I would prefer not to compose the entire article to be copied, I'd rather you composed it yourself with the help of my tips. I will cover the following topics:
1. Determining a hypothesis for the paper
2. Characterizing an objective of the paper
3. Getting some arguments to back up the hypothesis ready
4. Building up the flow to achieve the objective
5. Completing and closing with a short summary
Everytime we need to set up a paper, article, talk, and so on, we require a theory. It's the premise, it's what keeps our arugments together, the reason, they are not totally over the top. When writing an essay, we typically either concur or can't help contradicting either the topic itself or more often - what it conveys.
In this particular example, our breaking point is the preventive vigilance. We have to think how it could be useful for the general population, not useful for the general population or perhaps, we might want to indicate both sides of the coin and say that:
We cannot differ with a certainty that preventive vigilance seems to be the response to better anticipation of bribery inside the government. We should not overlook the fact, that there are more than a couple reasons for us to be cautious with any sort of a system like this one.
... this way, we realize that yes, in fact - we admit it's value, yet we bring reader's attention to the possibility of it being somewhat hazardous and the necessity of thorough regulations. Why? Because any sort of counteractive action is, as a rule, connected with some sort of tempation for invigilation of citizens.
Bottom line, it is, by all means, your choice to choose whether you will decide to settle on/against an opinion or stand some place in the center.
You ought to remember to have some sort of an objective for your essay at all times. A main priority, as in 'what would I like to accomplish by composing this exposition?' I don't mean something like 'I wanna pass my course and get a good enough grade' however ;)
Having an objective, means having a reason for composing a piece of writing. It depends on what you, personally, believe in. Here, for instance, I can say that I don't have faith in any kind of governemntal framework which may incorporate intrusion in personal data and so I feel the need to persuade individuals that it's inappropriate to settle on such a framework - this would be our objective.
Consider yours, it's dependent upon you.
Keep in mind this FOREVER: your arguments assist you with reaching your objective! It's their principle, that is the reason you put them there, that is the way you're attempting to pass on your message. In the meantime, you ought to research what would work best on different types of individuals reading your piece. All the more essentially - on individuals who haven't chose yet, which side of the discourse they are going to stick to. Why those particular individuals? This is the reason:
Individuals for: They are as of now with you, why might you need to persuade them? They have already been persuaded anyway :)
Individuals against: They will defend a different type of empathy than you. Trying to persuade them may become way harder than it needs to be. Therefore, it migh not be productive when you consider time spent and potential results.
Individuals who don't have a clue: They are your objective - they can add to the pool of individuals thinking simply like you. You must persuade them to go your direction, else, they will join your opposers.
Realizing that, we ought to think what arguments are great. The answer is very simple however: every argument is good as long as it's relevant to your target group and lines up with both, the hypothesis and the goal. Being relevant is the most impactive factor - begin with that.
... to be continued