寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › Issue17 公正与不公正法律，为保质量严重超时，本人得意 ...

返回列表

查看: 1735|回复: 12

[i习作temp] Issue17 公正与不公正法律，为保质量严重超时，本人得意之作！有拍必回，回拍必狠！ [复制链接]

css
UID: 173612

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 1613
注册时间: 2004-8-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-15 11:23:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

我见青山多妩媚，
料青山
见我应如是

回应
0

使用道具举报

edgarlu
UID: 203648

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 351
注册时间: 2005-4-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-7-15 15:24:15 |只看该作者

占个位子，最晚明天中午拍它个结结实实

8.3 上海

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

littleboy8
UID: 202914

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 191
注册时间: 2005-3-27
精华: 0
帖子: 2

板凳

发表于 2005-7-15 15:28:52 |只看该作者

From my view of point最好该为in my view

使用道具举报

freeskyflying
UID: 196789

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 340
注册时间: 2005-2-21
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2005-7-15 15:40:41 |只看该作者

Issue17 公正与不公正法律，为保质量严重超时，本人得意之作！有拍必回，回拍必狠！

Issue17 第8篇我爱砖头
------题目------
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------
According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my view of point(from my point of view?), the classification is two extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to a (one kind of )law. Even if law is either just or unjust, does everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could do the exactly correct judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's opinion, this is because their distinct moral standards and philosophy. On the one hand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, the house moving law for the San Xia project in China is against by people who live near the reservoir since they don't want to leave their homestead. But in the long run, the project will benefit for all the Chinese people. Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justice, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression, violence, death.

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation Movement leaded by Gandhi is a transmutation of disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orders which the laws actually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that laws are not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is avoidable.

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them only except in very special times, otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey of laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW. （呵呵！写得挺好，具体那些什么结构啊，逻辑啊我也不好说什么，加油！）

使用道具举报

freeskyflying
UID: 196789

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 340
注册时间: 2005-2-21
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2005-7-15 15:42:16 |只看该作者

欢迎拍我的

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

使用道具举报

tangjihede
UID: 2107695

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 1
寄托币: 2247
注册时间: 2005-6-9
精华: 2
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2005-7-15 16:18:11 |只看该作者

Issue17  第8篇我爱砖头
------题目------
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------
According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my view of point,my point of view? the classification is twotoo extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to a law.  Even if law is either just or unjust, 建议：even if this classification is accepteddoes everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth;  but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.感觉句子比较断： The former is undoubtedly well accepted; but I will argue the latter, however reasonable and meaningful it seems, is not only a fallacy but also harmful to the society only except...后面那个短语我不确定

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight请教一下，是有这种用法吗？如果不是固定用法的话感觉有些重复啊。, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could domake the exactly correct 感觉这个搭配也有些重复judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's opinion, this is because their distinct moral standards and philosophy.A good case in point is the issue of euthanasia. Due to different moral standards and philosophy, some argue that it should be permitted by law, while others are strongly against this.   On the one otherhand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, the house moving law for the San Xia I suspect "house moving law" is just chinglish. Perhaps emigrant law would be better. And you’d better use “Three Gorges” other than “San xia”project in China is against by people who live near the reservoir since they don't do notwant to leave their homestead. But in the long run, the project will benefit fordelete “for” all the Chinese people. Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activitybehavior, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent? power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. 前半句比较别扭The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justicemoral judgment 就行了，或者是conscience。, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression, violence, death. 重新组织一下，我看不懂你要表达的意思

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation Movement leaded by Gandhi is a transmutation of disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orderssocial order? which the laws lawsactually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that laws are not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is avoidable.The success of this movement proves that in some extreme situations laws could be regarded as unjust and civil disobedience (全文的disobedience of the laws可以尽量用这个术语来代替)could be justified.

