tesolchina 发表于 2014-10-19 22:10 static/image/common/back.gif
One compelling argument why people should abide by just laws is to maintain social stability. Nowa ...
好的 谢谢老师 你的意见我在考虑改进 我完成了另一篇 https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1778354-2-1.html
这一篇的修改意见稍后附上
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
今天时间有点紧，先列一个骨架版题纲，例子慢慢扩充
Obviously, individuals should obey just laws. But when laws are unjsut, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying it. And to justify whether a law is just or injust, one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests.
总论点：”显然如果法律合理，每个人都应当遵守秩序，但是即使法律不合理，公民应当试图改变法律而非简单地做违法举动。在法律是否合理的判断上，应当以全社会福利为出发点，而非个人从自身利益出发。
To begin with,if laws get widely recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society.
观点一：如果法律合理，每个人都应该遵守，有利建立良好的社会秩序，个人和社会都将从中受益。
However, when laws are unjust,especially when laws violate basic human rights,individuals should try to change what is unjust instead of simply disobeying it.
观点二：如果法律不合理，甚至侵犯公民的基本权利时，个人应当设法促使法律的修改而不是简单鲁莽的违法法律。
Finally, no matter whether the law is just or unjust, individuals should dare to question it and improve it, but the criteria used to justify a law could not be based on individuals' interests.
观点三：不论如何，公民对法律应当有质疑精神，但是公民对法律是否合理的判断不能仅仅从自身利益出发，否则整个社会将陷入混乱。
（每个人对法律是否合理的判断不同，每个公民若仅凭自己认为法律不合理而肆意违反法律，整个社会将陷入是非判断的混乱，久之不利于社会稳定和发展。）
结论再总结观点，顺带提及府也应当建立公民意见反馈机制、引导民众通过合法途径反应诉求。
lisa_C 发表于 2014-10-23 00:17 static/image/common/back.gif
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjus ...
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
今天时间有点紧，先列一个骨架版题纲，例子慢慢扩充
Obviously, individuals should obey just laws. But when laws are unjsut, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying it. And to justify whether a law is just or injust, one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests.
总论点：”显然如果法律合理，每个人都应当遵守秩序，但是即使法律不合理，公民应当试图改变法律而非简单地做违法举动。在法律是否合理的判断上，应当以全社会福利为出发点，而非个人从自身利益出发。
这个主旨句写得不错
To begin with,if laws get widely recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society.
观点一：如果法律合理，每个人都应该遵守，有利建立良好的社会秩序，个人和社会都将从中受益。
回应主旨句的第一部分，很好。注意widely的词性
However, when laws are unjust,especially when laws violate basic human rights,individuals should try to change what is unjust instead of simply disobeying it.
观点二：如果法律不合理，甚至侵犯公民的基本权利时，个人应当设法促使法律的修改而不是简单鲁莽的违法法律。
嗯 这个观点也不错 和主旨句第二部分呼应
其实这里的观点可以分成两点来写 当然你接下来的分论点也不错
Finally, no matter whether the law is just or unjust, individuals should dare to question it and improve it, but the criteria used to justify a law could not be based on individuals' interests.
观点三：不论如何，公民对法律应当有质疑精神，但是公民对法律是否合理的判断不能仅仅从自身利益出发，否则整个社会将陷入混乱。
（每个人对法律是否合理的判断不同，每个公民若仅凭自己认为法律不合理而肆意违反法律，整个社会将陷入是非判断的混乱，久之不利于社会稳定和发展。）
这个考虑的角度很好 但是你的分论点是一个否定句 你只说判断法律公义与否的标准不应该是什么 却没有说应该是什么 这无助于解决问题
当然这是挺难的问题
建议你读一点关于无知之幕的文章 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance 或许会有启发
结论再总结观点，顺带提及府也应当建立公民意见反馈机制、引导民众通过合法途径反应诉求。
lisa_C 发表于 2014-10-23 00:17 static/image/common/back.gif
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjus ...
