issue167 政治类高频题，欢迎拍砖

abigredUID: 154473

Issue167  第3篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：45分2秒     647 words
从2005年6月23日20时59分到2005年6月23日21时45分
------题目------
It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.
------正文------
Is it true that an effective political leader is not necessary to tell the truth all the time? When concerned about the moral standards of political leaders,  I argee with the speaker that honesty is not always a  useful virtue for a politician, but I also insist that the politician should bear honesty in mind.  

First of all,  when talking about politics, we have to admit that politics has its own rules and principles. Thus the politicians have special moral standards, which is quite distinguished with common individual's. Moreover,  the most important thing to begin with is to tell the "nonmoral" from the "immoral". When the former refers to something that has nothing to do with moral, the latter means something unacceptable according to moral standards. The principles of politicians are often defined as "nonmoral", however. Obviously, politicians have their special tasks, that is to represent and protect the interests and wills of the public, who give them the power of leadership. And that might be a main reason for why effective politicians can not always measured by honesty or other moral standards. It is not wise or necessary to follow the moral standards of the common individual's all the time, because in many situations, this is not considered a good choice.

For example, the political leader who is an official in the Nation Security Department,  might often has to face some embrassing questions, like how the experiment of the advanced weapon process, or about some top secrets of the army. When measured by common individual's moral standards, to be honest is always a principle, or thought be an important element of a good person.  However, when comes to the political leader, he should not release any news about those sensitive questions, especially when the national security and public interests are involved.  He may keep them secret or even tell the untruth. However, this is should not be criticized as "immoral" for he does not tell the truth. On the contrary, this kind of behavior is necessary or even receives praise, because he does not put the national security at stake by rigidly following the principle of honesty.

However, honesty should not always be precluded by the politicians. Or else, it might ruin the public's confidence towards the political leader, or even spills over the whole government. When we admit honesty is not a useful virtue in some situations,  a political leader do have to be honest most of the time. For example,  when the political leader is taking the office, he might put his hand on the Bible, and swears that he will devote to the nation and his job. The swear should be totally honest and sincere, and the political leader should follow his words and act them out. A leader who eats his words will never be trusted, let alone to be effective. To take another example, President Nixon, who involved in the scandal "Watergate". He denied that he did not do anything that undermine the democratic principle, while in fact he did. The public lost their confidence to Nixon, although he was a competent leader, and thus Nixon was reluctant to leave the office. It is dishonesty that makes a political leader fall down. So the political leaders should learn from this experience, and should not always take the "nonmoral" principle as an excuse for their wrongdoings.

In summary,  we might safely come to the conclusion that an effective political leader is not always advised to be honest, especially in the situations that might do harm to public good. However,  honesty is not totally exclusive by the political leader, and in most of time,  he or she should act out the principle of honesty, in order to earn the confidence of his or her people. An effective leader surely has the ability to recognize whether to follow honesty or not in different situations.

abigredUID: 154473

up一下，希望能给点意见

d_messiahUID: 177468

Is it true that an effective political leader is not necessary to tell the truth all the time? When concerned about the moral standards of political leaders,  I argee with the speaker that honesty is not always a  useful virtue for a politician, but I also insist that the politician should bear honesty in mind.  开头简明的表达出中心，好  

First of all,  when talking about politics, we have to admit that politics has its own rules and principles. Thus the politicians have special moral standards, which is quite distinguished with common individual's. 还没看后面，感觉说了MOREOVER了，那么这里说完一层意思了吧，感觉有些空，这些特殊的准则是什么呢，光说独有，与众不同似乎不够 Moreover,  the most important thing to begin with is to tell the "nonmoral" from the "immoral". When the former refers to something that has nothing to do with moral thing有些多，如果可能的话，换下, the latter means something unacceptable according to moral standards. The principles of politicians are often defined as "nonmoral", however. Obviously, politicians have their special tasks, that is我觉得两句话放到一起了 to represent and protect the interests and wills of the public, who give them the power of leadership. And that might be a main reason for why effective politicians can not always measured by honesty or other moral standards感觉这句话和前面的过渡太快了. It is not wise or necessary to follow the moral standards of the common individual's all the time, because in many situations, this is not considered a good choice.对政治家而言吧
For example, the political leader who is an official in the Nation Security Department,  might often has  have to face some embrassing questions, like how the experiment of the advanced weapon process, or about some top secrets of the army. When measured by common individual's moral standards, to be honest is always a principle, or thought be an important element of a good person.  However, when comes to the political leader, he should not release any news about those sensitive questions, especially when the national security and public interests are involved. 感觉和B1重复了 He may keep them secret or even tell the untruth. However, this is should not be criticized as "immoral" for he does not tell the truth. On the contrary, this kind of behavior is necessary or even receives praise, because he does not put the national security at stake by rigidly following the principle of honesty.

