寄托家园留学论坛

标题: 6分得主的习作----给大家贴两篇作文，作者是考场6分得主，我以前的收藏 [打印本页]

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 15:25:18 标题: 6分得主的习作----给大家贴两篇作文，作者是考场6分得主，我以前的收藏

Issue17
There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.
------正文------

Laws, body of official rules and regulations, found in constitutions, legislations, judicial opinions, and the like, are used to govern a society and control the behavior of its members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws are categorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws. This view, in my eyes, is fundamentally irrational in ignoring the significance of certain constancy in legal system. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.

To begin with, whether a law is just or not is more of a subjective issue that differs according to personal interests, social class, as well as one's personal value system. Consider, for example, the controversial issue abortion. For people of certain religious belief, laws indulge abortion are unjust since they believe mothers do not have the freedom to deprive infants of their rights of life, while for people of other religions, right of life comes into being after birth, which render abortion not an infringement of human right and should be at the pregnant woman's will. Besides diverges generated due to personal value system, different, or even opposite, personal interests may also result in divarication. For instance, certain laws may prohibit factories from emitting toxic effluents into rivers for the well-being of local residents. In the eye of common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate to ensure public interests, however, as for the manager of a factory, this law, which causes it to curtail employees, increase manufacturing costs, and adopt related costly processing procedures, may be regarded as unjust. Consequently, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws, to which type a law belongs should be determined on a case-by-case basis varying with changing social conditions.

Nevertheless, in most occasions, whether a law is justified or not is definite with just ones more often than not fall into a line with interests of the majority, and hence every individual should faithfully abide by just laws. For example, highway codes in most countries require drivers to drive automobiles on the right side of the street, the goal of which is to ensure smooth transportation and to avoid unnecessary traffic accidents, and the disobey of them would inevitably result in chaos that threaten human lives. Similarly, various criminal laws, civil laws and administrative laws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for the security and order of the society. Without people's compliance, anarchy would reign supreme, not to mention insurance of basic human rights.

In terms of unjust laws, often resulted from ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions, some people, the author included, suggest that since they are not likely to be dismissed or disappear automatically, every individual should be incumbent to take up responsibility to overthrow them to build up a more harmonious, democratic and human-oriented society. Ostensibly, this assertion is appealing, however, an in-depth review would reveal its naivety and vulnerability. As a matter of fact, more often than not, by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, for the same reason that there may not be definite division between justness and unjustness. Consider the abortion example again. A person opposing freedom of abortion would overthrow the law by way of blocking roads to the abortion clinic, which, in his/her visual angle, is justifiable because he is just showing his opposition to unjust laws. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder! Evidently, every sort of action threatening public security could find a well established excuse if every individual is allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in their discretion.

In summary, from all the discussions above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's assertion is essentially unreasonable in that it naively divides just laws with unjust laws and neglects the importance of constancy of legal system to ensure a democratic and harmonious society. However, with social conditions changing at a breathtaking speed and considering the limitation of human insights of the future, laws should be flexible to keep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is not overextended.

[ 本帖最后由 nostrum 于 2007-2-9 15:36 编辑 ]

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 15:26:23

Issue190
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money.
------正文------

Although nowadays the concept of art usually refers to visual art, the definition of art has changed over centuries. Perhaps the most concise definition of art is its broadest--art refers to all creative endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction. From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for various creations, out of which sprang all human pursuits and inspiration. Concerning the necessity of the arts, the speaker asserts that it is too luxurious and wasteful to use public resources to support art when people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, which, in my eyes, is fundamentally unreasonable except its emphasis on social pressing problems. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.