这篇可以考虑写全文了
本帖最后由 raikkonen36 于 2014-10-27 11:42 编辑
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Every individual should obey just laws. Moreover, some people, especially the elites from different divisions in a society, can attempt to challenge unjust laws. Nonetheless, if every individual all questions unjust laws, it would cause some problems.
第一段：说明都要遵守公平的法律。Every individual should obey just laws in order to maintain social stability, which is the precondition of economic development. Nowadays, our society has set up a relatively comprehensive legislation system, based on the experience of the past years and the devotion of great minds in the history of law up to now. Regulating people’s behavior, just laws can provide an environment where people can get along with others in a peaceful and esteemed way and thus facilitate social stability. People can kill others with no punishment; government officers who appropriate a great amount of money still stay in their office; people who provide the information concerning national security for terrorists are not delivered into jail. Should this situation continue, our society would be in mess. 说了维持遵守法律的重要性，维持社会稳定。法律可以通过约束人的行为来维持社会稳定。
第二段：说明部分人可以尝试去质疑那些不公平的法律Moreover, some people, especially the elites from different divisions in a society, can attempt to challenge unjust laws. That is because those unjust laws always limit into a specific time. It is such limitations that should encourage people who have insightful view on laws to challenge those unjust laws. For instance, 当林肯总统看到在奴隶制下，奴隶的悲惨遭遇震惊时，他决定将尽全力废除奴隶制，他指出了奴隶制的不公平和废除奴隶制的种种好处，但是遇到巨大障碍，最后在他不懈努力下，最终废除了奴隶制，推动了美国经济的发展。
第三段：说明如果所有都去质疑的话，会造成一些问题Nonetheless, if every individual all questions unjust laws, it would cause some problems. The people who have insightful view on laws always account for a relatively small share in a society, meaning that the majority always do not understand why those unjust laws are unjust. Therefore, if such people all question unjust laws, some problems would emerge. 首先，他们可能会觉得所有的法律都是unjust，这样的话就连那些just laws 可能也不会遵守，这样对维持社会稳定不利。第二，他们可能会被某些政客，利益集团，利用，煽动他们达到某些目的，同样会对社会造成不利影响。
本帖最后由 lisa_C 于 2014-10-27 15:01 编辑
tesolchina 发表于 2014-10-27 08:12 static/image/common/back.gif
这篇可以考虑写全文了
（试写了一下全文，不过感觉考场上这么多字应该写不出来，一限时就退回原形>_<，这个是不限时写的，veil of ignorance用到了倒数第二段）
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
全文
I partly agree with the speaker’s claim about reaction to just laws and unjust laws. Obviously, individuals should obey just laws. But when laws are unjust, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying it. And to justify a law, one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests.
To begin with, if laws get wide recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society. Without constraint of human right laws, the emperor can make arbitrary decision about who will live and who will die; while with protection of laws, people don't need to worry that they will be killed by no reason. People's safety is guaranteed by laws and police department, anyone who damage others will be punished. Thus people can concentrate better on working and studying. As a result, people's living level will be improved and the whole society is advanced in economy.
However, when laws are unjust, especially when laws violate basic human rights, individuals should try to change what is unjust instead of simply disobeying it. Admittedly, unjust laws will bring misfortune and disorder, and people should resist it. While disobeying laws is just one way to show dissatisfaction about unjust laws, generally an unwise way, Susan B. Anthony's story tells us that essentially the most important thing is to change it. Until 1920, American woman have no right to vote according to laws. In 1872, Anthony went against the law and voted in her hometown. With no doubt, she was arrested directly. If she just simply disobeyed the law, it would be the end of the story and other than punishment on her, nothing would be changed. Nonetheless, Anthony took further action -- She lectured and canvassed across the nation for woman's right to vote, and finally in her effort, America passed laws to give woman voting right in 1920. Disobeying is just individual behavior and it has few impact on whole legal system, the authority will not compromise to change. To launch a campaign is one way to get more support from the public and to end unjust laws.
