这是我写的第一篇，issue8，也写了3个小时，恳请大家修改

ETS小样很嚣张啊UID: 191129

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

=======================我是华丽的分割线=======================

I generally agree with speaker's assertion that sometimes it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, as long as this leader is well intentioned. However, a supervisory mechanism should be established lest any leader uses this privilege unduly.

The major responsibility of a political leader is to keep his nation stable and thriving, and avoid turmoil and disorder. Therefore, he must decide carefully what can be made known to the public and what cannot. For example, he received a report saying that in some regions there was a newly found contagious virus. What would happen if he makes this known to the public instantly? People would refuse to go to work in fear of getting infected, all the offices and factories and schools would be empty, in short, whole nation would break down and stop functioning. Therefore, this leader had better hide the report temporarily and let the scientists study the virus to see whether it is harmful to human.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that the disclosure of certain information could threaten national security. In the 1940s, even the Vice President of the United States, Truman, did not know the nuclear bomb project until President Roosevelt passed away, let alone the public. Were not the strict procedure keeping it secret, Japan or Germany might have built the nuclear bomb before the United States, and the world history would be rewritten forever. For the same reason, in any given nation, public are invariably inaccessible to their nation's most, if not all, military information.

However, the right of the leader to withhold information from the public should be strictly limited to the content that could cause immediate and severe loss of the society and the nation. Otherwise, some ill-intentioned politicians would use this right unduly to cheat on the public or, even worse, to stage a coup and then dictate to the nation. It is by concealing the truth from the public that Hitler made the German people believe what they were doing is righteous. Many German people refused to believe there was such a thing as concentration camp until the allied forces showed them hundreds of thousands dead bodies of the Jews. Had the German public knew all the slaughters the Nazis had accomplished, surely there would be more people opposed the government led by Hitler.

In sum, the leader can withhold information from the public only if the disclosure could potentially threaten the national security and social stabilization. Upon other occasions, the government should share their intelligence with the public.

ETS小样很嚣张啊UID: 191129

怎么没人帮我改啊

ETS小样很嚣张啊UID: 191129

我轻轻地顶一下，不带走一片云彩

bcomerUID: 182621

have a look 吧:)

冥界星灿UID: 184746

我说楼主你说话不要这样的搞笑，你是中戏主修相声表演的？^_^

bcomerUID: 182621

I generally agree with speaker's assertion that sometimes it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, as long as this leader is well intentioned (well-intentioned?). However, a supervisory mechanism (supervisory system?) should be established lest any leader uses (should use?) this privilege unduly.

The major responsibility of a political leader is to keep his nation stable and thriving, and (at least? Too many “and”) avoid turmoil and disorder. Therefore, he must decide carefully what can be made known to the public and what cannot. For example, he received a report saying that in some regions there was a newly found contagious virus (there was a contagious virus newly found in some regions?). What would happen if he makes (made?) this known to the public instantly? People would refuse to go to work in fear of getting infected, all the offices and factories and schools (all the offices, factories, and schools?) would be empty, (.?) in short, (the?) whole nation would break down and stop functioning. Therefore, this leader had better hide the report temporarily and let the scientists study the virus to see whether it is harmful to human.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that the disclosure of certain information could threaten (the?) national security. In the 1940s, even the Vice President of the United States, Truman, did not know the nuclear bomb project until President Roosevelt passed away, let alone the public(……少谓语动词？alone is an adj./adv.?). Were not the strict procedure keeping it secret, Japan or Germany might have built the nuclear bomb before the United States, and the world history would be rewritten forever. For the same reason, in any given nation, public are invariably inaccessible to their nation's most, if not all, military information.

However, the right of the leader to withhold information from the public should be strictly limited to the content that could cause immediate and severe loss of the society and (or?) the nation. Otherwise, some ill-intentioned politicians would use this right unduly to cheat on (去掉on?) the public or, even worse, to stage a coup and then dictate to the nation. It is by concealing the truth from the public that Hitler made the German people believe what they were doing is righteous. Many German people refused to believe there was such a thing as (there were such things like?) concentration camp until the allied forces showed them hundreds of thousands dead bodies of the Jews. Had the German public knew all the slaughters the Nazis had accomplished, surely there would be more people opposed the government led by Hitler (the Nazis government? There is no need to emphasize that the government is led by Hitler?) .

In sum, the leader can withhold information from the public only if the disclosure could potentially threaten the national security and (or?) social stabilization. Upon other occasions, the government should share their intelligence with the public.

