Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.
Government is a consortium of elected leaders by its populace. The government is for the people, by the people and from the people. We entrust the government to make decisions and pass laws which promote the society to its better form, than it currently is. The prompt provides a dilemma of a sort, as it suggests that some people find it necessary for political leaders of the government to withhold the information from its people, and some do not. I believe that the government should hold the information from its <span style="font-size: 19.36px;">populace</span>because of three reasons.
Atomic Energy innovations should not be made public. Every country is focusing on developing atomic energies and weapons for power and defense purposes. These innovations are motivated by use of constrained resources and improving defense systems, but if exposed to wrong hands can be detrimental to nations as these can easily be misused. It is because of above information, the government and political leaders hide these facts. Moreover, the patents filed on atomic energy or instruments are published in a specialized journal, which is not made available to the general public. This journal can however be accessed via few officials at higher level of hierarchy. This indeed is the correct approach, as it ensures these innovations are far from being misused. Thus, the political leaders and the government should hide this information.
It is important to hide information with respect to the defense oriented maneuvers.
The political leaders often make bold decisions to eliminate terrorist activities. Many secret service agents are involved in the missions – working for our wellbeing, are sometimes risking their lives by being physically involved in the terrorist groups as undercover agents. The political leaders of the government should under no circumstance reveal these critical and crucial information to the general populous, as it hinders with our security. For instance, the USA special service agent Robert James O'Neill who shot Osama was not revealed for long time. Similarly to ensure security of these agents and our country this information must be entrusted with political leaders and should not be made available to public.
Many political leaders apportion funds in order to meet demands of development proposals. Many proposals are introduced and only few worthy are driven to completion, the information of the projects not undertaken is of no worth to the populace and should not be made public. Many of the decisions are political in nature and are taken based on feasibility. If the information about rejected projects is made public, this might exacerbate the situations as people might be offended with the decision of not considering the given proposal. The above may be because individuals unwary of the detailed reason might feel it was intentional and would unnecessary hurt the reputation of the government.
Although one can argue that right to information act is introduced to keep people informed and prevent overpowering of the political leaders. However, perhaps the act should still have provision to hide sensitive information which if exposed will erode the security and wellbeing of the nation. Thus, as a whole the information should be hidden from the public if it is damaging to the nation as a whole. But, the information which is essential to the public according to the “right to information act” must be kept abreast to the public. Thus, as a whole it remains a dilemma as of what information is worth exposing and what is not?
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-17 | swapnil.paliwal | 73 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Be sure to use your own words. Do not use memorized examples. 66
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 66
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 66
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time. 66
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 100
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 567, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...nal, which is not made available to the general public. This journal can however be accessed v...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 562, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...t Osama was not revealed for long time. Similarly to ensure security of these agents and ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 276, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...populace and should not be made public. Many of the decisions are political in natur...
^^^^
Line 19, column 232, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ion to hide sensitive information which if exposed will erode the security and wel...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, still, thus, well, for instance, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 10.4613686534 373% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 5.04856512141 396% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 20.0 7.30242825607 274% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 30.3222958057 228% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 30.0 5.01324503311 598% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3050.0 1373.03311258 222% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 575.0 270.72406181 212% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30434782609 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89685180668 4.04702891845 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2352500831 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 145.348785872 182% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459130434783 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 973.8 419.366225166 232% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 1.25165562914 639% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 13.0662251656 222% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.2733753922 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.172413793 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8275862069 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31034482759 7.06452816374 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324404805855 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0842900638183 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0588019614076 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150381468107 0.162205337803 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565735131871 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 63.6247240618 231% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.