To begin with, the arts, though unable to afford us material luxury like technological advancement and other human progresses, enriches culture, enlightens our spirit, and broadens our horizon, in other words, presents us with what is eternal and universal; the abundance and civilization of spiritual life, unlike a popular idea that denies the significance of spiritual enjoyment, is insurance and premise for material wealth. As the famous scientist and philosopher Descartes once ardently proposed (and I paraphrased):" There are dual sides of a human: one is material, the other spiritual." True, Shakespeare, who achieved maturity and reached unparalleled success in literature by masterpieces such as <Romeo and Julia><Mac Beth>, etc, created the eternal and universal figure Hamlet, the moral dilemma of whom, as something inflicting all humans regardless of era, tells us the fate of all humans; the music genius Beethoven, brilliant, vigorous, and talented as he is, has been shocking audiences for centuries, international or domestic, professionals or amateurs, by his romantic style of creation after his death, with Pathetique and Moonlight being the most famous two. The two examples aptly show that the arts, with various incarnations such as music, painting, sculpture, literature, poem, drama, and architecture, etc, is a mirror as well as carrier for classic inspiration and innovations that provide pleasure.

In addition, besides merits directly related to our common lives, the arts is an indispensable component of culture, absent of which is a deteriorated sense of identity and a barbaric primitive state similar to other animals. In terms of biological structure, humans differ from other animals by our "second language system", which refers to human language, a unique capacity that other animals lack. Since art forms such as literature, music, drama, and the like, are its most significant carriers, it is not exaggerating to assert that the arts differ human from other animal and that humans without the enrichment of arts but material wealth, however abundant it may be, are no more than animals in low and simply stage. In short, that we are humans, but not other barbaric creatures, is, at least partly, due to our ability to create and innovate the spiritually noble form--the arts.

Admittedly, emphasis on social pressing problems, say, hunger, unemployment, diseases, war, etc, can never be understated, as the speaker holds. In order to understand this point, one only need to see how many Africa refugees are starving to death with every second passes, how many criminal actions and suicides are being committed due to the lose of job, how many people are being deprived of lives by AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Symptom) and cancers, and how many innocent citizens are being killed or injured ruthlessly by nuclear bombs and suicide bombs throughout mid-east countries. Surely, government should allocate a sufficient amount of funds as well as human resource support to these pressing problems, without, however, the arts being neglected.

In summary, from the above discussion, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author is reasonable in pointing out the necessity to solve social pressing problems. However, he/she fails to take into account the benefits of the arts: one is the source of human pleasure, the other indispensable part of human civilization that differs from animals and barbaric state.

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-2-9 16:11 编辑 ]

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 15:35:55

因为作者就是跟咱们一样的大学里的普通同学，不是什么印度阿三，美国佬之类的，大家可以有个标准

作者: expire7 时间: 2007-2-9 16:00:47

搬个板凳，我也学习学习。

开头写的好。
展开题目和切合题目的方式和常看到的不一样。

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-2-9 16:17 编辑 ]

作者: cyyc0311 时间: 2007-2-9 16:04:45

编辑后看着舒服多咯
3Q^_^

[ 本帖最后由 cyyc0311 于 2007-2-9 16:14 编辑 ]

作者: yimei 时间: 2007-2-9 16:46:00

提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: 最後の使徒 时间: 2007-2-9 17:39:07

take seat
观摩了
语言很强 -0- 外语系的?

[ 本帖最后由 nostrum 于 2007-2-9 19:50 编辑 ]

作者: mckinsey 时间: 2007-2-9 19:28:50

re zan

作者: mckinsey 时间: 2007-2-9 19:39:20

re zan

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 19:50:43

原帖由 lastangel 于 2007-2-9 17:39 发表
take seat
观摩了
语言很强 -0- 外语系的?

这个……还真不知道具体哪个系，但是，印象中不是外语的

作者: runningpiggy 时间: 2007-2-9 20:22:21

我觉得这样的开头太长...

作者: kito9695 时间: 2007-2-9 20:25:32

哪位最好在来个评点分析~
鼓励板油参与;d:

作者: christain 时间: 2007-2-9 20:35:54

关于法律的那篇，我怎么读了觉得没主题
可能我太水了
语言确实不错
能用平常的word写出不一样的句子
佩服阿

作者: iq28 时间: 2007-2-9 21:03:11

这个开头根本不敢用....而且考场也些不出来...
对大部分人不太适用...
不过牛人是让偶们来崇拜的作用大于学习

作者: nicky1999 时间: 2007-2-9 21:11:43

比较强......

