候真心想展示很多东西，努力往上加，而且没有什么短句的，有些地方应该断开也没有断。我觉得，可能是汉语的习惯。汉语比较累赘。有个毛病，你可以参考一下国外的任意正常的文章，就是XX and XX的表达法其实不多，但是我们在习作中经常这么写，我现在感觉这样写很繁琐，很罗嗦，不知道你是否也这么想。此外还有一种结构我也在想可能有问题。就是and两边的表达感到很不平衡，读起来很不舒服。

我觉得好文章一看就知道，因为会很顺很能理会它在说什么。这点跟中文一样。

纯属个人观点，欢迎讨论。

ashtray_sUID：3008202

argue 163
The recommendation of daily use of nutritional supplements derived from beneficia is one that should be made with more careful consideration of evidence based on data and research. Many assumptions have been made in this argument and several questions are needed to be answered before the recommendation could be accepted.

Base on the fact that colds are the reason most frequently given for absenteeism, the author suggest that preventing colds would reduce absenteeism. However, the question is when those people are absent with the reason of colds, are they really getting a cold? If the answer is yes, the prevention of colds would definitely reduce absenteeism. However, if these people’s sickness are just mistaken as colds, it is better for the administrator to find the real cause of their sickness. Or if these are just pretexts for absenteeism, the prevention of colds might need to give place to the prevention of malpractice.

The argument is weakened by the fact that it fails to establish a casual relationship between the high assumption of beneficial and the low incidence of cold. What is the main contributor of the high consumption of beneficia? Is it mainly bought by local people for eating? It is quite possible that EM produces large amount of beneficia every year, most of which are used for export. Or local people buy large amount beneficia for some other purposes such as decoration, rather than eating. In both situation, the high assumption of beneficia has no bearing on how much beneficia local people eat as the arguer has assumed. Given local people eat substantial amount of beneficia, the author fails to rule out other factors that may contribute to the low incidence of cold. It is at least likely that the climate in EM is not quite comfortable with cold. Or local people may exercise a lot that they are fit enough to be free from cold. Thus, unless the author could establish the main contributor of the high consumption of beneficia and the real cause of the low incidence of cold, he/she cannot convince me that the there is a connection between them.

Apart from that, several other questions need to be considered before making the final decision. Does the situation of EW applies to our city as well? Is the effect of the nutritional supplements the same as that of the plant? What is the cost of those nutritional supplements? Would there be any side-effects to use these nutritional supplements every day?

The argument above just scratches the surface of what is to be done to reduce absenteeism. In order to substantially solve the problem. Much more work is needed before the suggestion of daily use of nutritional supplements derived from beneficia is accepted.

ashtray_sUID：3008202

I concede that it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public. When it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principle, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.

In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to guard their own resource and interest, which is quite likely to lead to corruption. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft. During his 8-years time in power, he had been trying to withhold his shady deal from the public based on a concern for self-interest. If people in Taiwan had been informed of what their leader was really doing with the power given by them all the time, it is at least possible that people would deprive Chan of his power promptly. Thus, never would Chan have such a chance to gain so much profit for himself. It might be unnecessary to fully disclose every personal details concerning the political leaders’ personal life, when it comes to the public interest, however, the disclosure of information is definitely precondition for the public to guard their own interest and prevent corruption.

The political leaders' withholding information from the public would greatly challenge the government's credibility. People’s confidence and trust is built up on the basis of the government’s integrity—total transparency. Nobody would like to be cheated, especially by someone they used to and want to trust. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. People were so disappointed because their leaders never told them the real facts—their leaders used lies to conceal their real crimes ? And after the scandal, in 1974, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result. How could citizens trust a government who abuses their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all.

Moreover, withholding information from the public would even bring significant losses to the whole nation. In many circumstances, a government tries to conceal information due to their fear for the possible blame and hysteria from the public. This hesitation, however, often result in missing the best time to solve problems and cause even more serious consequences. The spread of SARS in China is greatly due to the concealment of the public leaders. The political leaders had being trying to cover up the scale of the disease before it eventually became a nationwide pandemic and killed thousands of Chinese people. If, according to medical experts, the government had informed the public in time, effective preventive measures would be taken and the spread of the disease could be stopped. It can be said without exaggeration that it is the political leaders’ concealment of information that killed those people.

