寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › ISSUE专项突破 › Issue17 12月高强组第二周周三作业

返回列表

查看: 3822|回复: 8

[经典批改讨论] Issue17 12月高强组第二周周三作业 [复制链接]

最後の使徒
UID: 2257608

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 427
寄托币: 22408
注册时间: 2006-9-29
精华: 55
帖子: 644

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-11-29 10:57:53 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 823       TIME: 0:45:00       DATE: 2006-11-29

提纲:
1, 法律是否公平在个人看来是不同的 -
2, 因此破坏不公平的法律不可行 -
3, 可以通过别的方法来改变不公平的法律 -

  Ever doubted about the law which restricts your actions, manages the society and stands for justice? I think this is common, since there is no absolute justice for every one to admit. Therefore, dividing laws into two types, just and unjust, seems too extreme and unfeasible for me. In this sense, the statement requires us  to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust laws is unacceptable, because we cannot assess a law by subjective views and break the social order under its control, or the society will face a chaotic situation.

  The long history human beings have shared has built diversified value systems to assess justice. In ancient Rome, noble was authority and they were representative of justice; in ancient China, emperors were the overwhelming force and required obeying; in ancient Greek, the justice belonged to all citizens in a democratic way. However, although nowadays many standards such as human rights, peace and freedom have become widely admitted ethos standards and become basis of many laws, nations are still diversified with each other on the issue of justice. Even in a same nation, laws can be different since they stand for different people's value systems and interests. The United States, for instance, contains different states who have their diversified laws, some admit penalty to death, while others do not. In other words, laws are different from time to time and place to place, and views about them will be different by individuals. The chief aim of modern laws is to strike balance between most social members and manage the society so that it can develop steadily.

  In this sense, if we admit actions as disobeying unjust laws, unpredictable outcomes will happen. Because whether laws are just is subjective to ever one, some will easily break laws and do harm to the society if they are permitted to do so. Criminals may think their life is poor because of unjust laws, and then break it by robbing banks and shooting the innocent. A TV program called Prison Break tells a story that the hero in it tries to help his brother, who is sentenced to death with a false judge. It might be tempting to think this story is about those who disobey unjust laws. But in my view, since the penalty itself is false and operated with illegal measures, it is out of question. Although this kind of problems won't take place in those states where penalty to death is not accepted, it cannot be the evidence of disobeying unjust laws. Moreover, in this story because the hero disobeys laws and breaks the prison, some criminals get out of high walls and injure the innocent. A more realistic example involves the current situation in Iraq. After American's attack and changed its government, Sunnis lost their power in the country and they do not admit the laws under Shia, another religious factor in this nation, government's management. Insurgences and battles keep on, more and more citizens and American army men are suffering from dangers of death. To conclude, laws cannot be broken in illegal ways or the society will face chaos.

  But to some people, chaos seems to be necessary if a nation's laws are unjust and serve for autocrats, tyrants and other evil factors. They may cite many insurgences in history that changed governments as evidence. However, in my view any such concerns are unwarranted and dangerous in modern society. As we know, many countries have developed mature legislation system and it is admitted for citizens to change laws in democratic ways. According to me, political and peaceful ways seems more effective and feasible. If the two factors in Iraq can take a political way, asking for citizens' vote to decide the power, that nation won't be trapped into such a chaos. Even in some nations, laws are operated by some autocrats, the United Nation can play a role to help its people. With the process of globalization, the international society will have more influence to spread the widely admitted value system and human rights--therefore making every member in it develops in a restricted way.

  To sum up, I think the concern that unjust laws should be disobeyed is not feasible and effective. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should obey any law absolutely. Oppositely, there is no perfect law and we can change them in political methods, by entering councils, governments with personal efforts, or using public media and forces to influence legislation agencies. On the other hand, many laws are not developed maturely and cannot restrict the society widely. So social ethos and morality should be taken by every people to perfect the laws, as long as to ensure a steady society, and as long as to ensure the innocent are not vulnerable. Just as the directives of a hero called RoboCop, in a movie, say: first, serve the public trust; second, protect the innocent; third, uphold the law.

第二次写,思路有点乱,可能是太想写出东西来了,感觉用PB的那个例子很不合适在这里

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2006-11-29 11:50 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

最後の使徒
UID: 2257608

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 427
寄托币: 22408
注册时间: 2006-9-29
精华: 55
帖子: 644

沙发

发表于 2006-11-29 10:58:24 |只看该作者

上次写的

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 657       TIME: 0:41:31       DATE: 2006-11-19

  The issue states that two types of laws, just and unjust, require us to obey just ones, while more importantly, to disobey unjust ones. However, such a concern is quite unfeasible in my view, since laws cannot be separated into those two types so extremely, therefore-making disobeying unjust laws may result in certain social problems.