作者: emilywangwan 时间: 2007-2-9 21:46:46

语言很漂亮！！牛人得作文

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 22:18:36

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-2-9 21:03 发表
这个开头根本不敢用....而且考场也些不出来...
对大部分人不太适用...
不过牛人是让偶们来崇拜的作用大于学习

这个开头，不是她在考场上写的，是他自己在下面自己总结的开头，考场上直接套的

她是每类话题总结一个开头，考试直接用

作者: starocean 时间: 2007-2-9 22:43:08

谢谢楼主分享
学习

作者: fe3o4_chen 时间: 2007-2-9 22:45:34

我怎么觉得法律那篇有范文的影子，而且好像很严重...

作者: 最後の使徒 时间: 2007-2-9 23:13:28

恩法律那篇的思路和例子和范文都有重合, 不过改写得很漂亮

抖一下, 我写的开头一般还要长...

作者: nostrum 时间: 2007-2-9 23:18:08

原帖由 Yemy 于 2007-2-9 22:34 发表
谢谢，请问这两篇文章是这位大牛考完之后默写出来的吗？否则如何能从大牛考场上写的文章能得6分推断出考场外的文章也能得6分？（sorry，不要怪我太argument了:loveliness: ）

她考场上是写的这个题目，但是，这个是她在下面的习作

她说考场上写得比这个更详尽

作者: DIDOROSE 时间: 2007-2-10 00:32:58

谢谢不错

作者: runningpiggy 时间: 2007-2-10 01:32:41

个人不推荐大家把开头写那么长，一来浪费时间，二来不见得对文章有用，开头简单有力就好。

作者: iq28 时间: 2007-2-10 04:46:57

原帖由 nostrum 于 2007-2-9 23:18 发表

她考场上是写的这个题目，但是，这个是她在下面的习作

她说考场上写得比这个更详尽

天哪,本来就700+字的天书,考场上居然还要更详细omg
好好研究下这两文章尤其第一个^_^

作者: wbavw 时间: 2007-2-10 08:43:50

thanks a lot!

作者: bingdao121 时间: 2007-2-10 10:34:04

谢谢阿:)

作者: yanhuostar 时间: 2007-2-10 11:40:59

zan...

作者: 蛋蛋_psycho 时间: 2007-2-10 12:18:35

太厉害了~~

小女子真是坐火箭也追不上……

作者: expire7 时间: 2007-2-10 13:01:49

他的开头是一种变化。大家依靠自己的能力来学习。没必要都这样子写得

作者: lourry 时间: 2007-2-10 13:28:34

赞呵，好东西呵~

作者: duanwei49087511 时间: 2007-2-10 20:23:41

值得研究一下!好好研究一下!:funk:

作者: iq28 时间: 2007-2-26 17:19:07

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-2-9 21:03 发表
这个开头根本不敢用....而且考场也些不出来...
对大部分人不太适用...
不过牛人是让偶们来崇拜的作用大于学习

感叹一下
过了十几天再过来看感觉就跟以前大不一样了呵呵

作者: liupsychologist 时间: 2007-2-26 18:15:59

恩，
是不错，
但是学社会学的人看，可能术语？

作者: aunknown 时间: 2007-2-26 18:22:58

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-2-26 17:19 发表

感叹一下
过了十几天再过来看感觉就跟以前大不一样了呵呵

小牛,莫非你已经参悟了这其中的...., 强!什么时候要传授给我呀!;d:

作者: iq28 时间: 2007-2-26 18:47:36 标题: 回复 #35 aunknown 的帖子

我正在写对于第二篇文章的困惑....
马上准备发上来...
有点怕被乱棍打死呵呵

作者: aunknown 时间: 2007-2-26 18:54:58

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-2-26 18:47 发表
我正在写对于第二篇文章的困惑....
马上准备发上来...
有点怕被乱棍打死呵呵

没事我帮你挡, ;d:
赶快出炉呀! 好久没在版上看到有水平的真经了!

作者: lindor 时间: 2007-2-26 21:45:17

越看越觉得帅啊...写的真好.