Revealing information to the public reflect an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.
我把第二段大改了一遍，觉得me那个例子挺好的，所以用自己的话新写了一段，觉得这个例子比较好说一点···

panmingming2008UID：2535351

4# ashtray_s

I concede that 【用观点直接表明你怎样的concession】 it is sometimes necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public. When it comes to such issues as national security and military strategy, it is even the government's responsibility to keep information from the public for the reason that political leaders are expected to guarantee the safety of their people. However, in most case, or let's say in principle, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests. In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to guard their own resource and interest, which is quite likely to lead to corruption. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft. During his 8-years time in power, he had been trying to withhold his shady deal from the public based on a concern for self-interest. If people in Taiwan had been informed of what their leader was really doing with the power given by them all the time, it is at least possible that people would deprive Chan of his power promptly. Thus, never would Chan have such a chance to gain so much profit for himself. It might be unnecessary to fully disclose every personal details concerning the political leaders’ personal life, when it comes to the public interest, however, the disclosure of information is definitely precondition for the public to guard their own interest and prevent corruption. The political leaders' withholding information from the public would greatly challenge the government's credibility. People’s confidence and trust is built up on the basis of the government’s integrity—total transparency. Nobody would like to be cheated, especially by someone they used to and want to trust. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. People were so disappointed because their leaders never told them the real facts—their leaders used lies to conceal their real crimes ? And after the scandal, in 1974, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result. How could citizens trust a government who abuses their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all. Moreover, withholding information from the public would even bring significant losses to the whole nation. In many circumstances, a government tries to conceal information due to their fear for the possible blame and hysteria from the public. This hesitation, however, often result in missing the best time to solve problems and cause even more serious consequences. The spread of SARS in China is greatly due to the concealment of the public leaders. The political leaders had being trying to cover up the scale of the disease before it eventually became a nationwide pandemic and killed thousands of Chinese people. If, according to medical experts, the government had informed the public in time, effective preventive measures would be taken and the spread of the disease could be stopped. It can be said without exaggeration that it is the political leaders’ concealment of information that killed those people. Revealing information to the public reflect an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision. 我把第二段大改了一遍，觉得me那个例子挺好的，所以用自己的话新写了一段，觉得这个例子比较好说一点··· BEN: 好处是观点清晰。不足是你的三个main point都在说withhold info的坏处---此处的问题是没有考虑withhold有时保密的必要性或合理性。若得分低是因为没有考虑complexity。 请再改。

【任务1】


不明白的地方再查阅之前的文章，及前面的《段落写作》。


拓展阅读：
New book tells us how to tell it simply 【任务2，用不超过3句话概括核心内容。然后再把你的习作全文改一次，跟帖。】


tip: 当你觉得改不动时，再这样想：我改，我好好改，让BEN没办法再改动一个词。让见鬼的教师全都失业去：）

oncoUID：3114426

3# ashtray_s


The recommendation of daily use of nutritional supplements derived from beneficia is one that should be made with more careful consideration of evidence based on data and research. Many assumptions have been made in this argument and several questions are needed to be answered before the recommendation could be accepted.
[第一段写得很干净利落哈。]
Base on the fact that colds are the reason most frequently given for absenteeism, the author suggest(suggests) that preventing colds would reduce absenteeism. However, the question is when those people are absent with the reason of colds, are they really getting a cold(colds, 统一用复数吧)? If the answer is yes, the prevention of colds would definitely reduce absenteeism. However, if these people’s sickness are(sicknesses are) just mistaken as colds, it is better for the administrator to find the real cause of their sickness. [这句话那个mistaken是说被误解？或者想说，是借口？建议重新考虑这句话]Or if these are just pretexts for absenteeism, the prevention of colds might need to give place to the prevention of malpractice.
[这一段说的是colds和absenteeism关系不明. 恩，学习了作者的pretext 和 malpractice的用词。]

The argument is weakened by the fact that it fails to establish a casual(causal?) relationship between the high assumption of beneficial(beneficia) and the low incidence of cold. What is the main contributor of the high consumption of beneficia? Is it mainly bought by local people for eating? It is quite possible that EM produces large amount of beneficia every year, most of which are used for export. [出口量大和consumption量大没关吧？]Or local people buy large amount beneficia for some other purposes such as decoration, rather than eating. In both situation(situations), the high assumption of beneficia has no bearing on how much beneficia local people eat as the arguer has assumed. Given local people eat substantial amount of beneficia, the author fails to rule out other factors that may contribute to the low incidence of cold(用colds, 做感冒讲不然就要加冠词a，下同). It is at least likely that the climate in EM is not quite comfortable with cold. [comfortable用在这里很奇怪，还有那个it is at least likely是什么意思？我真不是很懂。]Or local people may exercise a lot that they are fit enough to be free from cold. Thus, unless the author could establish the main contributor of the high consumption of beneficia and the real cause of the low incidence of cold, he/she cannot convince me that the there is a connection between them.
[这一段讲了beneficia怎么导致感冒减少的原因不明。]
Apart from that, several other questions need to be considered before making the final decision. Does the situation of EW applies(apply) to our city as well? Is the effect of the nutritional supplements the same as that of the plant? What is the cost of those nutritional supplements? Would there be any side-effects to use these nutritional supplements every day?
[这段明显在紧扣题目的要求。]
The argument above just scratches the surface of what is to be done to reduce absenteeism. In order to substantially solve the problem.Much(,much) more work is needed before the suggestion of daily use of nutritional supplements derived from beneficia is accepted.