Finally, no matter whether the law is just or unjust, individuals should dare to question it and improve it, but the criteria used to justify a law could not be based on individuals' interests. People have their own interests. And if individuals just consider their own interests when they justify a law, there's no hope to establish a just society. Interest groups, especially those who have most influence on settings of laws, can do their best to gain social resources and privileges. Lower class people would be treated unjustly, facing miserable and hopeless life. What's more, if anyone can disobey the law when he consider the law as unjust law based on his own judgment, laws may lose power to direct people's behavior and keep the whole society in order. Different people have different demands, so it is difficult to reach consensus unless people eliminate all of personal biases and prejudices in this process. So people should judge a law through veil of ignorance, a way of thinking claimed in John Rawls’s book, a theory of justice. The criteria to justify laws should not biased according to sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are born equal, people are rational, free, and morally equal beings.
In sum, for just laws, we should obey and support them; for unjust laws, we should try to modify it instead of simply breaking it. The criteria to justify a law should not be biased with sex, race, nationality or individual tastes. And to establish a just society, government should play important role in establishing legal mechanism to collect people’s opinion about current laws and constantly improving legal system.
错字
Unfortune－misfortune
Disabeying- disobeying
Lauch-launch
Previledge - privilege
Judgement- judgment
lisa_C 发表于 2014-10-27 14:54 static/image/common/back.gif
（试写了一下全文，不过感觉考场上这么多字应该写不出来，一限时就退回原形>_
全文
I partly agree 不建议用partly agree这种模糊的表达 with the speaker’s claim about reaction 选词 (how to deal with) just laws and unjust laws. Obviously, individuals should obey just laws. But when laws are unjust, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying it. And to justify a law (to judge whether a law is just) , one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests.
To begin with, if laws get wide recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society. Without constraint of human right laws, the emperor皇帝从哪里来的 can make arbitrary decision about who will live and who will die; while with protection of laws, people don't need to worry that they will be killed by no reason. People's safety is guaranteed by laws and police department, anyone who damage others will be punished. Thus people can concentrate better on working and studying. As a result, people's living level will be improved and the whole society is advanced in economy.
你能不能具体说一种毫无争议的正义的法律
建议不要写人权法这种抽象而又艰深的法律 写一下不要冲红灯不要醉酒驾驶 不要偷盗这类最简单的正义法律不好么
However, when laws are unjust, especially when laws violate basic human rights, individuals should try to change what is unjust instead of simply disobeying it. Admittedly, unjust laws will bring misfortune and disorder, and people should resist it. While disobeying laws is just one way to show dissatisfaction about unjust laws, generally an unwise way,表达 举例之前要尽量精简 Susan B. Anthony's story tells us that essentially the most important thing is to change it指代什么 . Until 1920, American woman have 时态 no right to vote according to laws. In 1872, Anthony went against the law and voted in her hometown. With no doubt, she was arrested directly. If she just simply disobeyed the law, it would be the end of the story and other than punishment 这也不是改变on her, nothing would be changed. 你这里想说违法并不能改变什么，要想改变必须通过影响立法者 Nonetheless, Anthony took further action -- She lectured and canvassed across the nation for woman's right to vote, and finally in her effort这里对立法的影响要多写一点 , America passed laws to give woman voting right in 1920. Disobeying is just individual behavior and it has few impact on whole legal system, the authority will not compromise to change. To launch a campaign is one way to get more support from the public and to end unjust laws.
我试下重写你这一段 尽量简单
1 However, when a law is considered unjust, for example, violating basic human rights, individuals should try to change it through legislation rather than disobeying it. 2 For example, until 1920, unlike their male counterparts, women in the US did not have to right to vote, which was obviously unfair. 3 Susan B. Anthony, an activist for women’s suffrage, first chose to disobey the law and cast her vote in her hometown. 4 She was arrested but made little difference in changing the laws. 5 Later on she launched a campaign to educate Americans about the women’s right to vote and successfully pushed for legislation that granted women the rights. 6 This story suggested that to change unjust laws individuals should first obey the law and then try to change it through influencing the lawmakers.
