寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 第一次限时成功，求好心人给她个定位。。。难道是2.5吗？ ...

返回列表

查看: 2040|回复: 16

[i习作temp] 第一次限时成功，求好心人给她个定位。。。难道是2.5吗？泪奔 [复制链接]

毛兜
UID：2929460

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 28
注册时间: 2010-12-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-12-23 22:04:53 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由毛兜于 2010-12-23 22:25 编辑

第一次限时成功。。限时跟不限时真是差距好大。。而且这次限时还是在之前写好提纲准备了例子的情况下，却只有400字。。。。

跪求，这样的issue 是不是就是2.5啊....泪奔

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: 421
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2003-1-2 11:58:52

To classify the laws into just and unjust, it must define the just and unjust first, however, just is associate with individuals' ideology and value system so that no specific judgment on it. I take exception with the speakers’ assertion about types of law, and even the assertion about our responsibility to obey it or not.

To begin with, the laws are incomplete since it be enact. Laws are enacted by humans whose knowledge and cognition are limited; therefore, it is impossible to take any circumstances into consideration when we enact a law. Moreover, society is constitutes by large amount of people, which changes all the time. It is hard to enactors to include all conditions into one law. Furthermore, the enactment and enforcement of laws are lagging behind the society improvement and social change, which makes laws less efficiency to reach its goal. As a result the laws are doomed to unjust and rarely to reach absolutely just before they enact.

As Tomas Jefferson said, no society can make perpetual constitution, not even a perpetual law. Whether the law is just or unjust may changeable. On one hand, laws which just in the past may unjust at the present, such as the law enacted by Hitler's that claim Jews were inferior ,in consequently, great numbers of Jews were executed by Nazis. On the other hand, laws which unjust at the present may just in the future, such as ,the law of CO2 emission limitation, which be regarded as unjust for certain country but may change their attitude after they aware the crisis of global warming.Thus, the assertion about some low is just but the other is unjust seems indefensible.

Should we disobey the law which be considered as unjust? It is certainly not the case. The laws serve to constrain human behavior in order to main certain objective no matter where individuals stand for ,no matter what ideology and value systems they may have. It is not hard to image the chaos picture that the people considers whether the law is just or unjust at first, then make their choice to obey or disobey it .That must human tragedy.

When we attempt to classify the laws we should find the criteria to judge it first. Best judgment is that whether the law suits to serve to maintain human quality, to define human right and obligation, and to build a bright world than before and so forth. When the law suits its objective, it is the individuals’ responsibility to obey it no matter it is just or unjust. Meanwhile, when the law do not suits its objectives, humans could change it or abolish it rather than disobey it.

小女子先谢过回帖的大侠

我忘记编辑功能了，抱歉

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.07.09

回应
0

使用道具举报

lasselore UID：2735490 lasselore 当前离线最后登录 2013-9-27 在线时间 622 小时寄托币 3287 声望 219 注册时间 2009-12-7 阅读权限 5 帖子 321 精华 0 积分 8937 UID 2735490 禁止发言声望 219 寄托币 3287 注册时间 2009-12-7 精华 0 帖子 321 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	沙发发表于 2010-12-23 22:10:15 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽
	签名被屏蔽
	使用道具举报

毛兜
UID：2929460

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 28
注册时间: 2010-12-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2010-12-23 22:20:54 |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: 421
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2003-1-2 11:58:52

To classify the laws into just and unjust, it must define the just and unjust first, however, just is associate with individuals' ideology and value system so that no specific judgment on it. I take exception with the speakers’ assertion about types of law, and even the assertion about our responsibility to obey it or not.
To begin with, the laws are incomplete since it be enact. Laws are enacted by humans whose knowledge and cognition are limited; therefore, it is impossible to take any circumstances into consideration when we enact a law. Moreover, society is constitutes by large amount of people, which changes all the time. It is hard to enactors to include all conditions into one law.
Furthermore, the enactment and enforcement of laws are lagging behind the society improvement and social change, which makes laws less efficiency to reach its goal. As a result the laws are doomed to unjust and rarely to reach absolutely just before they enact.
As Tomas Jefferson said, no society can make perpetual constitution, not even a perpetual law. Whether the law is just or unjust may changeable. On one hand, laws which just in the past may unjust at the present, such as the law enacted by Hitler's that claim Jews were inferior ,in consequently, great numbers of Jews were executed by Nazis. On the other hand, laws which unjust at the present may just in the future, such as ,the law of CO2 emission limitation, which be regarded as unjust for certain country but may change their attitude after they aware the crisis of global warming.
Thus, the assertion about some laws is just but the other is unjust seems indefensible.
Should we disobey the law which be considered as unjust? It is certainly not the case. The laws serve to constrain human behavior in order to main certain objective no matter where individuals stand for ,no matter what ideology and
value systems they may have. It is not hard to image the chaos picture that the people considers whether the law is just or
unjust at first, then make their choice to obey or disobey it .That must human tragedy.
When we attempt to classify the laws we should find the criteria to judge it first. Best judgment is that whether the law suits to serve to maintain human quality, to define human right and obligation, and to build a bright world than before and so forth. When the law suits its objective, it is the individuals’ responsibility to obey it no matter it is just or unjust. Meanwhile, when the law do not suits its objectives, humans could change it or abolish it rather than disobey it.