关于supervisory mechanism 和supervisory system
我觉得后者更为常用，
google中前者出现了5000次，后者出现了36000次
不知道你想表达什么意思，前者是监督机构的意思，后者是监督体系的意思，我觉得应该建立一些监督机构，或是建立一个监督体系。
倾向于后者supervisory system

以上都是个人意见，如有不妥欢迎探讨：）
:)

bcomerUID: 182621

最初由 冥界星灿 发布
[B]我说楼主你说话不要这样的搞笑，你是中戏主修相声表演的？^_^ [/B]

^.^他是华丽的分割线:)

delta496UID: 193816

高手，高手

ETS小样很嚣张啊UID: 191129

lest any leader uses (should use?) this privilege unduly.
为什么要加个shuold？
((the?) whole nation would break down
本来我写了the的，但word认为我应该去掉，谁来解释一下

其他的意见都很好，谢谢你了
最重要的是，我想知道你读我的文章觉不觉得我的句子很别扭，读起来很费力，一个句子要看2遍以上才能明白我的意思？因为每个人读自己的句子肯定都特别带劲，怎么读都像ETS官方6分范文。只有让别人看一看才能知道到底通不通顺。

高手，高手
你指我的签名档吗？读起来很爽对不对？《编辑部的故事》里的

xmfwdczzUID: 193533

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

=======================我是华丽的分割线=======================

I generally agree with speaker's assertion that sometimes it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public, as long as this leader is(these leaders are 前后应该呼应吧) well intentioned. However, a supervisory mechanism should be established lest any leader uses this privilege(特权是代表的什么？应该是his privilege吗？) unduly.

The major responsibility of a political leader is to keep his nation stable and thriving, and avoid turmoil and disorder. Therefore, he must decide carefully what can be made known to the public and what cannot. For example, he received a report saying that in some regions there was a newly found contagious virus（A kind of newly contagious virus was found in some regions 会不会更好些？）. What would happen if he makes this known to the public（有些重复，一段就出现两次） instantly? People would refuse to go to work in fear of getting infected, all the offices and factories and schools would be empty, in short, whole nation would break down and stop functioning. Therefore, this leader had better hide the report temporarily and le t the scientists study the virus to see whether it is harmful to human（感觉有些中国味的英语呢^－^）.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that the disclosure of certain information could threaten national security. In the 1940s, even the Vice President of the United States, Truman, did not know the nuclear bomb project until President Roosevelt passed away, let alone the public. Were not the strict procedure keeping it secret, Japan or Germany might have built the nuclear bomb before the United States, and the world history would be（might have been） rewritten forever. For the same reason, in any given nation, public are invariably inaccessible to their nation's most, if not all, military information.

However, the right of the leader to withhold information from the public should be strictly limited to the content that could cause immediate and severe loss of the society and the nation. Otherwise, some ill-intentioned politicians would use this right unduly to cheat on the public or, even worse, to stage a coup and then dictate to the nation. It is by concealing the truth from the public that Hitler made the German people believe what they were doing is righteous. Many German people refused to believe there was such a thing as concentration camp until the allied forces showed them hundreds of thousands dead bodies of the Jews. Had the German public knew all the slaughters the Nazis had accomplished, surely there would be more people opposed the government led by Hitler. (立即能产生重大影响的就不应该跟人们说吗？总觉得怪怪的，应该是有损人民利益的 吧)

In sum, the leader can withhold information from the public only if the disclosure could potentially threaten the national security and social stabilization. Upon other occasions, the government should share their intelligence with the public.


正文的前二段挺好，分别从本国，还有国际两个角度说，可是第三段不敢苟同～
呵呵，我可是新手哦，希望对你有帮助～～

ETS小样很嚣张啊UID: 191129

立即能产生重大影响的就不应该跟人们说吗？总觉得怪怪的，应该是有损人民利益的 吧
想了想你说的也是啊，明天把大家的意见综合起来再修改
唉，写英语作文好痛苦啊，尤其是issue

bcomerUID: 182621

最初由 ETS小样很嚣张啊 发布
[B]lest any leader uses (should use?) this privilege unduly.
为什么要加个shuold？
((the?) whole nation would break down ..

以下省略...... [/B]

……我只是觉得加个should 好一些，我见过的lest主要是这么用的
lest ......+should do....... 也许你那样说也可以：）
……我也是在WORD里修改你的文章的，the whole nation 没有问题啊：）
读你的文章还好啊，觉得写的还挺好的尤其是觉得你省略IF用倒装的问题上处理的很不错：）

……语言还好了，你写的同时在看看范文吧，多看看英文就好了:)