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them only except in very special times, otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey of laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW. 语法问题：be judged by. To sum up, in order to solidify the order of the society, laws should not be judged by individuals only except some very extreme occasions.后面为什么是we enact the law文中似乎没有提到，而且最后一句话的因果关系也不是很明显。

我发现语法上的错误比较多。请注意不要出现it‘s ， that’s 这样的形式，一律改为it is，that is。注意一下语法和句子的连接和过渡。从内容上来说，你的论点是公民的不服从只在少数情况下是合理的，其他情况都不合理；为了更有说服力，我觉得你应该给出更具体的理由为什么在少数情况下也是合理的，这部分应该是全文的重点。我也是新手，说的不见得对，大家加油！

欢迎拍我的issue104：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... light=%2Btangjihede

[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-7-15 at 16:27 ]

已有 1 人评分	寄托币	收起理由
作文版互改基金	+ 15	常规版务操作

总评分: 寄托币 + 15 查看全部投币

使用道具举报

vickiguo
UID: 196595

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 108
注册时间: 2005-2-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2005-7-15 18:45:26 |只看该作者

According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my view of point, the classification is two 笔误了吧extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to a law the same law我个人意见啊. Even if law is either just or unjust, does everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could do the exactly correct judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's opinion, this is because based on?their distinct moral standards and philosophy. On the one other? hand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, the house moving law for the San Xia project in China is against by people who live near the reservoir since they don't want to leave their homestead. But in the long run, the project will benefit for all the Chinese people. Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.个人认为这样的例子不举的好,for毕竟老美判分,这样有点......文化差异的说,而且这个例子本身不太好,aswan dam可否?

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justice, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression, violence, death.

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation Movement leaded by Gandhi is a transmutation of disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orders which the laws actually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that laws are not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is avoidable考虑改改吧,读来不是很顺
To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them?who only except in very special times, otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey of laws since we enact the lawsince从句接的不好,we改一下,或者用被动, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW.
用到疑问句式是很好的,插入语的运用也很好,不过另外呢,可以再考虑使用强调句呀什么的,不知道说的对不对啊,呵呵意见不同欢迎交流:)

使用道具举报

elva2005
UID: 2116414

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 24
注册时间: 2005-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

8楼

发表于 2005-7-15 19:29:08 |只看该作者

我改的，嘿嘿

According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my view of point,(记得应该是point of view 吧，要不就用viewpoint) the classification is two（too） extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to a law. Even if law is either just or unjust, does everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could do the exactly correct judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's opinion, this（which好些吧） is because their distinct moral standards and philosophy. On the one （other）hand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, the house moving law for the San Xia （three Gorges专有名词）project in China is against by people who live near the reservoir （水库？？dam或许更好）since they don't want to leave their homestead. But in the long run, the project will benefit for all the Chinese people. Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, thus，anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justice, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression, violence, death.

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation Movement leaded by Gandhi is a transmutation of disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orders which the laws actually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that laws are not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is avoidable.

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judged by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them only except in very special times, otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey of（去掉） laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW.
写得很不错哦，看得我头也很大，足见水平之高啊，佩服，我也只有能力改改小错误了。我也发了一篇issue221，第一次来这里发的哦，和你的距离相差很大，望赐教，小女子感激涕零！！！

使用道具举报

ahqiu
UID: 207682

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1646
注册时间: 2005-5-1
精华: 0
帖子: 1

9楼

发表于 2005-7-15 20:00:33 |只看该作者

这篇我也写过，先不拍了，大概看了看，挺好的，例子举得不错，特别是那个甘地，呵呵
向你学习！！

谢谢你，虽然我只想亲吻一片雪花，你却给了我银色的世界。

使用道具举报

css
UID: 173612

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 1613
注册时间: 2004-8-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

10楼

发表于 2005-7-15 20:25:09 |只看该作者

谢谢大家的修改，我也不是什么牛人，不用客气，能帮的我一定帮！
现回拍到5楼，明天中午前回拍完剩下的

三峡的例子是不好，现在三峡的利弊尚在讨论中，不举也罢
寻思了一个美国案例，不太会概括，字数又加长了些

下面是修改版

Issue17  第8篇我爱砖头
------题目------
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------
According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my point of view, the classification is too extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to the same law.  Even if law is either just or unjust, does everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could do the exactly correct judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's opinion, this is because their distinct moral standards and philosophy. On the other hand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, there is a famous American case that a man hit on a pillar owned by a resident near the street, it is the man’s fault but not the resident’s guilty. When the case became law, some may consider it as unjust without understanding or even oppose to it; actually, in the long run, this law is a caution to remind people to avoid the harm brought by the existing fault, and the society can be more safe for most of the people.  Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justice, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence.

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation Movement leaded by Gandhi is a civil disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orders which the laws actually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that some laws may be not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is unavoidable.

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them only except in very special times, otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW.

