GRE范文示例

山姆大叔

题目："It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."


作文：


I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political
leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd about
the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of
well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmaate interests.
Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information,
otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings
of any democratic society.


One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the
opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain
political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and
naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which
those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some
measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership.
For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and
detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view
might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political
career; thus I think this view is realistic.


Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public
certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.
For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting
specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail,
and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information
might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur  7
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S.
Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was
withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and
legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might
even have resulted in mass hysteria.


Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve
the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness
with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be
leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either
by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry.
Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any
democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the
democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples,
such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate
cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of
the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.


In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of
forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a
necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any
democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to
advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up

forfeiting the polirical game.

山姆大叔

"Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are
entirely harmless, they in fact, prevent people from developing into truly strong and
independent individuals."

Do modern luxuries serve to undermine our true strength and independence as individuals?
The speaker believes so, and I tend to agree. Consider the automobile, for example. Most
people consider the automobile a necessity rather than a luxury; yet it is for this very reason
that the automobile so aptly supports the speaker's point. To the extent that we depend on cars
as crutches, they prevent us from becoming truly independent and strong in character as
individuals.

Consider first the effect of the automobile on our independence as individuals. In some
respects the automobile serves to enhance such independence. For example, cars make it
possible for people in isolated and depressed areas without public transportation to become
more independent by pursing gainful employment outside their communities. And teenagers
discover that owning a car, or even borrowing one on occasion, affords them a needed sense
of independence from their parents.

However, cars have diminished our independence in a number of more significant respects.
We've grown dependent on our cars for commuting to work. We rely on them like crutches for
short trips to the corner store, and for carting our children to and from school. Moreover, the
car has become a means not only to our assorted physical destinations but also to the
attainment of our socioeconomic goals, insofar as the automobile has become a symbol of
status. In fact, in my observation many, if not most, working professionals willingly undermine
their financial security for the sake of being seen driving this year's new SUV or luxury sedan.
In short, we've become slaves to the automobile.

Consider next the overall impact of the automobile on our strength as individuals, by which I
mean strength of character, or mettle. I would be hard-pressed to list one way in which the
automobile enhances one's strength of character. Driving a powerful SUV might afford a
person a feeling and appearance of strength, or machismo. But this feeling has nothing to do
with a person's true character.

In contrast, there is a certain strength of character that comes with eschewing modern
conveniences such as cars, and with the knowledge that one is contributing to a cleaner and
quieter environment, a safer neighborhood, and arguably a more genteel society. Also,
alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking are forms of exercise which
require and promote the virtue of self-discipline. Finally, in my observation people who have
forsaken the automobile spend more time at home, where they are more inclined to prepare
and even grow their own food, and to spend more time with their families. The former
enhances one's independence; the latter enhances the integrity of one's values and the
strength of one's family.

To sum up, the automobile helps illustrate that when a luxury becomes a necessity it can sap
our independence and strength as individuals. Perhaps our society is better off, on balance,
with such "luxuries"; after all, the automobile industry has created countless jobs, raised our  12
standard of living, and made the world more interesting. However, by becoming slaves to the
automobile we trade off a certain independence and inner strength.