1 提出分论点
2 简单介绍例子的背景
3 具体讲这个人违法
4 违法的后果及无用
5 改变策略 影响立法
6 总结 由例子提炼分论点
Finally, no matter whether the law is just or unjust, individuals should dare to question it and improve it, but the criteria used to justify a law 你这个地方概念有点问题 不是要justify law 也不是像你说的无论正义与否都要质疑和改善 这一段的重点应该是如何判断法律是否正义
could not be based on individuals' interests. People have their own interests. And if individuals just consider their own interests when they justify a law, there's no hope to establish a just society. Interest groups, especially those who have most influence on settings of laws, can do their best to gain social resources and privileges. Lower class people would be treated unjustly, facing miserable and hopeless life. What's more, if anyone can disobey the law when he consider the law as unjust law based on his own judgment, laws may lose power to direct people's behavior and keep the whole society in order. Different people have different demands, so it is difficult to reach consensus unless people eliminate all of personal biases and prejudices in this process. So people should judge a law through veil of ignorance, a way of thinking claimed in John Rawls’s book, a theory of justice. The criteria to justify laws should not biased according to sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are born equal, people are rational, free, and morally equal beings.
还是太长了 一段话 6句已经到顶了
注意这一段要回应题目的要求 anticipate challenge
1 Some people may argue that individuals can always claim a law is just or unjust based on their own interests and resisting laws can become rather arbitrary.2 I think this is a valid concern. 3 One solution to this problem is to use the concept “veil of ignorance” proposed by John Rawls.4 In other words, to judge whether a law is just or not, individuals should not take their own particular positions in the society. 5 For example, an individual citizen should not resist the law of increasing income tax simply because he or she is making a lot of money subject to the taxation.6 Instead, individuals should look at a law from the original position where nobody knows which positions s/he will take in society. 7 For example, one should decide whether income tax law is just or not as if s/he does not know about his/her monthly income.
raikkonen36 发表于 2014-10-27 11:32 static/image/common/back.gif
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjus ...
我觉得你基本上是在写全文
建议你先只写四句话的英文 然后简略用汉语解释如何展开 下面有我的一些具体意见
Issue 65
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Every individual should obey just laws. Moreover, some people, especially the elites from different divisions in a society, can attempt to challenge unjust laws. Nonetheless, if every individual all questions unjust laws, it would cause some problems.
第一段：说明都要遵守公平的法律。Every individual should obey just laws in order to maintain social stability, which is the precondition of economic development. Nowadays, our society has set up a relatively comprehensive legislation system, based on the experience of the past years and the devotion of great minds in the history of law up to now. Regulating people’s behavior, just laws can provide an environment where people can get along with others in a peaceful and esteemed way and thus facilitate social stability. People can kill others with no punishment; government officers who appropriate a great amount of money still stay in their office; people who provide the information concerning national security for terrorists are not delivered into jail. Should this situation continue, our society would be in mess. 说了维持遵守法律的重要性，维持社会稳定。法律可以通过约束人的行为来维持社会稳定。
中间段的论述需要有一定的章法 不能太随意
如果你要论述遵守正义法律的必要性 可以先在抽象的层面上讲 为什么要遵守正义的法律 比如社会稳定和经济发展的需要 等等
然后你要具体讨论某一项正义的法律 注意只讨论一项 并根据你前面讲的一般性规律来解释为什么遵守这项法律是必要的 以及 不遵守会导致怎样的不良后果 讲完之后 如果觉得不够可以再讲一个例子 最后重复一下一般性的原则
第二段：说明部分人可以尝试去质疑那些不公平的法律Moreover, some people, especially the elites from different divisions in a society, can attempt to challenge unjust laws. That is because those unjust laws always limit into a specific time不懂. It is such limitations that should 限制如何鼓励？encourage people who have insightful view on laws to challenge those unjust laws. For instance, 当林肯总统看到在奴隶制下，奴隶的悲惨遭遇震惊时，他决定将尽全力废除奴隶制，他指出了奴隶制的不公平和废除奴隶制的种种好处，但是遇到巨大障碍，最后在 他不懈努力下，最终废除了奴隶制，推动了美国经济的发展。
奴隶制及废奴运动导致南北战争 这个例子如何支持你所讲的精英应该挑战恶法？
