There are various classes of information pertaining to a nation: social, developmental, scandalous, international, intercontinental, campaigning agendas, war and fasmine relief strategies and most signicantly, confidential information out of the uncounatbly many.
Flow of these ideas, the dissemination is largely controlled by political leaders who can not only bring to notice these information but also control how this influences the people at large, in most of the cases. Although transparency in democracy is a tenet that should be adhered to in the ideal case, there are circumstances where a pedantic approach may cause undesirable conflicts. The crowd is not always predictable and can be swayed away by feelings than subjective pieces of political facts. These sequence of events can quickly turn into a state of chaos and irreconciliable. Thus, sometimes withholding informations from the public might be acceptable.
For exemplification, consider the US army operation involved in killing the infamous Osama Bin Laden. The nefarious terrorist was housed in a suburban region in Pakistan. Within a matter of several hours, the delegated officers from America, flew from their land, deceased Bin Laden, threw his body in an unknown location( rumoured to have dumped somewhere in the oceans) and returned back. All these pieces of confidential strategies were not released by the White House off late. Had these agendas been trumpeted as soon as they took place, a state of public turmoil would have erupted. The practical implications of giving these informations to the public has to be taken into consideration. For instance, the terrorist organisations might have started planning invidious incidents in US to venerate the deceased activist. His body could have been a place for consecration, indcorporating possibly even more entries into the pack of nefarious activities.
However, political leaders will be compromising democaracy and undermining the integrity of the nation by always disguising information. Several scandalous bribery cases can go unnotticed simply because the leaders did not wish to make the facts public, and get away without the befitting consequences. This can erode the framework of the country's established pillars making it prone to such reprehensible schemes, which if continued, will eventually degrade the power and growth of the nation itself.
All in all, the claim that sometimes political leaders find it necessary to withhold information from the public is not a black-and-white subject. Various aspects of practicality are involved. Different situations call for different approaches by the government. Also, the when to use such surreptitious schemes is a matter of great debate. A baseless person would want to overuse this veto power, while on paper, an ideal leader shall deploy this power only in dire circumstances: which boils down to a matter of self-awareness and virtuous principles. In hope for a better future, having a team of honorable leaders controlling power in the center is the best bet that the country has to continue thriving with prosperity, abiding by the spirit of democracy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 116, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...eaders who can not only bring to notice these information but also control how this influences th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... from the public might be acceptable. For exemplification, consider the US arm...
^^^
Line 4, column 375, Rule ID: RETURN_BACK[1]
Message: Use simply 'returned'.
Suggestion: returned
...have dumped somewhere in the oceans and returned back. All these pieces of confidential strat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 422, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ne to such reprehensible schemes, which if continued, will eventually degrade the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, thus, while, as to, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2675.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 486.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50411522634 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23407898482 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59670781893 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 849.6 704.065955056 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2898694859 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.304347826 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1304347826 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.82608695652 5.21951772744 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190810596976 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0493574532699 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510718156506 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0937295066734 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0324649503806 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.75 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 156.0 100.480337079 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 11.8971910112 139% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.