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.
The issue topic given states that some people believe that it is often necessary for political leaders to withhold infomation from public while others believe thatthe public should be informed. On one hand revealing all the information to public might be dangerous whereas on the other hand it will increase the transperancy between the government and its citizen. Consequently increasing the trust level. This is, thus, a contentious issue and needs scrupulous analysis before reaching any conclusion. However, in my view, all the information should not be made available to the public.
To begin with, there are few very sensitive information that should not be given in the hands of public. Some of these are nuclear codes, defence strategies, defence formations, equipments etc. If these are made public, then it would be catastrophic for that country. Terrorists and countries all over the world would know about the particular countries defence positions and other necessary information. The country would become so vulnerable to attack and there won't be much what it could do as all the strategies and positions are out there. The country will be ruined. For instance, few years ago India put a surgical strike on POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) when terrorists hiding in POK attacked India. This surgical strike had great significance and was a topic of debate all over the world. Now, consider all the information public. What would have happened? The attackers in POK would have evacuated the area or at least be prepared for the attack and this would have cost a devasting effect. Another example could be of publicly available nuclear codes. Similar situation would arise and there won't be much for the country to protect it. Thus, there are a lot of sensitive information that, if made available, would result into catastrophe.
Furthermore, in a democratic society, there are certain bills and laws that are being disccused and debated and then passed. They are not yet passed. However, if this information is made public, the opposition party would try to find all the possible flaws of the bill in order to influence the citizens against the bill. If the opposition party got successfull in finding some convincing flaws then it can start revolts all around the country. Then, the opposition party will have only two choices viz repudiate the bill or amend the bill to cover all the loop holes. This will either lead to never passing the law or delaying it. However, it could have proved to be really useful and could also have increased nation's development. But, because this information was made public, this useful law could not be enforced.
However, there are also many advantages about making the information public. This includes increased level of transparency between public and government, increased level of trust between both the parties, make the government more accountable and this will instigate a national debates which would prove to be beneficial as there would be more ideas towards the law to make it increase it's efficacy.
Although there are some benefits of making all the information available to public, but doing this can have many repurcursions and might lead to complete devastation of that country. Thus, all the information should not be made public especially the sensitive ones mentioned above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 366, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...between the government and its citizen. Consequently increasing the trust level. This is, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...e world would know about the particular countries defence positions and other necessary i...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 323, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...nfluence the citizens against the bill. If the opposition party got successfull in...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, however, if, really, so, then, thus, whereas, while, as to, at least, for instance, in my view, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.4196629213 234% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2811.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 545.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15779816514 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69335423914 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469724770642 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 881.1 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.2007994153 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.6774193548 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5806451613 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35483870968 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304103417853 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0864407132776 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104155080288 0.0758088955206 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197524713353 0.150359130593 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121347682726 0.0667264976115 182% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.