第三段：说明如果所有都去质疑的话，会造成一些问题Nonetheless, if every individual all questions unjust laws, it would cause some problems. The people who have insightful view on laws always account for a relatively small share in a society, meaning that the majority always do not understand why those unjust laws are unjust. Therefore, if such people all question unjust laws, some problems would emerge. 首先，他们可能会觉得所有的法律都是unjust，这样的话就连那些just laws 可能也不会遵守，这样对维持社会稳定不利。第二，他们可能会被某些政客，利益集团，利用，煽动他们达到某些目的，同样会对社会造成不利影响。
这一段没有具体例子 如何支持你的观点 而且这种只有精英才能挑战法律的观点 和西方全民参与的民主自由理念大相径庭 要让人信服估计很困难
第一个分论点 要遵守良法 没问题
建议第二个分论点先讲 即使恶法也要遵守 否则会带来冲突 冲击法治和法律尊严
第三 可以通过合法的手段来尝试改变恶法 比如和平的游行示威 写信给议员 等等
例子方面 比较棘手 尽量不要写太复杂 了解不多的法律如废奴问题
目前我觉得比较合适的例子 包括版权法、税法、国会授权的军事行动
tesolchina 发表于 2014-10-27 23:13 static/image/common/back.gif
全文
I partly agree 不建议用partly agree这种模糊的表达 with the speaker’s claim about reac ...
多谢王老师指正
1.之前对justify的意思理解有偏差，想当然把它当成是判断的意思了，指出之后才发现，感谢！
2.我现在阐述这块比较难做到详略得当，试着模仿一下王老师的结构和写法。
3.语法问题要更仔细些
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
全文修改版
The speaker claims about how to deal with just laws and unjust laws.I agree with this assertion insofar as every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws. However, I disagree with the speaker's claim that every individual should disabey and resist unjust laws.When laws are unjust, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying and resisting it. And to judge whether a law is just, one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests through veil of ignorance.
To begin with, if laws get wide recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society. Without constraint of traffic laws, people will struggle in traffic chaoes and waste time on the road, while with guidance of traffic laws, anyone who run a red light will be punished. With the traffic flow is in order, people could could be more efficient in time management, sparing more time for working and studying. As a result, the society will be advanced in economy and science.
1 However, when a law is considered unjust, for example, violating basic human rights, individuals should try to change it through legislation rather than disobeying it. 2 For example, until 1920, unlike their male counterparts, women in the US did not have to right to vote, which was obviously unfair. 3 Susan B. Anthony, an activist for women’s suffrage, first chose to disobey the law and cast her vote in her hometown. 4 She was arrested but made little difference in changing the laws. 5 Later on she launched a campaign to educate Americans about the women’s right to vote and successfully pushed for legislation that granted women the rights. 6 This story suggested that to change unjust laws individuals should first obey the law and then try to change it through influencing the lawmakers.
(模仿老师的写法尽量换种表达把这段修改了一遍，希望表达没问题，rather than学到,自己想的时候思路只到change这一层，没有再往下具体到通过立法，再次学到
However, when laws are unjust, especially when laws violate basic human rights, individuals should try to change through legislation rather than disobeying it. For exmaple,until 1920,only men were empowered by laws the right to vote in United States, which was unfair for women.Susan B. Anthony,a feminist,broke the law to vote in her hometown in 1872 but failed to change inequity in voting. Then she launched a campaign to get support from the public for women's rights in voting and make the authority to compromise to revise laws. Anthony's story indicates that instead of fruitlessly disabeying unjust laws, we should try to change it through influencing the lawmakers)
1 Some people may argue that individuals can always claim a law is just or unjust based on their own interests and resisting laws can become rather arbitrary.2 I think this is a valid concern. 3 One solution to this problem is to use the concept “veil of ignorance” proposed by John Rawls.4 In other words, to judge whether a law is just or not, individuals should not take their own particular positions in the society. 5 For example, an individual citizen should not resist the law of increasing income tax simply because he or she is making a lot of money subject to the taxation.6 Instead, individuals should look at a law from the original position where nobody knows which positions s/he will take in society. 7 For example, one should decide whether income tax law is just or not as if s/he does not know about his/her monthly income.