作者: iq28 时间: 2007-2-26 22:10:18 标题: 回复 #37 aunknown 的帖子

写好了~不过没有人看|||
很快沉掉了|||
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-616555-1-1.html

作者: lourry 时间: 2007-2-28 13:13:12

好东西，一律顶上来~

作者: dracuula 时间: 2007-2-28 14:26:58

达者为师，学习了～

作者: baoer 时间: 2007-3-16 12:34:52 标题: Some Quick Comments

Issue17
There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Laws, body of official rules and regulations, found in constitutions, legislations, judicial opinions, and the like, are used to govern a society and control the behavior of its members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws are categorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws. This view, in my eyes, is fundamentally irrational in ignoring the significance of certain constancy in legal system. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.

Comment: This thoughtful beginning demonstrates the writer's solid foundation in humanities, and a nice facilitiy of adroit rephrasing in grasping the core of the issue from the very start. One reservation, though, may be the delayed placement of his/her own stance, which can be contrary to Western conventions on this type of essays. An up-front approach, especially in test situations, may be more desirable.

To begin with, whether a law is just or not is more of a subjective issue that differs according to personal interests, social class, as well as one's personal value system. Consider, for example, the controversial issue abortion. For people of certain religious belief, laws indulge abortion are unjust since they believe mothers do not have the freedom to deprive infants of their rights of life, while for people of other religions, right of life comes into being after birth, which render abortion not an infringement of human right and should be at the pregnant woman's will. Besides diverges generated due to personal value system, different, or even opposite, personal interests may also result in divarication. For instance, certain laws may prohibit factories from emitting toxic effluents into rivers for the well-being of local residents. In the eye of common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate to ensure public interests, however, as for the manager of a factory, this law, which causes it to curtail employees, increase manufacturing costs, and adopt related costly processing procedures, may be regarded as unjust. Consequently, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws, to which type a law belongs should be determined on a case-by-case basis varying with changing social conditions.

Comment: Despite a few phrasal inaccuracies and misspellings, the writer shows an incisive perception of the complexities in differentiating just and unjust laws. Throughout the paragraph, its dialectic reasoning progresses quite smoothly and coherently, and its instantiations are highly relevant and revealing.

Nevertheless, in most occasions, whether a law is justified or not is definite with just ones more often than not fall into a line with interests of the majority, and hence every individual should faithfully abide by just laws. For example, highway codes in most countries require drivers to drive automobiles on the right side of the street, the goal of which is to ensure smooth transportation and to avoid unnecessary traffic accidents, and the disobey of them would inevitably result in chaos that threaten human lives. Similarly, various criminal laws, civil laws and administrative laws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for the security and order of the society. Without people's compliance, anarchy would reign supreme, not to mention insurance of basic human rights.

Comment: This paragraph naturally develops from the previous one, and organically extends the analysis into some essential dimensions of the issue, namely, laws, just or bad, are subject to arbitration by some higher interests and necessities. A good angle of analysis, though its depth can be more exhaustive, and some conceptual inconsistencies should be cautiously avoided. For example, up to now, the concept of "just" and "unjust" laws remains elusive, it may appear somewhat presumptuous to write that "hence every individual should faithfully abide by just laws."--it's not the time for that judgment yet. In this sense, this paragraph may be better off if placed after the next paragraph.

In terms of unjust laws, often resulted from ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions, some people, the author included, suggest that since they are not likely to be dismissed or disappear automatically, every individual should be incumbent to take up responsibility to overthrow them to build up a more harmonious, democratic and human-oriented society. Ostensibly, this assertion is appealing, however, an in-depth review would reveal its naivety and vulnerability. As a matter of fact, more often than not, by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, for the same reason that there may not be definite division between justness and unjustness. Consider the abortion example again. A person opposing freedom of abortion would overthrow the law by way of blocking roads to the abortion clinic, which, in his/her visual angle, is justifiable because he is just showing his opposition to unjust laws. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder! Evidently, every sort of action threatening public security could find a well established excuse if every individual is allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in their discretion.

