It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
The speaker asserts that political leaders should withhold information from the public. I, insofar as, agree with the author statement as revealing everything before public might carry certain risks—critical information may reach the foes and might be misused. However, for information which does not pose any risk, political leader must share it, so that masses may be able to know the steps which are being taken in their best interest.
Admittedly, the sharing of all information with the public is risky and sometimes even harmful to the public interest. Consider the case of strategy to deal with the terrorist. If such strategy is made public prior to the action, terrorists would become aware of it and would adopt the countermeasures to escape from arrest or punishment. Similar is the case of drug trafficker and smugglers. A policy to deal with them, if disseminated to the masses, these criminals will become aware of it and would be successful in saving themselves from legal actions. In addition, sharing of information about the private and personal lives of the political leader serves no useful purpose and does more harm than good. We can consider the case of Martin Luther King Jr. who had licentious nature but was promulgating excellent political goals. Had people known much about his personal lives, they would have been reluctant to support him, thus, seriously undermining the political cause he was pursuing.
Aside from the foregoing provisos; I believe that political leaders should share information with the public. After all, the foundation of a democratic society is based on freedom of information—people should be kept informed about what government and leaders are doing in the interest of public as a whole. Such information is useful in keeping a check on misuse of authority by the office-holders and also allows the voters to make a decision in favor of the better candidate. Such freedom also allows human right activists and civil society to raise their concern if some human rights violations are being done or the interest of the people is being neglected by the decision-makers.
In sum, it is the very spirit of democracy that people should be kept informed about the decision and actions, their leaders are taking as this is one of the core distinctions of democracy from the undemocratic counterpart. However, care must be exercised to avoid sharing such information which might be detrimental to nation and public cause.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | hyein | 75 | view |
| 2020-01-23 | jason123 | 62 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | jason123 | 62 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | Roshan Dhakal | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-03 | kotharu2006 | 66 | view |
- It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. 50
- It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 66
- "We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning." 66
- "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen mo 77
- A teacher’s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught.Use specifc reasons and examples to support your answer. Be sure to use your own words. Do not use memorized examples 60
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, thus, after all, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2080.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 403.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16129032258 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91081064733 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533498759305 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 652.5 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7733982239 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.352941176 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7058823529 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.58823529412 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285513759035 0.243740707755 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104509451733 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110205364547 0.0758088955206 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180452839052 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503106743938 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.