新G104 （序号可能不准） 第一次写ISSUE，帮忙改下拜托了

vane11

To be an effective leader, a public office must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.    
The speaker contends that to be an effective leader, one should acquire the highest ethical and moral standard, this statement actually consists of  two points: (1) as a public official, one must maintain ethical and moral standards; (2) these standards should be highest. When I fully accede to the first contention, I find the second point untenable as it qualifies the standard of a leader to the highest.


 The statement is rational insofar as to be an effective leader, a sense of an ethical standard is indispensable, with which the society can be more cohesive and united. For a political leader in a nation, his citizens usually consist people from different races, and to hold them together and prevent  the separation of nationality. He must keep a high standard of ethical principle to treat each race equally. The discrimination of the black for centuries is an example, with a lack of ethical standard, American authority of the time passed laws and policies allow the existence of inequality between the black and white, until the brave black woman Rosa Parks refused to obey the "offer seats to the white" policy in the bus did all the black people gathered and fight for their civil right under the leadership of marching luther king, which caused a big upheaval at the time. And to be an effective leader, one must hold the ethical standard and prevent this from happening again.


 Besides the ethical standard, the morality of a public leader is also essential. As a public figure, a leader only acts as the representative of the citizens whose actions and behaviors have a far-reaching effect to all. When it comes to the season of campaign, we can see that a lot of political candidates walk out their offices and come to public palaces to offer seats to the old in the bus, all help the poor and disable, although this kind of temporary behavior is largely an intentional act to get attention of the media and praise of the electorate, it prove that a sense of morality can do good to the society as a guiding to a lot of virtues, and acts as an important criteria of a promising leader.


 Up until now, the statement with regarding  the ethical and moral standard of a leader is quite reasonable, but as to the highest., I find it is unrealistic and rigorous. As no one is perfect and can be ultimately unselfish, so actually there is no"highest ethical and moral standard",. In history even the greatest celebrity who made eminent contribution to the society turn out to have their own shortcomings or turn out to be dull and fallacies when they are old, what the citizen want is a leader who can guarantee everyone's right and guide us to a better life, not a superman or a sage to deal all the problems correctly. So when Clinton was exposed to the public of the scandal with his secretary, after a big tumult in the public, most of the citizens didn't deny his talent in leadership and his contribution to his country, when we concede that great people. Included the public officials, are also human. We can demand them more specifically and with more tolerance.


 In sum, because the important position a public official stands in, he must obtain a high standard of ethical and moral standard to govern his citizen and execute his responsibility properly, but we under this we must also recognize the fallacious nature of human beings, abandon the rigorous conception that a public must have the highest standard, thus we can support our leader with political virtuosity and consider their work with more tolerance and objectivity.

KnightBM

逻辑还是清楚的~歧视黑人这个例子我挺喜欢用的嘿嘿，anyway， 坐等luke大神来细评

vane11

啊  谢谢   等LUKE大概要等到神马时候····

竹林中人

不建议写成argument 的样子，关于你最高道德标准的那段，我认为最有力的理由是我们选举领导人并不是他要做出道德的表率，更重要的是解决经济、政治、社会等各方面存在的问题的能力

vane11

谢  请问是说我的开头结尾和过渡句之类的很想ARGUMENT么