全国
取消
上一讲（Analyze an Issue Task的第7讲），我们学习了GRE写作中Analyze an Issue Task中颇具难度的一种指令：
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
简而言之，这种task direction对笔者的要求就是需要“有批判性地站边”，但站边的同时切莫忘记讨论“双边”，那就姑且称之为“双边观点类”问题指令吧。
其具体的剖解思路详见上期推送，本期笔者特意为读者朋友们甄选了一道令多数GRE考生闻风丧胆的政治类话题，详情如下：
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.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
稍微刷过一点托福独立题库的朋友们对本题应该也不算陌生，毕竟托福独立写作很喜欢每年放2-3题擦一擦政治的边。
但Issue Task不同于独立写作的是：Issue Task的论述方式仅限于logos and ethos，而托福的独立写作却是可以接纳pathos的，也就是大多数中国考生考T时动不动提笔就来“我有一个叔叔…”，这就为考试难度大大降维。
而在杀G中，这是不可以的。
针对本题，笔者的受教育经历和阅读面告诉自己“政治就是波诡云谲的”，是一片充斥阴谋、阳谋、欺诈、奇诡的名利场。所以，鄙人之观点，想必也为读者所知，那么直接开写吧。
[Introduction]
I agree with the issue that it is sometimes necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A conflicting view would reveal a naivety 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 ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not endow our political leaders with unrestricted freedom to withhold information; otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.
【本段解析】
首段就建议大家写个1-2句话即可，直接开门见山亮观点——笔者同意some people的表述，且是有条件的同意。这个“有条件的”便能体现后文的批判性思维。
[Body Para. 1]
Behind my everlasting favor with some people is the reason that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power. In the realm of politics, complete forthrightness is a harbinger of vulnerability and naivety, neither of which earns 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 defect, 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.
[Body Para. 2]
Another reason why I essentially air my endorsement is that political leaders’ being completely honest with social individuals would moderately threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. This is particularly authentic especially when it comes to certain types of shocking information. 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 and national hysteria. Acting as an analogy to ‘Star War’ series, The Martian Invasion broadcast in the USA might serve as a compelling illustration. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For another example, during the first few hours of the new millennium, the U.S. Pentagon’s missile defense system experienced a malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later that 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.
此类题材是真的需要大家看点新闻、读点文章、扩充一下视野的嗷，否则咱就只能写那些老生常谈的的例证素材啦。
[Body Para. 3]
Having recognized that withholding information 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, respectively, come immediately to my 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.
本段涉及的人物和事件，可以进入大家的exemplification pool. 你可以不精通、不熟知，但你不能没听过吧？
[Conclusion]
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 political game.
【本段解析】
Conclusion其实就是restatement of the author’s ideas. 索性就再把conditional agreement交代一遍就好了。