(自己写的时候合instruction这点确实没有时时去注意到,还有像老师这样点到具体的例子也要学之，也是试着修改一下加深理解
Some people may call in question about the criteria to judge whether a law is just. It is a good concern, otherwise violating laws can become rather arbitrary. One solution to this problem is to judge through "veil of ignorance", which is proposed by John Raws. John Raws suggests that individuals should not take their own particular positions in the society when judge whether a law is just or not. For exmaple, a employer should not resist minimum wage law simply because he or she wants to lower the cost. Instead, individuals should judge a law from the original state where nobody knows which role s/he will play in society. For example, one should decide whether minimum wage law is just or not as if every has equal chance to be employee.)
In sum, for just laws, we should obey and support them; for unjust laws, we should try to modify it instead of simply breaking it. The criteria to justify a law should not be biased with sex, race, nationality or individual tastes. And to establish a just society, government should play important role in establishing legal mechanism to collect people’s opinion about current laws and constantly improving legal system.
整体感觉不错 这里指出两个小问题 如果能注意会对语言表达有很大的帮助
It is a good concern
valid concern是可以的 但是good concern却不行为什么 这就是搭配 搭配是约定成俗的 真正会用一个词不仅要知道意思 还有知道这个词通常和什么词在一起用
推荐你查搭配词典
http://www.ozdic.com/collocation-dictionary/concern 但是词典里也没有 valid
所以还是要用语料库
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1777232&page=5#pid1778938577
除了valid, legitimate也可以和concern 搭配 在COCA语料库里可以查到
simply because he or she wants to lower the cost
这里差了点补充信息
cost是指什么的cost呢
比如 cost of operation
labor cost
加上一些限定词可以让文章更清晰 内容更丰富
tesolchina 发表于 2014-10-29 13:29 static/image/common/back.gif
整体感觉不错 这里指出两个小问题 如果能注意会对语言表达有很大的帮助
It is a good concern
多谢王老师，COCA语料库早上刚刚注册，还在摸索怎么用，希望通过多读多写能更靠近地道的表达
那个内容具体清晰这点之前读The elements of style的时候也经常看到作者提到，在练的时候容易不注意，也希望能通过多练形成习惯下意识留意到
刚刚写了一篇ARGU2的题纲，顺便求王老师有时间的时候批改^^
本帖最后由 raikkonen36 于 2014-10-29 19:00 编辑
People have long expressed much concern on the issue of people’s attitude toward just and unjust laws. However, a widely recognized consensus on the issue has not yet established, with one voice indicating that every individual should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. In my view, every individual should obey just laws. Moreover, even if facing unjust laws, every individual should observe those laws. Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation.
Everyone should obey just laws, which lies in the prominent role of just laws in maintaining social stability. Regulating people’s behavior, just laws can provide an environment where people can interact with others in a peaceful and esteemed way and thus facilitate social stability. If people are all blind to just laws, the following scenes would emerge. People can kill others with no punishment; government officers who appropriate a great amount of money still stay in their offices; people who provide the information concerning national security for terrorists are not thrown in jail. Should this situation continue, our society would be in mess. As a result, people should all take obeying just laws on their top agenda, in order to maintain social stability.