[ Last edited by css on 2005-7-15 at 21:45 ]

我见青山多妩媚，
料青山
见我应如是

使用道具举报

css
UID: 173612

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 1613
注册时间: 2004-8-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

11楼

发表于 2005-7-16 00:01:07 |只看该作者

赶在今天中午前
回拍完了;)
多谢楼上各位！
看帖子去吧！:lol

我见青山多妩媚，
料青山
见我应如是

使用道具举报

edgarlu
UID: 203648

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 351
注册时间: 2005-4-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

12楼

发表于 2005-7-16 12:12:58 |只看该作者

回拍晚了，致歉

Issue17 第8篇我爱砖头
------题目------
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------
According to the speaker, laws can be classified as two types: just and unjust. From my view of point, the classification is two extreme and unreasonable since different people may have different evaluation to a law. Even if law is either just or unjust, does everyone have a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the latter, which seems reasonable and meaningful, in my opinion, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society except in some special times.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue. Because of the limitation of individuals' insight and foresight, justice of the law becomes a hard question to answer. On the one hand, as a result of individual divergence, such as different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth, no single one could do the exactly correct judgment to a law. For instance, laws admit euthanasia is just from some people's point, while laws prohibit euthanasia is also just in some other's [others’] opinion, this is because their distinct moral standards and philosophy. On the one hand, laws may be established for some reason that a nonprofessional can not understand, and the value of the laws may show up some years later. For example, the house moving law for the San Xia project in China is against by people who live near the reservoir since they don't want to leave their homestead. But in the long run, the project will benefit for all the Chinese people. Therefore, just or unjust is for the sake of the majority in a society and judged by a group of professional legislators, but beyond the judgment ability of a single individual.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a determent power to oblige individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the agreement of the rationality of disobedience, which is different from crime, has more harm to the society. [个人感觉对法律公正性同意与否是态度，犯罪是结果，这两者构不成并列或是对比关系，感觉法律不公的人也会犯罪，犯罪的人当中也可能有感觉法律不公的人，而且犯罪的具体表现形式也就是disobey the law，楼主好像有点把disobey the law和unwilling to obey the law没区分清楚]The criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and justice, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust[这一句有点无法理解，是不是句子结构当中有笔误？]----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression, violence, death.

However, in some special times, disobedience of the law is necessary. When a social mechanism does not accommodate with the development pace of the society, the social transformation, which necessitates the defiance of the laws which still maintain the incommensurate mechanism, is inevitable. Revolution and melioration are both a kind of resistance of the laws. For instance, the Nonviolence-Noncooperation [nonviolent disobedience] Movement leaded by Gandhi is a transmutation of disobedience of the laws, since it breaks the social orders which the laws actually protect as the ultimate purpose, so its essence is to upset the laws and accomplish the social transformation. The success of this movement proves that laws are not just in some exceptive situations and the disobedience of the laws is avoidable[unavoidable].

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, so the disobedience of unjust laws is obviously not the responsibility of them only except in very special times,[;] otherwise the order of the society is unwarranted. We need to obey of laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW. [We have to obey the laws after we enact them, which is exactly the reason why the law is called “The Law”.]

总体意见：
第一点的top sentense不够概括，其实还应该加上， which is a matter of opinion of the social majority instead of a single individual..
第三点中有与上文观点抵触之处：上文说任何人都已经遵守法律，不管公正与否，否则将遭惩罚，这一段又说特殊情况下可以例外。我觉得如果要让步，前面两段就要尽量避免把话说死，最起码留一点点活口。
见仁见智，仅供参考，拍人的手不疼

昨天写的限时作文，痛改了罗嗦的毛病，有空来拍拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

8.3 上海

使用道具举报

css
UID: 173612

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 1613
注册时间: 2004-8-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

13楼

发表于 2005-7-16 13:27:26 |只看该作者

非常感谢！

第二段我想了好久，觉得事情是这样的：法律具有威慑力，如果人们意识到法律也可以破环，并且不受道义的谴责，事情讲很可怕，这和怀着侥幸心理犯罪不同，起码这时法律道义上是对的，世界上并非所有人是罪犯已很可怕，何况大家都认为法可破？
egdarlu说的对，有点把disobey the law和unwilling to obey the law没区分清楚，
纯论证的一段，我怎么也想不出更好的方法证了

大家有好的建议吗？欢迎指教！

我见青山多妩媚，
料青山
见我应如是

使用道具举报