[YB2] 7月9号作业 by lossingzone

lossingzoneUID: 2519545

TOPIC: ISSUE8 - "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
WORDS: 577
TIME: 01:37:42
DATE: 2009-7-9 21:43:52

Some people argue that government, political leaders included, should not conceal information from the public, since public have the rights to know various affairs of the country. In the other hand, some people hold the point that political leaders are free to keep some issues secret for the sake of national security. In my viewpoint, it's reasonable and necessary to keep some affairs transparent. Meanwhile, political leaders should withhold those information which will be detrimental to the nation if exposed.

It's no doubt that there are many affairs political leaders should inform the public. First, the public have the right and desire to receive the information which is related to their daily life. For example, public health is an affair that most of us concern. We are eager to know the health situation around us especially in some special cases such as an epidemic is spreading all over the country. Second, it would be destructive to the public if information is blockaded by the political leaders in some circumstances. Can political leaders guarantee that what they do is always correct? Of course they can't. Sometimes they will make wrong decisions and the consequence is that the public pay for the leaders' fault. For example, in the spring of 2003, SARS broke out in the province of Guangdong in China and spread all over the world. Things would be much better if the government made it overt and took effective measures to prevent it from deteriorating. However, leaders of the government made an absurd decision that keep this terrible illness secret from the public. As a result, the fatal SARS spread rapidly accompanied with a vast cost of Asian countries especially China.

However, this not means that every affair of the country should be exposed to the public. As a coin has two sides, transparency, will be dangerous to a nation in some cases. As we know, the contemporary world is full of competition. A country may be conflicted with other countries for some interests. How terrible it is if a country's core confidential is exposed! For example, it's well known that the distribution and dispatch of troops of a country is an affair that would harm the survival of a country during war time. If political leaders make every national affairs public, our enemies would detect what our army is doing as a result our army is in the danger of being defeated and our country would be in a detrimental position. Therefore, it is compulsory for political leaders to withhold the core confidential of the nation from the public. Actually, even leaders of western countries would keep many things unknown from the public to guarantee the security of the country.

From the analysis above, it is necessary for the political leaders to withhold information from the public. Yet, another problem comes out. What should be make public and what can't? It's hard to determine. Some political leaders would keep some affairs secret for their personal interests, for example, Watergate Scandal. Some political leaders, made wrong decisions to determine whether to expose or withhold some information, though their starting point was to guarantee the interests of the nation. Naturally, we will ask, how to determine what to expose and what to withhold? In my viewpoint, a system is needed to regulate the behaviors of the political leaders. For instance, laws relate to these affairs should be made to endow the leaders with power and responsibility to keep some information secret from the public. Those information should be pointed out explicitly in the laws. In this way, national security and the right of public are both guaranteed.


TOPIC: ARGUMENT14 - The following appeared in a memo from the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center, a small business serving a suburban town.

"There is evidence that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables. A national survey conducted last month indicated that many consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables available in supermarkets. And locally, the gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row. Thus, we at Green Thumb Gardening Center can increase our profits by greatly expanding the variety of vegetable seeds we stock for gardeners this coming spring."
WORDS: 542
TIME: 00:57:08
DATE: 2009-7-9 21:43:52

The memo concluded that consumers are interested in growing vegetables by themselves so that Green Thumb Gardening Center can profit much by expanding the variety of vegetable seeds they are stored for gardeners the next spring. To support his/her viewpoint, the arguer cited a survey which indicated that consumers were dissatisfied with the vegetables in supermarkets as well as the fact that the gardening magazine Great Gardens sells well recently. It sounds reasonable. However, some flaws can be found by careful analysis and hence the conclusion is not convincing.

First, whether the survey is substantial is questionable. Who conducted the survey? How did the survey carry out? We don't know. It's probable that the survey was conducted by a small newspaper and they just interviewed some people locally. It coincided that most people they met were complaining with the vegetables supplied by the market. The conductor of the survey, as a result, concluded that consumers all over the country are dissatisfied with vegetables in the supermarket. Can such survey substantial? Of course not! Even the survey was conducted by an authentic institution; there is still the possibility that it didn't reflect the truth. For example, we know that some countries would release phony statistics for some purpose.

Even consumers are unhappy with the vegetables sell in the supermarkets; there is no testimony to show that they would like to grow vegetables themselves in the town. First, the survey was conducted nationally. It's perhaps that people in the small town like the vegetables in the supermarket very much though consumers in other districts are angry with the low quality vegetables in the supermarkets, since there are always some exceptions. Second, concede that people in the town are dissatisfied with the vegetables in the supermarket as well; however, they are not willing to grow vegetables. We are not sure whether the fields there are fit for growing vegetables, since not all the towns are suitable for growing vegetables. What's more, the time and energy they spent on growing vegetables may prevent them from earning much money by doing other things; as a result, they are not preferred to grow vegetables.

Even we concede that people in the town are planning to grow vegetables soon, however, whether Green Thumb Gardening Center would be profited from it is a doubtful. Perhaps these people don't plan to buy vegetable seeds, because they have got it. Even they really need to buy seeds; they can buy them from other companies, since there may be many other choices. Even Green Thumb Gardening Center is the unique company that sells vegetable seeds nearby and people can only buy seeds from it, yet it’s not sure that the company can profit from the selling of vegetable seeds, since we don't know the potential sales and the potential profits. If the town has a small population, how can the company profit from it?

In sum, the memo is logically flawed and the conclusion is unconvincing. To rectify it, the arguer should provide further information as follows. First, does the survey substantial? Second, are people in the town dissatisfied with vegetables in supermarket and want to grow vegetables themselves? Third, how many customers would buy their seeds and can they profit from it?

lossingzoneUID: 2519545

红色的是我自己修改过的了。。忘记消掉了