Moreover, everyone still needs to obey unjust laws, which can be attributed to the significance of defending the authority of laws and as such, maintaining social stability. For instance, in 2003, the US congress passed the bill concerning the US invasion of the Iraq. While the possibility of the invalidity of the bill existed at that time, the US force still observed laws and went to the front line, and the US people still did their parts to support the Iraq war, such as paying a higher tax. The bill lasted a few years and was addressed latterly by the senator Obama. The story suggests that even if facing the laws with flaws, namely the unjust laws, people still need to comply with such laws. Only with the attitude toward laws, the authority of laws can be defended and thus social stability can be maintained.
Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation. Take violating basic human rights as an example. Until 1920, unlike their male counterparts, women in the US did not have a right to vote, which is obviously unfair. After realizing the inequality of women in voting, Susan B. Anthony, an activist for women’s suffrage, launched a campaign to educate Americans about the women’s right to vote and successfully pushed for legislation that granted women the rights. The story suggests that people can make a change in unjust laws via influencing the lawmakers, namely within the legal framework of legislation, which not only defends the authority of laws and maintains social stability, but also makes legislation system tend to be more just.
In sum, considering the significance of just laws in maintaining social stability, people should obey just laws. Moreover, people should still need to comply with unjust laws, based on defending the authority of laws. Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation, which not only defends the authority of laws, but also makes legislation system tend to more just.
raikkonen36 发表于 2014-10-29 17:41 static/image/common/back.gif
People have long expressed much concern on the issue of people’s attitude toward just and unjust la ...
People have long expressed much concern on the issue of people’s attitude toward just and unjust laws. However, a widely recognized consensus on the issue has not yet established, with one voice indicating that every individual should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. In my view, every individual should obey just laws. Moreover, even if facing unjust laws, every individual should observe those laws. Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation.
这个主旨句终于比较像样了 :lol
Everyone should obey just laws, which lies in the prominent role of just laws in maintaining social stability. (不明白你为什么要用which lie in 你可以说 because just laws play .. role ... ) (by) Regulating people’s behavior, just laws can provide an environment where people can interact with others in a peaceful and esteemed way and thus facilitate social stability. If people are all blind to just laws, the following scenes would emerge. People can kill others with no punishment; government officers who appropriate a great amount of money still stay in their offices; people who provide the information concerning national security for terrorists are not thrown in jail. Should this situation continue, our society would be in mess. As a result, people should all take obeying just laws on their top agenda, in order to maintain social stability.
你这段里面还是没有指出某个具体法律是良法 然后解释遵守这个法律的必要性
Moreover, everyone still needs to obey unjust laws, which can be attributed to 这个表达用在这里不合适 the significance of defending the authority of laws and as such, maintaining social stability. For instance, in 2003, the US congress passed the bill concerning the US invasion of the Iraq. While the possibility of the invalidity of the bill existed at that time（不明白这个分句的意思）, the US force still observed laws and went to the front line, and the US people still did their parts to support the Iraq war, such as paying a higher tax. The bill lasted a few years and was addressed latterly （？） by the senator Obama. The story suggests that even if 后面要跟从句facing the laws with flaws, namely the unjust laws, people still need to comply with such laws. Only with the attitude toward laws, the authority of laws can be defended and thus social stability can be maintained.
你需要更明确的指出为什么侵略伊拉克的法案是恶法
Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation. Take violating basic human rights as an example. Until 1920, unlike their male counterparts, women in the US did not have a right to vote, which is obviously unfair. After realizing the inequality of women (inequality between men and women) in voting, Susan B. Anthony, an activist for women’s suffrage, launched a campaign to educate Americans about the women’s right to vote and successfully pushed for legislation that granted women the rights (to vote). The story suggests that people can make a change in unjust laws via influencing the lawmakers, namely within the legal framework of legislation, which not only defends the authority of laws and maintains social stability, but also (promotes the justice within the legislative system) makes legislation system tend to be more just.
由这篇文章可见，你已经掌握了1+3的模型，实现了在段落层面的coherence，相信这样的文章已经达到4分的水平。但是，在句子层面上的表达问题仍然有可能拉低分数。另外，在段落内要确保例子回应分论点。
In sum, considering the significance of just laws in maintaining social stability, people should obey just laws. Moreover, people should still need to comply with unjust laws, based on defending the authority of laws. Nonetheless, people can attempt to make a difference in unjust laws within the legal framework of legislation, which not only defends the authority of laws, but also makes legislation system tend to more just.
