issue8 政治类.请大家批评

DriverEntryUID: 143979

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

There is a hot debate about the issue that if political leaders should often withhold information from the public. Some people who support the statement argue that withholding some information which has negative effects to politicians is good to them to maintain their political power; others who oppose the statement claim that the public should know everything that is happening in the country. As far as I am concerned, neither of the above opinions is correct, I accept that politicians have the right to announce or withhold the information, but they must do it according to the benefit of the whole society, not of themselves.

Firstly, the publics are the owners of a country, so they have the right to know what's going on in the society. In ancient China, feudalism is the dominant system. The King was the only owner of the country; the public, or the common people, were just servants of the King. Therefore, they had no right and chances to know much information which they should know. For instance, almost every peasant turned in a heavy tax every year, but they seldom knew, if ever, how the money was spended. Maybe it used to build a dam to protect flood; maybe it used to build a luxury palace for the King to live at times; maybe it just waste by the King. However, we now live in a democratic society, and people become the owners of the country. The government officials are selected by all the people, and the constitutions of China also alleges that the government represents the majority of people. So we have the right to know what's going on in this country.

Secondly, if some political leaders irresponsibly withhold some critical information, the result will be dangerous to the common people. The eruption of SARS in Beijing in 2003 is a case in point. During SARS eruption, there are dozens of people died of it. But this tragedy could be avoided if some precautions had been applied. Unfortunately, the mayor of Beijing withheld the actual facts of SARS at first in order to maintain his achievements. Although the mayor was deposed at last, the dead people will never resurrect again. In such case, to withhold the information of the spread of illness is in some sense to murder.

On the other hand, some top secrets of the country should not be announced to the public in case of the divulgement of the secrets. Admittedly, most people in the society have patriotism, but it is also possible that there are some betrayers or spies hided in the public. If they know some important information of the country, they will sell it to the enemies and lead to inconceivable results. For example, imagine a country wants to assail his inimical neighboring country, then the politician can not announce the concrete time and location of the assault. On the country, he or she should keep that information as secret as possible. Otherwise, his troop will probably be defeated and the country will lose the battle.

To sum up, information is an important tool to the political leaders. If the leaders use it well and announce the proper information to the public, it will help the country develop quickly and healthily; if the leaders can not handle it properly, the country as well as the leaders themselves will suffer horrible results. The criterion in dealing with the information is that the benefit of the public is the most significant.

豌豆UID: 144569

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

There is a hot debate about the issue that if political leaders should often withhold information from the public. Some people who support the statement argue that withholding some information which has negative effects to politicians is good to(for) them to maintain their political power; others who oppose the statement claim that the public should know everything that is happening in the country. As far as I am concerned, neither of the above opinions is correct, I accept that politicians have the right to announce or withhold the information, but they must do it according to the benefit of the whole society, not of themselves.
第一段十分明显地提出了观点,认为应该以国家的利益为中心决定是否withhold information,并且顺带说了两个基本的理由,语言比较平实,但很清楚,在下文中只要继续围绕国家的利益就ok了.
Firstly, the publics are the owners of a country, so they have the right to know what's going on in the society. In ancient China, feudalism is the dominant system. The King was the only owner of the country; the public, or the common people, were just servants of the King. Therefore, they had no right and chances to know much information which they should know. For instance, almost every peasant turned in a heavy tax every year, but they seldom knew, if ever, how the money was spended. Maybe it used to build a dam to protect flood; maybe it used to build a luxury palace for the King to live at times; maybe it just waste (wasted)by the King. However,(这个however并没有显示出与前面的对比啊,后面也只是罗列现象,并没有围绕着说这种专制损害国家利益) we now live in a democratic society, and people become the owners of the country. The government officials are selected by all the people, and the constitutions of China also alleges that the government represents the majority of people. So we have the right to know what's going on in this country.

Secondly, if some political leaders irresponsibly withhold some critical information, the result will be dangerous to the common people. The eruption of SARS in Beijing in 2003 is a case in point. During SARS eruption, there are dozens of people died of it. But this tragedy could be avoided if some precautions had been applied. Unfortunately, the mayor of Beijing withheld the actual facts of SARS at first in order to maintain his achievements. Although the mayor was deposed at last, the dead people will never resurrect again. In such case, to withhold the information of the spread of illness is in some sense to murder.这个例子用在这里很恰当!好!但是复杂句少了点.

On the other hand, some top secrets of the country should not be announced to the public in case of the divulgement of the secrets. Admittedly, most people in the society have patriotism, but it is also possible that there are some betrayers or spies hided in the public. If they know some important information of the country, they will sell it to the enemies and lead to inconceivable results. For example, imagine a country wants to assail his inimical neighboring country, then the politician can not announce the concrete time and location of the assault. On the country, he or she should keep that information as secret as possible. Otherwise, his troop will probably be defeated and the country will lose the battle.