Comment: Here the discussion about how "unjust laws" are instituted is rather arbitrary, or even simplistic, for "sober-minded" legislators can equally propose "unjust laws" just as their less capable colleagues often do. Still, the rest of the paragraph exhibits the writer's strong analytic abilities, and his firm control of complex phenomena and logic threads.

In summary, from all the discussions above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's assertion is essentially unreasonable in that it naively divides just laws with unjust laws and neglects the importance of constancy of legal system to ensure a democratic and harmonious society. However, with social conditions changing at a breathtaking speed and considering the limitation of human insights of the future, laws should be flexible to keep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is not overextended.

Comment: So far, the writer weaves an impressive investigation into a complicated social phenomenon--the relations between law and human. Linguistically, s/he has a fluent and analytical writing style, though minor phrasing problems do occur at times. Structurally, this piece has a sound and straightforward deployment for such type of argumentative writing. Overall, the writer has a very strong research potential, and is well on the way toward coping with North American academic writing and research rigor.

作者: Gogo学着聪明 时间: 2007-3-16 13:09:21

遇到不只一个考6分写上7,800的人了
估计ETS看见也感叹
要是写他个1000,岂不..........

作者: andyljh 时间: 2007-3-17 14:17:56 标题: 我觉得他是倾向于解释概念，让步开头，这样好写，但是对语言要求高

作者: al_screno 时间: 2007-3-17 19:16:31

貌似例子都是北美范文里面的，假如现在还这样写的话，不会判雷同吗？

作者: xmm0769 时间: 2007-6-16 16:46:16

学习中……

作者: futureman 时间: 2007-6-16 17:37:35 标题: 看到开头倒吸一口，有Rousseau 的风范

作者: laura001 时间: 2007-6-16 18:22:45

写的真好啊~

作者: speakless 时间: 2007-6-16 18:54:58

恩~收藏了...好东西~~其实学期北美不如学习咱中国人满分作文~至少有很多都可以同样做到的.

作者: martina84 时间: 2007-7-3 11:14:54

文章确实写得好，值得学习
但我也有同样的疑问，法律那篇例子都出自北美范文，而且个别语句也是完全的copy，现在如果这样会不会被判雷同呢？

作者: yyang167 时间: 2007-7-3 13:53:20

学习中

作者: jake23 时间: 2007-7-16 14:42:12

其实，看过之后觉得语言确实非常不错。呵呵，但是论证过程中就好像不那么完美了，而且思路及例证真的跟北美范文的非常像。所以，我们如果能学习作者的某些优点也许考试的时候就可以得到不错的成绩了。看来ETS确实不会要求大家在那么短的时间内就论证得非常充分呢。

加油加油！还是要多多谢谢搂住：）

作者: Karge 时间: 2007-7-16 15:17:48

第一句好像是pooh百宝箱的吧？
文章思路真得很值得学习呢！

作者: rocwhite 时间: 2007-7-16 16:16:33

up

作者: jennifer928428 时间: 2007-7-16 16:49:53

能不能再放上来几片阿

作者: thao8487 时间: 2007-7-16 18:09:55

niu a !!!

作者: raulseven 时间: 2007-7-16 19:01:29

牛人的作品，学习中！！

作者: sstar 时间: 2007-7-16 21:07:44

厉害！

作者: sabestian 时间: 2007-7-17 10:29:39

Thanks

作者: wjj4853 时间: 2007-7-19 08:07:00

所谓厚积薄发吧
一般情况是考场水平与平时水平正相关啦
你说的是小概率事件，属于无法研究的偶然情况

按此逻辑，我们没有范文可以学习了。因为即便是北美范文，也不是挨个考出来的
只要厂家可靠，不必划掉每根火柴也能判断一盒火柴的质量的

原帖由 Yemy 于 2007-2-9 22:34 发表
谢谢，请问这两篇文章是这位大牛考完之后默写出来的吗？否则如何能从大牛考场上写的文章能得6分推断出考场外的文章也能得6分？（sorry，不要怪我太argument了:loveliness: ）

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)