  In my opinion, laws are made to ensure the security of society, and it is based on the interests of social mainstream powers. In this sense, laws are subjective to be taken as just or unjust, by people with different backgrounds and value system. The laws to protect internet copyrights, for instance, are made to ban hackers cracking softwares and publicizing them on webs. These laws are servicing for software companies, while they will certainly do harm to hackers and users who do not want to pay for the softwares. Although they seem to be just at the first glance, in some people's view, however, such laws may present to be overbearing. The chief aim of laws is to strike a balance between social members, but not to obtain extreme just, which is hard to understand and has been long controversial during human history. If we take a law in ancient Rome into consideration, which contempts human rights of slaves, we may easily come to a conclusion that such a law is unjust and unnecessary to obey. However, ancient Rome people, especially the noble, will take them as just. Even the contemporary laws in other countries may be thought to be unjust in our views. For example, in some countries a fetus is protected by laws and cannot be killed even before he is born. But in my country, abortion is legal and thought to be a protection for those unmarried mothers and abnormal fetuses. As a conclusion, laws should be made as just as possibly, and they should be obeyed and operated absolutely.

  If we take disobeying unjust laws as reasonable, the society will face a challenge of crimes and chaos. Criminals are likely to consider all laws which prevent them from obtaining undeserved incoming as unjust, and easily break them. In nowadays Iraq, for instance, insurgents of Sunnis do not admit laws made by government, which is mainly constituted by Shia, causing thousands of death every week. If laws lose their authority and power, the society will fall into an unpredictable future.

  It may be tempting to think about the just insurgence taken by slaves or workers in history. However, according to me, it seems more reasonable to take a political way to solve problems caused by controversial laws. Modern society has provided us a rational legislation system, in which citizens of a nation can be selected and amend laws. Although this will ask for a long time sometimes, I think it will be much better than insurgence, which lead to social chaos and do harm to the innocent. Even there admittedly exist some countries ruled by autocrats and tyrannical governments, the United Nation is doing its best to bring us a world closer to just, which is admired by most people. By influencing those autocratic governments, UN and the global society can help those nations seek a just law system.

  To sum up, whether a law is just or unjust is subjective. It is unpredictable to admit the actions breaking unjust laws. Personally, I think as long as the innocent are not injured, and as long as the society can develop in a steady way, its legislation system seems to be acceptable. Any actions causing chaos and abandoning ethos are not feasible, not matter how just they are thought to be. The final ideal of laws is to produce a steady and fine society for most human beings. I believe that with the development of modern society, this ideal will surely be realized, as long as we adjust laws and be careful to keep the society from being devastated.

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

小马家家
UID: 2247022

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 9
寄托币: 7511
注册时间: 2006-8-29
精华: 1
帖子: 379

板凳

发表于 2006-11-29 11:42:31 |只看该作者

--------------------------------
:eek:
字数 - _ -!

追求
我不放弃
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
真正的光明决不是永没有黑暗的时间，只是永不被黑暗所掩蔽罢了。真正的英雄决不是永没有卑下的情操，只是永不被卑下的情操所屈服罢了。

使用道具举报

sherry1225
UID: 2192554

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 156
寄托币: 25543
注册时间: 2006-3-1
精华: 11
帖子: 89

地板

发表于 2006-11-29 16:47:44 |只看该作者

:eek: LZ 的字数

使用道具举报

tonygarfield
UID: 2268453

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 72
注册时间: 2006-10-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2006-11-29 17:14:42 |只看该作者

Even in some nations, laws are operated by some autocrats, the United Nation can play a role to help its people ???:)

使用道具举报

最後の使徒
UID: 2257608

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 427
寄托币: 22408
注册时间: 2006-9-29
精华: 55
帖子: 644

6楼

发表于 2006-11-29 17:53:47 |只看该作者

Even in some nations where laws are operated by some autocrats and make it impossible to change unjust rules easily, the United Nation can play a role to help its people
可能这么写会比较合适...