However, honesty should not always be precluded by the politicians. Or else, it might ruin the public's confidence towards the political leader, or even spills over the whole government. When we admit honesty is not a useful virtue in some situations,  a political leader do have to be honest most of the time. For example,  when the political leader is taking the office, he might put his hand on the Bible, and swears that he will devote to the nation and his job. The swear should be totally honest and sincere, and the political leader should follow his words and act them out. A leader who eats his words will never be trusted, let alone to be effective. To take another example, President Nixon, who involved in the scandal "Watergate". He denied that he did not do anything that undermine the democratic principle, while in fact he did. The public lost their confidence to Nixon, although he was a competent leader, and thus Nixon was reluctant to leave the office. It is dishonesty that makes a political leader fall down. So the political leaders should learn from this experience, and should not always take the "nonmoral" principle as an excuse for their wrongdoings. 这段基本没找出什么错误

In summary,  we might safely come to the conclusion that an effective political leader is not always advised to be honest, especially in the situations that might do harm to public good. However,  honesty is not totally exclusive by the political leader, and in most of time,  he or she should act out the principle of honesty, in order to earn the confidence of his or her people. An effective leader surely has the ability to recognize whether to follow honesty or not in different situations.

czzbUID: 208982

Is it true that an effective political leader is not necessary to tell the truth all the time? When concerned about the moral standards of political leaders,  I argee with the speaker that honesty is not always a  useful virtue for a politician, but I also insist that the politician should bear honesty in mind.  

你这个开头真好 一下子就进入了主题 值得学习

First of all,  when talking about politics, we have to admit that politics has its own rules and principles. Thus the politicians have special moral standards, which is quite distinguished with common individual's. Moreover,  the most important thing to begin with is to tell the "nonmoral" from the "immoral". When the former refers to something that has nothing to do with moral, the latter means something unacceptable according to moral standards. The principles of politicians are often defined as "nonmoral", 这句话似乎还需要加以解释 否则比较突然however. Obviously, politicians have their special tasks, that is to represent and protect the interests and wills of the public, who give them the power of leadership. And that might be a main reason for why effective politicians can not always measured by honesty or other moral standards. It is not wise or necessary to follow the moral standards of the common individual's all the time, because in many situations, this is not considered a good choice.
这一段给我的感觉更像是introductory rather than analysis 没什么有力的支持

For example, the political leader who is an official in the Nation Security Department,  might often has to face some embrassing questions, like how the experiment of the advanced weapon process, or about some top secrets of the army. When measured by common individual's moral standards, to be honest is always a principle, or thought be an important element of a good person.  However, when comes to the political leader, he should not release any news about those sensitive questions, especially when the national security and public interests are involved.  He may keep them secret or even tell the untruth. However, this is should not be criticized as "immoral" for he does not tell the truth. On the contrary, this kind of behavior is necessary or even receives praise, because he does not put the national security at stake by rigidly following the principle of honesty.

这一段和effective就有点脱节了
However, honesty should not always be precluded by the politicians. Or else, it might ruin the public's confidence towards the political leader, or even spills over the whole government. When we admit honesty is not a useful virtue in some situations,  a political leader do have to be honest most of the time. For example,  when the political leader is taking the office, he might put his hand on the Bible, and swears that he will devote to the nation and his job. The swear should be totally honest and sincere, and the political leader should follow his words and act them out. A leader who eats his words will never be trusted, let alone to be effective. To take another example, President Nixon, who involved in the scandal "Watergate". He denied that he did not do anything that undermine the democratic principle, while in fact he did. The public lost their confidence to Nixon, although he was a competent leader, and thus Nixon was reluctant to leave the office. It is dishonesty that makes a political leader fall down. So the political leaders should learn from this experience, and should not always take the "nonmoral" principle as an excuse for their wrongdoings.
既然你的观点是大部分时候都应该诚实  就可以把b3作为重点 放到前面而b2b1作为后面的让步我觉得
In summary,  we might safely come to the conclusion that an effective political leader is not always advised to be honest, especially in the situations that might do harm to public good. However,  honesty is not totally exclusive by the political leader, and in most of time,  he or she should act out the principle of honesty, in order to earn the confidence of his or her people. An effective leader surely has the ability to recognize whether to follow honesty or not in different situations.

fhxyweiUID: 157384

写得还是不错的

abigredUID: 154473

我想了一下，可能把b1放在b2后面会比较好。当初写的时候是想解释一下为什么政治家的道德原则有区别，参考了一些政治学的资料，可惜写作功力和政治学理解能力都不足以让我解释明白。 不知道如果把b2的具体例子放到b1前，会不会让人看得更加明白？

谢谢各位的意见