Issue8 小mm的第一篇，请大侠拍砖，谢谢！

winterblueUID: 194732

------题目------
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
------正文------
Is it necessary for political leader to withhold information from the general public as the speaker claims? I essentially concede that sometimes concealing certain information from the public is effective and beneficial to the people. However, in my point of view, in democratic society the ordinary people have right to access as much information concerning their interests as possible.

Admittedly, certain circumstances requiring the political leaders to not to tell the truth to the public are really existed. Consider the top secrets of a nation, such as the action of the army, which is vital to the nation’s security. This kind of information should not immediately be exposed to the society. Take the example of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in World War II. If the president of the Japanese army made the public know the military strategy, the American forces would certainly receive this message and then prepare for the coming war. Thus, the attack of Japanese would surely fail due to disclosure of the secret. In short, in order to achieve the ultimate goal that benefits the whole society, a political leader should withhold information when the disclosure of the information is good to the public.

However, the political leaders should not have excessive freedom to keep the information from the public, particularly the information concerning the public. With extreme power usually comes great political corruption and scandal. In Watergate scandal, U.S president Richard Nixon abused his power and authority and enhanced his own interest at the expense of the whole nation’s interest. In a democratic society as America, citizens have the right to know what the government and the political leaders are doing. Only by this way could the public supervise the government operation and political leader’s behavior. And this prevents possible corruption of the political leaders, such as Nixon.

In addition, in many cases the political leaders could be better helped if the public are well informed. Without the support of the public, the political leaders may not able to solve these social problems. On the contrary, some governments using their authorities to prevent people from the discovering truth often result in the damage of the society. The action Chinese government took in treating epidemic disease SARS at 2003 is a case in point. For the purpose of avoiding the international criticism, the government withheld the information about the spreading disease, rather than inform people to take measures to prevent the disease. Unfortunately, the illness did not stop infect people until the media uncovered the truth. In the end, both the reputation of the government and public interests were greatly undermined. Therefore, political leaders should give the public enough information, so that the government and the public can take measures together to cope with the problem.

In final analysis, I contend that whether withhold the information from the general public depends on whether doing so would benefit the public. Political leaders in democracy should stick to this principle, while ordinary people in society also have right to supervise the behavior of the leaders.

winterblueUID: 194732

顶一下~~

davidjackyUID: 135962

No.1 Issue8 小mm的第一篇，请大侠拍砖，谢谢！
------题目------
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
------正文------
Is it necessary for political leader to withhold information from the general public as the speaker claims? I essentially concede that sometimes concealing certain information from the public is effective and beneficial to the people. However, in my point of view, in democratic society the ordinary people have right to access as much information concerning their interests as possible.[有观点，入门第一步]

Admittedly, certain circumstances requiring the political leaders to not to[not to] tell the truth to the public are really existed. Consider the top secrets of a nation, such as the action of the army, which is vital to the nation’s security[这句话模仿的不对，自己检查一下，主语谓语是否都有，是否一致]. This kind of information should not immediately be exposed to the society. Take the example of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in World War II. If the president[premier officer] of the Japanese army made the public know the military strategy, the American forces would certainly receive this message and then prepare for the coming war. Thus, the attack of Japanese would surely fail due to disclosure of the secret. In short, in order to achieve the ultimate goal that benefits the whole society, a political leader should withhold information[后面罗嗦，不要。] when the disclosure of the information is good to the public.

However, the political leaders should not have excessive freedom to keep the information from the public, particularly the information concerning the public. With extreme power usually comes great political corruption and scandal. [for example,]In Watergate scandal, U.S president Richard Nixon abused his power and authority and enhanced his own interest at the expense of the whole nation’s interest. In a democratic society [such] as America, citizens have the right to know what the government and the political leaders are doing. Only by this way could the public supervise the government operation and political leader’s behavior. And this prevents possible corruption of the political leaders, such as Nixon.

In addition, in many cases the political leaders could be better helped if the public are well informed. Without the support of the public, the political leaders may not able to solve these social problems. On the contrary, some governments using their authorities to prevent people from the discovering truth often result in the damage of the society. The action Chinese government took in treating epidemic disease SARS at 2003 is a case in point. For the purpose of avoiding the international criticism, the government withheld the information about the spreading disease, rather than inform people to take measures to prevent the disease. Unfortunately, the illness did not stop infect people until the media uncovered the truth. In the end, both the reputation of the government and public interests were greatly undermined. Therefore, political leaders should give the public enough information, so that the government and the public can take measures together to cope with the problem.[呵呵，原来如此]

In final analysis, I contend that whether withhold the information from the general public depends on whether doing so would benefit the public. Political leaders in democracy should stick to this principle, while ordinary people in society also have right to supervise the behavior of the leaders.
文章写的不错，第一篇真是让我大吃一惊，继续加油，基础不错

winterblueUID: 194732

这第一篇写了两个多小时，写完还改了好久才这样。
怎么提高速度啊？

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 winterblue 发布
[B]这第一篇写了两个多小时，写完还改了好久才这样。
怎么提高速度啊？ [/B]

慢慢来，GRE本来就是体力活，没有捷径。下次有文章通知我，你的文章看得很舒服。