使用道具举报

作文版全体版主
UID: 2102351

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 10912
注册时间: 2005-5-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2006-11-29 22:22:44 |只看该作者

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 823 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2006-11-29

提纲:
1, 法律是否公平在个人看来是不同的 -
2, 因此破坏不公平的法律不可行 -
3, 可以通过别的方法来改变不公平的法律 -

Ever doubted about the law which restricts your actions, manages the society and stands for justice? I think this is common, since there is no absolute justice for every one to admit. Therefore, dividing laws into two types, just and unjust, seems too extreme and unfeasible for me. In this sense, the statement requires us to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust laws is unacceptable, because we cannot assess a law by subjective views and break the social order under its control, or the society will face a chaotic situation. 第一段提出观点。以疑问句开头，比较简洁。提倡一下
u
The long history human beings have shared has built diversified value systems to assess justice. 【这句话比较杂糅，特别是have shared has built 这里，建议改成一个定于从句的形式。】In ancient Rome, noble was authority and they were representative of justice; in ancient China, emperors were the overwhelming force and required obeying; in ancient Greek, the justice belonged to all citizens in a democratic way. However, although nowadays many standards such as human rights, peace and freedom have become widely admitted ethos standards and become basis of many laws, nations are still diversified with each other on the issue of justice. Even in a same nation【前面用nation了，这里换个country】, laws can be different since they stand for different people's value systems and interests. The United States, for instance, contains different states who have their diversified 【这里直接用different就挺好的，比较简洁】laws, some admit penalty to death, while others do not. In other words, laws are different from time to time and place to place, and views about them will be different by individuals. The chief aim of modern laws is to strike balance between most social members and manage the society so that it can develop steadily. 这一段说理比较多，而具体的例子不是很多，以及举例后的实例分析比较少，应该多加强。

In this sense, if we admit actions as disobeying unjust laws, unpredictable outcomes will happen. Because whether laws are just 【whether laws are just or not】is subjective to ever one, some will easily break laws and do harm to the society if they are permitted to do so. Criminals may think their life is poor because of unjust laws, and then break it by robbing banks and shooting the innocent. A TV program called Prison Break tells a story that the hero in it tries to help his brother, who is sentenced to death with a false judge. It might be tempting to think this story is about those who disobey unjust laws. But in my view, since the penalty itself is false and operated with illegal measures, it is out of question. Although this kind of problems won't take place in those states where penalty to death is not accepted, it cannot be the evidence of disobeying unjust laws. Moreover, in this story because the hero disobeys laws and breaks the prison, some criminals get out of high walls and injure the innocent. A more realistic example involves the current situation in Iraq. After American's attack and changed its government, Sunnis lost their power in the country and they do not admit the laws under Shia, another religious factor in this nation, government's management. Insurgences and battles keep on, more and more citizens and American army men are suffering from dangers of death. To conclude, laws cannot be broken in illegal ways or 【otherwise】the society will face chaos.

But to some people, chaos seems to be necessary if a nation's laws are unjust and serve for autocrats, tyrants and other evil factors.【做为段首的TS句，我认为它表述的不够清楚，不能统领整段文字】 They may cite many insurgences in history that changed governments as evidence. However, in my view any such concerns are unwarranted and dangerous in modern society. As we know, many countries have developed mature legislation system and it is admitted for citizens to change laws in democratic ways. According to me, political and peaceful ways seems more effective and feasible. If the two factors in Iraq can take a political way, asking for citizens' vote to decide the power, that nation won't be trapped into such a chaos. Even in some nations, laws are operated by some autocrats, the United Nation can play a role to help its people. With the process of globalization, the international society will have more influence to spread the widely admitted value system and human rights--therefore making every member in it develops in a restricted way.

To sum up, I think the concern that unjust laws should be disobeyed is not feasible and effective. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should obey any law absolutely. Oppositely, there is no perfect law and we can change them in political methods, by entering councils, governments with personal efforts, or using public media and forces to influence legislation agencies. On the other hand, many laws are not developed maturely and cannot restrict the society widely. So social ethos and morality should be taken by every people to perfect the laws, as long as to ensure a steady society, and as long as to ensure the innocent are not vulnerable. Just as the directives of a hero called RoboCop, in a movie, say: first, serve the public trust; second, protect the innocent; third, uphold the law.

