I tried to begin my essay in a more lively way this time but worried about whether it would be regarded informal and unsuitable for GRE. What do you think about it?
Thanks in advance.
Topic: "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
Oh, my God! There are actually thousands of aliens living on our planet. Even though they are just among us under their human-like mechanical or biological bodies, we do not recognize them at all because the government withholds that truth from us. That is what depicted in the Hollywood movie--Man in Black. Despite it is just a science fiction movie, the fact that government always conceals some information from the public is worthy of a deep reflection. In my view, withholding some information from the public is reasonable; however, it cannot be concealed freely. Most information, which is directly relevant to the well-being of the people, should be exposed to the public.
Just as many movies depicted, some information, if revealed to the public, may bring the society in to danger. Let's put away these extreme plots in science fictions: the government concealed the facts of aliens at the same time, "men in black" protected people furtively, thus the citizens living a peaceful life with no idea about the earth was nearly destroyed just a minute ago. In the real world, some information is indeed better not to reveal. Telling the truth is not always helpful; it depends on what the truth is and to whom it is told. For an individual, it is often dangerous to tell your phone number and address to a stranger, so it is the same with the government. For example, military secrets can only be known by a few officials. Only foreign spies want it to be opposed to the public. There are also some details, like the president's travel plan and anti-terrorist strategy, which assassinators and terrorists want to know most, not allowed to be released. This kind of information cannot do or do little good to the well-being of the citizens, but can be used by foreign hostile countries or the anti-society persons. It is rational to hidden these information.
However, if government hides information improperly, it will undermine the democratic system as well as the well-being of the people. For a democratic government, its policy and plans should be based on the opinions of its people. Hiding information for politicians' own purpose is an autocratic behavior which can probably results in the loss of belief in the politicians and even in the government. Consider the Watergate scandal. If President Nixon did not to conceal his role in this scandal but apologized to the public, maybe the people will forgive him and therefore he would not have to leave the White House with shame. It took years for the government to re-gain public trust after the Watergate Scandal. So that is the result of the hiding what should not be hidden. Another recent case happened in China. In 2003, SARS suddenly swept over some of China's southern cities, leaving people and doctors unprepared. Later investigation showed that in fact, this epidemic did not transmit so quickly and suddenly. It was because some local officials withhold the information for the fear of loss of tourism. If this information was immediately revealed to the public, many lives could be saved and there would be less economic losses.
In sum, whether it is right for government to conceal information depends on what kind of information it is. For those which relate close to people's lives, government has no right to conceal it. Besides, I strongly believe that government should always think twice before deciding to conceal a piece of information.
I like your introduction. It's creative and engaging. Just be sure to put dialogue like "Oh my God!" in quotes. When using creative strategies like this, it becomes especially important for the mechanics of your writing (i.e., grammar, punctuation, organization) to be solid.
As for the content of your essay, I found the conclusion to be too tepid. "Think twice"? How about some sort of citizen oversight or other mechanism to make sure that governments do not abuse the notion of "security" to keep vital information from the public?
I found the conclusion to be too tepid
Thank you Simone. I'm eager to know how to avoid a tepid conclusion.
As ETS said, a good paper should present "a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the
complexities of the issue". What does "complexities" mean?
Does it mean that both the cons and pros of the issue statement should be presented?
A strong conclusion ,not a tepid one, should totally agree or disagree with the speaker, is that right?
How can I make my conclusion strong, in this essay for example?
Looking forward for your answers. I'm always confused with that.
By "complexities," the GRE means the more nuanced or subtle aspects of the questions, not just the simple problems and solutions that jump right out at you. While you can strongly argue for one side, you ought to do so in a manner that shows you are aware of the counter-arguments that might be made. As for a strong conclusion, what I meant by "tepid" in this instance was that the dangers of undue government secrecy are very grave, but the solution you offered was mild and vague.
aware of the counter-arguments that might be made
That is a very good way.
Besides, what kind of conclusion does GRE want to see?
For this topic, do I need not only provide a position which is support or against or partly support the statement, but also provide a proper way for the government to deal with the withhold-or-not matter?
You are the one who decided to include a "what the government should do" comment in your conclusion. That's an excellent way to end an essay -- suggesting some sort of action based on the arguments you have made. But the suggestion was weak.
The GRE is looking for analytic, sophisticated thinking. There is no formula for the essay. You must demonstrate the capacity for advanced, graduate-level thinking and writing.
"the government concealed the facts of aliens at the same time, "men in black" protected people furtively, thus the citizens living a peaceful life with no idea about the earth was nearly destroyed just a minute ago" I had to read this 4 times to understand it. "So that is the result of the hiding what should not be hidden." This sentence is neglegible because the one preceeding it illustrates the idea clearly enough. The rest looks good.
The essay could be strengthened if you were to articulate what principles should govern what sorts of information can be legitimately concealed and under what circumstances. You only give specific examples at the moment. Examples are good, and you should keep the ones you have, but you need to derive general principles from them, too.
You do sort of hint at principles in parts of your essay, but they aren't very good ones. At the moment, you imply that concealing information from the public for the public good is okay, but concealing information for political gain is not. However, the Chinese government may have believed that protecting the nation's reputation was more important for China's long term good than moving to prevent the spread of a disease little worse than the flu, especially when the causalities were likely to be poor rural farmers the government might well think society would be better off without. Likewise, I have no doubt that Nixon thought that keeping the Democrats out of power would be better for America than letting them win power. In other words, politicians, like most people, are adept at rationalizing their actions, and seeing their personal interests as being aligned with that of the public good. This isn't necessarily hypocrisy or dishonesty, btw. They may be quite sincere in their beliefs. So, since the "public good" is a very vague, malleable concept, you need a better metric by which to gauge things.
I like your essay and I think it is a strong one, but I advise you to be careful of "on, my god". The GRE issue is an academic essay. Using such words here is kind of unsuitable.
Oh no, this is not OK. Now I am sorry that I gave feedback on your essay. You must -- absolutely must -- give substantial feedback to other forum members or risk being banned from the forum. How can you expect us to spend time critiquing your essays for free if you will not take the time to do so for others?
Grrr . . . I hate it when I comment on people's essays, and then they go and get themselves suspended for refusing to help others. How does one expect to get away with being a free-rider in a system where everyone's level of contribution is a matter of public knowledge?
Grrr . . . I hate it when I comment on people's essays, and then they go and get themselves suspended for refusing to help others.
Yes, I just had the same frustrating experience with another user.
