ChaseDream

标题: 5.27 issue 139[应该专家做决定] 求猛拍思路语言拍拍 [打印本页]

作者: 749896499 时间: 2012-5-18 01:54
标题: 5.27 issue 139[应该专家做决定] 求猛拍思路语言拍拍
139：Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.

Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

提纲：
1.   专家能够获得更多的信息，以及自己专业以及经验，很多时候能够做出比较全面的考虑的判断
2.   只听从专家的总还是不够的
2.1   有时候并不能了解到百姓们真正需要什么比如慈禧太后
2.2   专家有时会被一些利益集团挟持，并不做出正确的决定 Watergate scandal
3.   探索并建立一个听从百姓声音，又能避免为私人利益的机制mechanism （表达一下希冀）

Issue：

Are the policy decisions made by the politicians and other government experts always reliable and true? Admittedly, many people will consider that politicians and other government experts are reliable for they are more informed and have better judgment and perspective. However, the policy decisions made by them may not meet public’s real demand or may not go in the correct way. In other words, I’m partly agree with the statement.

To begin with, no one will deny that those politicians and government experts are more informed and have much experience in making policy decisions. Those government experts can get more data from some special study conducted by government, which is not accessible to everyone, relying on the government's great amount of money, and enough officials. And those government experts can exploit the information to do decisions. What's more, some politicians and other government experts attain more useful information-so called secret documents- which is withheld from public, thus they can make policy decisions rely on this information. For example, basing on the secret documents from enemy which are get from spy during the period of war, government experts may change their policy to army to response to the enemy's changes. Thus, government experts can better make the policy decisions than common people.

However, though government experts get more information, yet they are not always make policy decisions for common people, or they cannot exactly know what the public people need indeed. For example, in ancient China, emperors are seldom directly close to their people, thus easily make them away from the real situation of common people. Cixi, the emperor's mother who have the greatest power at that time in Qing Dynasty, would rather spend a lot of money for her sixty birthday party than use that considerable money to strengthen the nation's army, even if they often be defeated by Western country and leads to common people's miserable lives. While in modern society, many officials enjoy the high salaries, but prefer stay at their office and chat with each other, rather than learn more about education, agriculture, life of poor people, or something the pubic need. If so, the convenient information are wasted, and the decisions they made are far away from the reality.

Moreover, government experts may be caught by some special institution for their own interests. Admittedly, sometimes some private institutions may offer finance supports for government projects, yet they may seize the "chance" to maximize their own interest. In some degree, the initial idea for the project is intended to meet people's need, but at the time when they are going to make the ideas come true, the project go to the opposite direction because of the conduct of this private institution. This kind of projects occur occasionally, when you turn on the TV and watch the news, you may find that the project is filled with the commercial advertise. So what is lacking is a complete mechanism to monitor the whole process. Yet how to establish a complete mechanism and how to make the mechanism effective is much far beyond the topic that we are now talking about.

To sum up, politicians and other government experts are always more informed and have better judgment and perspective because of the considerable information they can get. However, to solve the problem that they may not exploit the information or make decisions unfairly, a complete mechanism is more crucial. Though exploring this kind of mechanism is not so easy, we expect the day's coming.

作者: 淡淡飞过 时间: 2012-5-18 09:21
i think your article is well-written. The outline is good as well.

I think I learned something from what you wrote.

作者: 淡淡飞过 时间: 2012-5-18 09:30
Are the policy decisions made by the politicians and other government experts always reliable and true? Admittedly, many people will consider that politicians and other government experts are reliable for they are more informed and have better judgment and perspective. However, the policy decisions made by them may not meet public’s real demand or may not go in the correct way. In other words, I’m partly agree with the statement.

The first sentence is excellent!! I like it.

The second sentence: I think, you can modify it a little bit, like "Admittedly, many people will give a positive answer with the reason that they believe politicians and other government experts are more. . . "

The last sentence can be moved before the third one, what do you say? This is my feeling when I read your article.

作者: 749896499 时间: 2012-5-18 10:01
谢谢指导，最后一句话放在第三句话之前感觉是流畅一些~ 第一段改成：

Are the policy decisions made by the politicians and other government experts always reliable and true? Admittedly, many people will give a positive answer with the reason that they believe politicians and other government experts are reliable for they are more informed and have better judgment and perspective. However, I’m partly agree with the statement in that the policy decisions made by them may not meet public’s real demand or may not go in the correct way.

作者: 淡淡飞过 时间: 2012-5-18 10:14

谢谢指导，最后一句话放在第三句话之前感觉是流畅一些~ 第一段改成：

Are the policy decisions made by the politicians and other government experts always reliable and true? Admittedly, many people will give a positive answer with the reason that they believe politicians and other government experts are reliable for they are more informed and have better judgment and perspective. However, I’m partly agree with the statement in that the policy decisions made by them may not meet public’s real demand or may not go in the correct way.

-- by 会员 749896499 (2012/5/18 10:01:38)

"made by" 后面最好再提一下politicians and experts。因为这是你的论点 "them" 不十分清楚

不好意思，有点较真

作者: 749896499 时间: 2012-5-19 16:58
没事~ 尽力拍!!!

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)