ISSUE8, don't hesitate to criticize it (my first issue)(thank you)

jane0107UID: 198178

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

According to the speaker, concealing the information from the public is often necessary , even desirable for political leaders. I concede that in some cases it is necessary , or even crucial for the political leaders to withhold the information. However, in a democratic country, it is one of the most important principles to keep their work open to the public as possible as they can.

Admittedly, under some circumstances  keeping the information from the public sometimes might contribute to its national security. For example, some of the information of national defence should not be disclosed to the public, like the kinds of the arms , the deployment of the soldiers , the defence plan in emergent cases and so on. The information concerning about national defence is one of the toppest secrets and vital to the safety of a nation.  If the government disclose them, other countries , particularly, some enemy countries or terrotists will obtain the invaluable resources at the same time. If the enemy or terrotists attack the country maliciously ,the government will have few chances to defeat them and the public will be in a society which is lack of safety. And another case is the fact of spies, about which the government never publishes the information .

Even if so, I would like to point out that not all the information under above circumstances should be withheld from the public,some information likethe number of the soldiers and even the latest arms bought or used in the army , etc are open to the public. Therefore, the significant thing is that how much information and when the government should choose to disclose.

Aside from some certain cases, howerver, I fundmentally disgree with the speaker's claim. In the majority of cases,(?) the public have the rights to know what the government is going on, especially what they do is relevant with the life of the public. For instance, whenever the government discuss the law which might be implemented someday later, or the policy of education which might change in the future, something like that, the government should deliver the information in time.  So the public could make a plan for the changes or express their opinions to the change.  Disclosing the information to the public, then the public discussing,this might make a society  more harmonic.

Another reason why I essentially disagree with the speaker is that as a democratic country, the government must accept the supervision from the public, but if all the information were withheld , how can the public oversee the government and enjoy their democracy? The premise of the democracy is that the public are able to obtain the information simply , fluently, of course which are not confidential. With the supervision from the public, some dishonest action was punished. Paragons such as President Nixon, come immediately to my mind. He was obliged to give up the chance of president re-election after the Watergate cover-up was disclosed, it was the public opinion that pushed Nixon to drop out. Therefore, to some extent more fluently information can be obtained, more easy the public protect the democracy.

In sum, only under some special circumstances is it necessary ,or even desirable for the public leaders to withhold information from the public. However, in most cases(?), the public have the rights to know the information in a democracy country. And in many times, this could help to keep a society more effective.

MadheroUID: 125272

我也是才开始写，望以后能互拍

According to the speaker, concealing the 我认为information前不应加定冠词 information from the public is often necessary , even desirable for political leaders. I concede that in some cases it is necessary , or even crucial for the political leaders to withhold thesome怎么样？和后面的转折呼应 information. However, in a democratic country, it is one of the most important principles to keep their work open to the public as possible as they can.

Admittedly, under some circumstances keeping the information from the public sometimes might contribute这个词感觉不太对劲 to its national security. For example, some of the information of national defence should not be disclosed to the public, like the kinds of the arms , the deployment of the soldiers , the defence plan in emergent casesemergence就好吧 and so on. The information concerning aboutabout去掉 national defence is one of the toppesttop secrets and vital to the safety of a nation. If the government disclose them, other countries , particularly, some enemy countries or terrotists will obtain the invaluable resources at the same time. If the enemy or terrotists attack the country maliciously ,the government will have few chances to defeat them and the public will be in a society which is lack of safety. And another case is the fact of spies, about which the government never publishes the information .

Even ifif去掉 so, I would like to point out that not all the information under above circumstances should be withheld from the public,由上下两部分看句号好些some information like the number of the soldiers and even the latest arms bought or used in the army , etc areshould be? open to the public. Therefore, the significant thing is that how much information and when the government should choose to disclose.觉得没有说理，只是举例感觉比较单薄，并且例子和上一段用于说明相反观点的比较类似，却没说明不同，更显得没有说服力

Aside from some certain cases, howerver, I fundmentally disgree with the speaker's claim. In the majority of cases,(?) the public have the rights to know what the government is going on, especially what they do is relevant withrelated to吧？ the life of the public. For instance, whenever the government discuss the law which might be implemented someday later, or the policy of education which might change in the future, something like that, the government should deliver the information in time. So the public could make a plan for the changes or express their opinions to the change.这句看不懂Disclosing the information to the public, then the public discussing,this might make a society more harmonic.

Another reason why I essentially disagree with the speaker is that asin a democratic country, the government must accept the supervision fromof the public, but if all the information were withheld , how can the public oversee the government and enjoy their democracy? The premise of the democracy is that the public are able to obtain the information simply , fluently, of course which are not confidential. With the supervision from the public, some dishonest action was punished. Paragons such as President Nixon, come immediately to my mind. He was obliged to give up the chance of president re-election after the Watergate cover-up was disclosed, it was the public opinion that pushed Nixon to drop out. Therefore, to some extent more fluently information can be obtained, more easy the public protect the democracy.

In sum, only under some special circumstances is it necessary ,or even desirable for the public leaders to withhold information from the public. However, in most cases(?), the public have the rights to know the information in a democracy country. And in many times, this could help to keep a society more effective.

MadheroUID: 125272

我对作文结构该怎么写还没有深刻理解，所以主要从语言上看了看，说的不对的请告诉我，并希望帮我改改我的。

jane0107UID: 198178

谢谢你帮我改作文，我是3月30日在北京考的，看目前情况可能要往后推了。
除语法错误外，你帮我指出来的问题也正是我在写作中碰到的问题。中间不连贯的那一小段，是因为我想表达一个观点，即即使是像国防这样的国家机密级信息也不是不加区别地都不让公众知道，信息会因其内容不同让公众了解的程度和时间上有多不同，有的信息现在不能让公众知道，但可能过一段时间就可以了。但很显然这观点好像和我的全文不能很好地联系起来。但觉得观点不错，我就又把它写出来了。
另外，例子也是，当时确实觉得后面的正面例子没有，找不到一个合适的例子来支持我的观点，当时我特别想放弃我原先的观点。而且不能很好地利用例子对观点进行说明。
这都是我写作中碰到的大问题，另外这里面有些好句子是COPY了280篇的了。
谢谢帮我改作文。