Issue8,写完就郁闷了，越写越差！！

sydUID: 151948

贴出来大家往死了拍砖。很惭愧啊！  :(
都不知怎么办了，限时之后写作的灵感，全没了 :(

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


Nowadays the issue that if the pubic should share all the information from the government so that they can better understand what the officers, especially the political leaders have done to the society is under a hot discussion. According to my personal experience and both the negative and positive facts I have heard or witnessed, I think it is understandable and rational for the political leader to with hold some of the information from the public for the greater good of the society as a whole.But whether it is helpful for the public and the leaders depends on the detailed situation.

The first point I am trying to make, which I consider to be the fundamental lap between the political leaders and the public, is that it is impossible for the populace to make judgments of the information from the government in a nationwide perspective. Sometimes, due to their innate conformity to the larger groups of people, they easily form their ideas on a fractional side of the varied views toward certain matters. What is more, this conformity is likely to pose panic. A case in point is the panic arose in China when the pandemic disease, SARS, which can lead to death and no current treatment, could help. When the disease first appeared in the south China, the leaders of the local government withheld the information to the public to avoid mass panic, set down to quarantine the affected patients, and tried their best to prevent the unaffected people.  By the time SARS had been wide spread to the rest of the country and lead to nationwide panic, on the contrary, the south China provinces were in good order. Imagine that if the government share the information of how disastrous SARS could be, no chance would the government leaders solve the problem with ease compared to other regions of China, where the arrival of SARS was announced to the public as a warning.

However, preventing the public from being informed is somewhat a double-aged sword. The role it played is decided by the political leaders and the time and circumstances the leader and the government was in. Here I cite the panic caused by SARS in Beijing, China as a typical example. By the time SARS had spread to Beijing, there had been a lot unofficial news about the disease; some claimed that Beijing was also involved in the affected area. The political leaders of Beijing government, including the minister of national health, decided to withhold the fact that Beijing was affected to ensure the normal order of the capital. However, as stated above, it is obvious that since there had been a lot of unofficial news existed, the situation did not allow any lie to the public anymore, in contrast, and the only solution to prevent panic was the truth. Tragically, many of the uninformed residents died without a notice, and finally the mass panic arose.

In addition, when the political leaders are to make a far-fetched plan for the nation, it is quite helpful when they hide the information about the cost of the plan in order to avoid complains. As no plan will benefit all the people in different social status, withholding some negative information will gain more support, and thus help fulfill the plan.

To sum up, it is not always helpful or obstructive to withhold information from the public for the political leaders to fulfill their obligation. Any of this kind of action must rely on the detailed situation or it will inevitably pose serious problems.
577 words, 46mins ,in pp3.

imongUID: 140258

并没有你自己感觉中那么糟糕吧。我觉得还可以呢。前两段的论点都还不错（第一个body最好能再强调一下withhold info带来的积极效果）

Nowadays the issue that if the pubic should share（public拿出information?好像share是这个意思的样子） all the information from the government so that they can better understand what the officers, especially the political leaders have done to the society is under a hot discussion. According to my personal experience and both the negative and positive facts I have heard or witnessed, I think it is understandable and rational for the political leader to with hold some of the information from the public for the greater good of the society as a whole.But whether it is helpful for the public and（这个and再考虑，句义希望能够再清楚一些） the leaders depends on the detailed situation.

The first point I am trying to make, which I consider to be the fundamental lap between the political leaders and the public, is that it is impossible for the populace to make judgments of the information from the government in a nationwide perspective. Sometimes, due to their innate conformity（也许innate tendency/preference/inclination之类的表达更合适） to the larger groups of people, they easily form their ideas on a fractional side of the varied views toward certain matters.（fractional和conformity中间其实最好还能再衔接以下，不过现在这样也没什么大问题，看上去并没感到如何不舒服） What is more, this conformity is likely to pose panic. A case in point is the panic arose in China when the pandemic disease, SARS, which can lead to death and no current treatment, could help.（检查SVO！when sars 怎么了？） When the disease first appeared in the south China, the leaders of the local government withheld the information to the public to avoid mass panic, set down to quarantine the affected patients（可以直接用those affected）, and tried their best to prevent（似乎不搭配） the unaffected people. By the time SARS had been wide spread to the rest of the country and lead to nationwide panic, on the contrary, the south China provinces were in good order. Imagine that if the government share（disclose？） the information of how disastrous SARS could be, no chance would the government leaders solve the problem with ease compared to other regions of China, where the arrival of SARS was announced to the public as a warning.可能光是with ease还不太够，不过仍然：已经写得还可以了。

However, preventing the public from being informed is somewhat a double-aged sword. The role it played is decided by the political leaders and the time and circumstances the leader and the government was in.（连着用了3个and，难道不能用逗号吗？） Here I cite the panic caused by SARS in Beijing, China as a typical example. By the time SARS had spread to Beijing, there had been a lot unofficial news about the disease; some claimed that Beijing was also involved in the affected area. The political leaders of Beijing government, including the minister of national health, decided to withhold the fact that Beijing was affected to ensure the normal order（直接ensure the order就可以） of the capital. However, as stated above, it is obvious that since there had been a lot of unofficial news existed, the situation did not allow any lie（any further concealment之类的？） to the public anymore（前面有了any后面的anymore应该就不用了）, in contrast, and the only solution to prevent panic was the truth（truth was the solution？）. Tragically, many of the uninformed residents died without a notice, and finally the mass panic arose.

In addition, when the political leaders are to make a far-fetched plan for the nation, it is quite helpful when they hide the information about the cost of the plan in order to avoid complains. As no plan will benefit all the people in different social status, withholding some negative information will gain more support, and thus help fulfill the plan. 是不是没时间了？

To sum up, it is not always helpful or obstructive to withhold information from the public for the political leaders to fulfill their obligation. Any of this kind of action must rely on the detailed situation or it will inevitably pose serious problems.
577 words, 46mins ,in pp3.

总体来说用词挺熟练的，虽然稍微有一些问题我觉得无碍大局。这个水平没问题的，好好加油吧！

sydUID: 151948

谢谢了，IMONG兄，谢谢。
我要继续努力了。
文章的第三个论点没有展开是没有时间了。打字速度还要再快些才行，一定不会让各位失望的，看我的吧！