总结：
总体而言，写的可以。但是要提醒一下，以后每段的展开最好按照下面进行。段首TS句――》举例――》举例分析――》总结。你的喜欢是提出一个观点，然后立即就but，转来转去的，看了半天最终不知道你哪个是你最终的意思。

使用道具举报

作文版全体版主
UID: 2102351

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 10912
注册时间: 2005-5-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

8楼

发表于 2006-11-29 22:23:13 |只看该作者

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 823 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2006-11-29

提纲:
1, 法律是否公平在个人看来是不同的 -
2, 因此破坏不公平的法律不可行 -
3, 可以通过别的方法来改变不公平的法律 -

Ever doubted about the law which restricts your actions, manages the society and stands for justice? I think this is common, since there is no absolute justice for every one to admit. Therefore, dividing laws into two types, just and unjust, seems too extreme and unfeasible for me. In this sense, the statement requires us to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust laws is unacceptable, because we cannot assess a law by subjective views and break the social order under its control, or the society will face a chaotic situation. 第一段提出观点。以疑问句开头，比较简洁。提倡一下
u
The long history human beings have shared has built diversified value systems to assess justice. 【这句话比较杂糅，特别是have shared has built 这里，建议改成一个定于从句的形式。】In ancient Rome, noble was authority and they were representative of justice; in ancient China, emperors were the overwhelming force and required obeying; in ancient Greek, the justice belonged to all citizens in a democratic way. However, although nowadays many standards such as human rights, peace and freedom have become widely admitted ethos standards and become basis of many laws, nations are still diversified with each other on the issue of justice. Even in a same nation【前面用nation了，这里换个country】, laws can be different since they stand for different people's value systems and interests. The United States, for instance, contains different states who have their diversified 【这里直接用different就挺好的，比较简洁】laws, some admit penalty to death, while others do not. In other words, laws are different from time to time and place to place, and views about them will be different by individuals. The chief aim of modern laws is to strike balance between most social members and manage the society so that it can develop steadily. 这一段说理比较多，而具体的例子不是很多，以及举例后的实例分析比较少，应该多加强。

In this sense, if we admit actions as disobeying unjust laws, unpredictable outcomes will happen. Because whether laws are just 【whether laws are just or not】is subjective to ever one, some will easily break laws and do harm to the society if they are permitted to do so. Criminals may think their life is poor because of unjust laws, and then break it by robbing banks and shooting the innocent. A TV program called Prison Break tells a story that the hero in it tries to help his brother, who is sentenced to death with a false judge. It might be tempting to think this story is about those who disobey unjust laws. But in my view, since the penalty itself is false and operated with illegal measures, it is out of question. Although this kind of problems won't take place in those states where penalty to death is not accepted, it cannot be the evidence of disobeying unjust laws. Moreover, in this story because the hero disobeys laws and breaks the prison, some criminals get out of high walls and injure the innocent. A more realistic example involves the current situation in Iraq. After American's attack and changed its government, Sunnis lost their power in the country and they do not admit the laws under Shia, another religious factor in this nation, government's management. Insurgences and battles keep on, more and more citizens and American army men are suffering from dangers of death. To conclude, laws cannot be broken in illegal ways or 【otherwise】the society will face chaos.

But to some people, chaos seems to be necessary if a nation's laws are unjust and serve for autocrats, tyrants and other evil factors.【做为段首的TS句，我认为它表述的不够清楚，不能统领整段文字】 They may cite many insurgences in history that changed governments as evidence. However, in my view any such concerns are unwarranted and dangerous in modern society. As we know, many countries have developed mature legislation system and it is admitted for citizens to change laws in democratic ways. According to me, political and peaceful ways seems more effective and feasible. If the two factors in Iraq can take a political way, asking for citizens' vote to decide the power, that nation won't be trapped into such a chaos. Even in some nations, laws are operated by some autocrats, the United Nation can play a role to help its people. With the process of globalization, the international society will have more influence to spread the widely admitted value system and human rights--therefore making every member in it develops in a restricted way.

To sum up, I think the concern that unjust laws should be disobeyed is not feasible and effective. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should obey any law absolutely. Oppositely, there is no perfect law and we can change them in political methods, by entering councils, governments with personal efforts, or using public media and forces to influence legislation agencies. On the other hand, many laws are not developed maturely and cannot restrict the society widely. So social ethos and morality should be taken by every people to perfect the laws, as long as to ensure a steady society, and as long as to ensure the innocent are not vulnerable. Just as the directives of a hero called RoboCop, in a movie, say: first, serve the public trust; second, protect the innocent; third, uphold the law.

总结：
总体而言，写的可以。但是要提醒一下，以后每段的展开最好按照下面进行。段首TS句――》举例――》举例分析――》总结。你的喜欢是提出一个观点，然后立即就but，转来转去的，看了半天最终不知道你哪个是你最终的意思。

使用道具举报