[感觉这篇文章逻辑很清晰，主要就是从两个方面在提出问题，但是我觉得是主要的问题，所以内容没有太大的问题。句子有点点长，感觉不是很够简练。不知道lz有不有限时，感觉小错误多了点。]

清枫awormUID：2817320

顶楼主···赞一个···

van19UID：3044373

请问：issue题库中关于写作说明的六类要求中，以下两类在写的时候有什么不同？即侧重点有何不同
个人感觉是有点小区别，但是又说不清，在描述上的主要区别已加黑显示了，好像一个是建议，要写cumstances，还有一个要写ways，但是具体就说不太清楚，题库中有题干一模一样，但是问法不同的，所以不知道如何处理，还请赐教~不胜感激~~

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or dis-
agree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take.
In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which
the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considera-
tions shape your position.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or dis-
agree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position
you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific cir-
cumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be
advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

ashtray_sUID：3008202

8# van19

其实我个人理解这两类题型本质上就是让你看待问题要考虑两面性，第一种就是陈述观点的时候要自我否定，第二种也是在阐述对建议的看法的时候要充分考虑它的有效性。个人意见哈，仅供参考。话说我觉得下面这个帖子总结的挺好的，你看看吧~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1269737-1-1.html

ashtray_sUID：3008202

5# panmingming2008

Although political transparency is advocated by more and more people calling on democracy, political leaders are still withholding all kinds of information from the public, either in the name of national security or out of concern about self-interest. Sometimes, it is necessary for the government to withhold information from the public. In most cases, however, the public should not be deprived of their right to access any information concerning their interests.

In the first place, withholding information from the public may breed political corruption. As the manager of society, political leaders are empowered by their citizens to determine the rules of the game and allocation of resources in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. When a political leader is withholding information from the public, however, he is depriving people's right to guard their own resource and interest, which is quite likely to lead to corruption. The previous leader of Taiwan, Chen Shuibian, was sent into prison and condemned by its people the shame of Taiwan because of his incredible amount of graft. During his 8-years time in power, he had been trying to withhold his shady deal from the public based on a concern for self-interest. If people in Taiwan had been informed of what their leader was really doing with the power given by them all the time, it is at least possible that people would deprive Chan of his power promptly. Thus, never would Chan have such a chance to gain so much profit for himself. It might be unnecessary to fully disclose every personal details concerning the political leaders’ personal life, when it comes to the public interest, however, the disclosure of information is definitely precondition for the public to guard their own interest and prevent corruption.

The political leaders' withholding information from the public would greatly challenge the government's credibility. People’s confidence and trust is built up on the basis of the government’s integrity—total transparency. Nobody would like to be cheated, especially by someone they used to and want to trust. The Watergate affairs invoked public cynicism toward a government that had systematically lied to the people and violated their civil rights. People were so disappointed because their leaders never told them the real facts—their leaders used lies to conceal their real crimes ? And after the scandal, in 1974, a poll asked people how much faith they had in the executive branch of government. Only 14percent answered "a great deal" and 43 percent said "hardly any. The government credibility was confronted with unprecedented challenge. It is not difficult to expect such a result. How could citizens trust a government who abuses their trust and fool them? Query whether such government can be called a democratic government at all.

Moreover, withholding information from the public would even bring significant losses to the whole nation. In many circumstances, a government tries to conceal information due to their fear for the possible blame and hysteria from the public. This hesitation, however, often result in missing the best time to solve problems and cause even more serious consequences. The spread of SARS in China is greatly due to the concealment of the public leaders. The political leaders had being trying to cover up the scale of the disease before it eventually became a nationwide pandemic and killed thousands of Chinese people. If, according to medical experts, the government had informed the public in time, effective preventive measures would be taken and the spread of the disease could be stopped. It can be said without exaggeration that it is the political leaders’ concealment of information that killed those people.

Despite people’s right to be informed of information concerning their interest, sometimes, it is necessary for the government to withhold certain information from the public. When it comes to the national security and military strategy, it is even the governments’ responsibility to maintain secrecy. During World War Two, the Allies’ successful landing on Normandy is greatly due to Germans’ ignorance of defence in that area. If, for example, the United States had informed its people that Allies would land on Normandy, Germans would know it at once and dispose troops beforehand. If so, whether Allies would land on Normandy successfully remains a question, not to mention the success of the World War Two. In this case, withholding the military strategy is responsible for the security of the whole world and is definitely necessary.

Revealing information to the public reflect an attitude of the government—a respect for its people, a courage to face the possible censure from the public and a concern for the interest of the democratic system—which is decisive for a nation’s future. Only by recognizing the substance of holding the information from the public and concerning about the possible outcomes could a politic leader make the right decision.

谢谢老师不厌其烦的指正~~！其实我之前也想到过withhold information有时候是必要的那个问题，但因为觉得想不到合适的例子觉得不好展开，就直接把反面的那点放在首段提及了一下。这次把首段大改了一遍把让步的那点专门放了一段，这样应该会好一点。。要是真正写起来的话写正面的应该会只写腐败和带来损失那两点···

任务二：Be short, concise, and interesting enough to grasp and hold the readers. The art in writing lies in choosing the best combination of words to say what you mean.