To sum up, information is an important tool to the political leaders. If the leaders use it well and announce the proper information to the public, it will help the country develop quickly and healthily; if the leaders can not handle it properly, the country as well as the leaders themselves will suffer horrible results. The criterion in dealing with the information is that the benefit of the public is the most significant.
看到这里,总的来说写的还不错,但论证欠严密，写的句子不够复杂,(我就不展开讨论句子复杂程度对文章的重要性了,这个问题争议已久,呵呵).
说一下我的看法,什么是国家的利益,大局的利益,当然是老百姓的利益,当然是生活在这个国家的大多数人,是大多数,所以,我觉得很有必要把这一点写进去,另外,我不觉得每个老百姓都有爱国心,更多的应该是好奇心,但为了国民的利益,比如战争关头，就不应该spread一些东西.不过,这些都是小问题啦,哈哈,好久没有到论坛上来了,一激动,就说了这么多,也不知道最近的规章制度咋样了............... ;)

小猪猪~~UID: 155090

最初由 DriverEntry 发布
[B]8."It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public"

There is a hot debate about the issue that if political leaders should often withhold information from the public. Some people who support the statement argue that withholding some information which has negative effects to politicians is good to them to maintain their political power; others who oppose the statement claim that the public should know everything that is happening in the country. As far as I am concerned, neither of the above opinions is correct, I accept that politicians have the right to announce or withhold the information, but they must do it according to the benefit of the whole society, not of themselves.

Firstly, the publics are the owners of a country, so they have the right to know what's going on in the society. In ancient China, feudalism is the dominant system. The King was the only owner of the country; the public, or the common people, were just servants of the King. Therefore, they had no right and chances to know much information which they should know. For instance, almost every peasant turned in a heavy tax every year, but they seldom knew, if ever, how the money was spended这个错是不是该打?. Maybe it(was) used to build a dam to protect flood; maybe it used to build a luxury palace for the King to live at times; maybe it just waste by the King 和前面的情况有点重复了. However, we now live in a democratic society, and people become the owners of the country. The government officials are selected by all the people, 去掉,and the constitutions of China also alleges that the government represents the majority of people. So we have the right to know what's going on in this country. 觉得有道理,但是例子逻辑有点不太紧密,而且这个例子政治色彩太浓了,老美会不会不喜欢呀

Secondly, if some political leaders irresponsibly withhold some critical information, the result will be dangerous to the common people. The eruption of SARS in Beijing in 2003 is a case in point. During SARS eruption, there are dozens of people died of it. But this tragedy could be avoided if some precautions had been applied. Unfortunately, the mayor of Beijing withheld the actual facts of SARS at first in order to maintain his achievements. Although the mayor was deposed at last, the dead people will never resurrect again. In such case, to withhold the information of the spread of illness is in some sense to murder.这句话真好,我已经记到我的小本本里啦~~

On the other hand, some top secrets of the country should not be announced to the public in case of the divulgement of the secrets. Admittedly, most people in the society have patriotism, but it is also possible that there are some betrayers or spies hided in the public. If they know some important information of the country, they will sell it to the enemies and lead to inconceivable results. For example, imagine a country wants to assail his inimical neighboring country, then the politician can not announce the concrete time and location of the assault. On the country, he or she should keep that information as secret as possible. Otherwise, his troop will probably be defeated and the country will lose the battle.

To sum up, information is an important tool to the political leaders. If the leaders use it well and announce the proper information to the public, it will help the country develop quickly and healthily; if the leaders can not handle it properly, the country as well as the leaders themselves will suffer horrible results. The criterion in dealing with the information is that the benefit of the public is the most significant.

文章清晰明了
语言上也很不错
就是我觉得例子太多了,论证相对的少,而且思路也不是很新颖,
虽然离六分还有一定的距离,但是我要能写出这样的文章也就知足了


[/B]

DriverEntryUID: 143979

多谢2位热心的批改。
TO：豌豆，你来自杭州？我在杭州呆了10年。不过现在回天津了。呵呵。

ducklingUID: 148714

同意楼上几位的看法，我再重复一遍，提几点建议。
1。文章思路很顺，语言也很流畅，不过简单句太多，这样很损
文章形象的。
2。 我不知道对不对，好象很多地方不是很赞成这样的开头的？

DriverEntryUID: 143979

看来我的问题还是很明显的。现在解释一下
1、写文章时确实没过多考虑句子结构。原因是以前写的几篇文章在表达内容上都存在缺陷，所以这篇先力求把内容讲清楚。以后我会兼顾句子长短的，呵呵。
2、文章开头用了以前写TOEFL作文的方法，确实有点偷懒。原因同上，主要是写的时候还没很多精力提炼这些地方。
这么多同志帮我看文章，心里热乎乎的说。 ：）