上面同学的提纲是将题目分为obey just laws 和 disobey and resist unjust laws分为两个部分来分别探讨赞同或者不赞同的，这样的考虑比较周到而且比较易于分别说明。
我看到这个题目时，将Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws作为整体进行了讨论，因此立场就是不赞成。而我对Every individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws的理解则是个人没有组织性地对不公正的法律进行不服从和反抗，因此容易造成社会不安定。
看了上面同学的提纲，我觉得我的讨论比较片面，讨论深度太浅，理解有偏误，因此会再修改。
现在先把初稿陈列如下：
I do not agree with the claim because it is hard to judge whether the laws are just or not and disobeying or resisting so-called unjust laws will lead the society into chaos.
First and foremost, it is difficult to judge the just and unjust law. 每个人对法律的评判标准不同，因此对同一个法律的看法也不同。例如对税收的法律，采取分级收税的法律对不同收入的人采取的税收方式不同，最终却实现了相对公平，即采取不公平的方式，达到了公平的效果。而对此法律有人认为公平，有人认为不公平，难以界定。
What is more, disobeying or resisting so-called unjust laws will lead the society into chaos.个人不遵守带来执法困难，导致社会秩序混乱。不遵守和反对不公平法律的方式如果不当容易造成暴乱，甚至推翻政权，造成社会的不稳定。（没有想到好的例子）
Some people may argue that unjust laws will harm the society so that every individual has the responsibility to disobey and resist them. I, however, insist that people should not disobey or resist the unjust laws while they can suggest the government how to better the legislation, because the improper way of resisting the laws could be more harmful than the unjust laws themselves.
ClaretZ 发表于 2014-11-2 21:10 static/image/common/back.gif
上面同学的提纲是将题目分为obey just laws 和 disobey and resist unjust laws分为两个部分来分别探讨赞同 ...
issue 65
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
上面同学的提纲是将题目分为obey just laws 和 disobey and resist unjust laws分为两个部分来分别探讨赞同或者不赞同的，这样的考虑比较周到而且比较易于分别说明。
我看到这个题目时，将Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws作为整体进行了讨论，因此立场就是不赞成。而我对Every individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws的理解则是个人没有组织性地对不公正的法律进行不服从和反抗，因此容易造成社会不安定。
看了上面同学的提纲，我觉得我的讨论比较片面，讨论深度太浅，理解有偏误，因此会再修改。
现在先把初稿陈列如下：
I do not agree with the claim because it is hard to judge whether the laws are just or not and disobeying or resisting so-called unjust laws will lead the society into chaos.
First and foremost, it is difficult to judge the just and unjust law. 每个人对法律的评判标准不同，因此对同一个法律的看法也不同。例如对税收的法律，采取分级收税的法律对不同收入的人采取的税收方式不同，最终却实现了相对 公平，即采取不公平的方式，达到了公平的效果。而对此法律有人认为公平，有人认为不公平，难以界定。
judge the just and unjust law这个表达有问题 你自己考虑一下怎么改
What is more, disobeying or resisting so-called unjust laws will lead the society into chaos.个人不遵守带来执法困难，导致社会秩序混乱。不遵守和反对不公平法律的方式如果不当容易造成暴乱，甚至推翻政权，造成社会的不稳定。（没有想 到好的例子）
未必会造成暴乱那么严重 但是肯定会产生混乱 造成冲突 导致社会不安 经济受损 等等
Some people may argue that unjust laws will harm the society so that every individual has the responsibility to disobey and resist them. I, however, insist that people should not disobey or resist the unjust laws while they can suggest the government how to better the legislation, because the improper way of resisting the laws could be more harmful than the unjust laws themselves.
这个点可以讨论民众如何通过民主改选立法者来改变不正义的法律
总的来说你的主旨句和分论点都不错
就是在细节支撑上要注意