啊，抱歉。。我用word修改过。。。low不会被画小横线就给忽略了。。。。

重新修改后了。。。望批阅

2# lasselore

使用道具举报

lasselore UID：2735490 lasselore 当前离线最后登录 2013-9-27 在线时间 622 小时寄托币 3287 声望 219 注册时间 2009-12-7 阅读权限 5 帖子 321 精华 0 积分 8937 UID 2735490 禁止发言声望 219 寄托币 3287 注册时间 2009-12-7 精华 0 帖子 321 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	地板发表于 2010-12-24 00:03:40 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽
	签名被屏蔽
	使用道具举报

fangjun91
UID：2808064

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 97
注册时间: 2010-5-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2010-12-24 00:19:13 |只看该作者

lz别着急，刚开始写大家都差不多，我的第一篇还不到300字。
水平有限，不敢冒昧评价，不过个人觉得hitler的例子有点不妥，对犹太人的歧视在当时也是unjust的吧？看lz这么理解just与unjust

使用道具举报

咖啡盐
UID：2973669

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 1556
寄托币: 29103
注册时间: 2010-12-13
精华: 2
帖子: 1216

6楼

发表于 2010-12-24 08:40:29 |只看该作者

To classify the laws into just and unjust, it must define the just and unjust first, however, just is associate with individuals' ideology and value system so that no specific judgment on it. （病句了，前两句重复地太明显了。而且用clissfy觉得不太妥当，它多只对多种东西进行分类，这里用distinguish比较好, 貌似3句话都是一个意思啊，貌似最后那个so that 后面的从句没动词啊。这道题觉得用对比式开头比定义式要简单点。Some people consider.......while others cite.......，或者想用定义式的话，就直接Law, as a criterion of social behavior,.....）I take exception with the speakers’ assertion about types of (what types? You must tell us)law, and even the assertion about our responsibility to obey it or not.
To begin with, the laws are incomplete since it be enact.(enact是个动词，这里想表达什么？自从法律被制定以来他都是不完整的？) Laws are enacted by humans whose knowledge and cognition are limited; （法律的制定者在各个时代都是绝对的权威了，可能在我们现在看来，他是limit，不过当时人眼中他是很educated.）therefore, it is impossible to take any circumstances into consideration when we enact a law. Moreover, society is constitutes by large amount of people, which changes all the time. It is hard to enactors （写错了吧？）to include all conditions into one law.
Furthermore, the enactment （enact各种形式，作者对此情有独钟啊，适当换换吧。）and enforcement of laws are lagging behind the society improvement and social change, which makes laws less （这里没有可比较的对象，而且少动词）efficiency to reach its goal. As a result the laws are doomed to unjust and rarely to reach absolutely just before they enact.
As Tomas Jefferson said, no society can make perpetual constitution, not even a perpetual law. Whether the law is just or unjust may changeable. On one hand, laws which just （依旧少动词）in the past may unjust （同前）at the present, such as the law enacted by Hitler's that claim Jews were inferior ,in （删）consequently, great numbers of Jews were executed by Nazis.（then? you should reveal it is unjust now ） On the other hand, laws which unjust at the present may just in the future, such as ,the law of CO2 emission limitation, which be regarded as unjust for certain country but may change their attitude after they aware the crisis of global warming.(二氧化碳的排放它不算法律性质，只能说是个规范，程度是比法律要弱的，基本上不可能上升的法律层面。就像不乱扔果皮纸屑，是规范，不是法律。而且用今后的事情来佐证有点不妥，今后的事情，谁知道呢。)
Thus, the assertion about some laws is just but the other is unjust seems indefensible.
Should we disobey the law which be considered as unjust? It is certainly not the case. The laws serve to constrain human behavior in order to main certain objective no matter where individuals stand for ,no matter what ideology and
value systems they may have. It is not hard to image the chaos picture that the people considers whether the law is just or
unjust at first, then make their choice to obey or disobey it .That must human tragedy.
When we attempt to classify the laws we should find the criteria to judge it first. Best judgment is that whether the law suits to serve to maintain human quality, to define human right and obligation, and to build a bright world than before and so forth. When the law suits its objective, it is the individuals’ responsibility to obey it no matter it is just or unjust. Meanwhile, when the law do not suits its objectives, humans could change it or abolish it rather than diso

个人建议，作者还是不要急着掐时间写作，先把文章的逻辑顺序理清楚。字数上还跟不上慢慢来就好了，但至少我们要保证把逻辑表达清楚，觉得这篇文论结构不清楚，还有就是语法问题了，虽然不求出彩，但至少对于构成句子的几个成分还是要牢记的

已有 1 人评分	声望	收起理由
lasselore	+ 2	好样的~么~

总评分: 声望 + 2 查看全部投币

我更年期提前我自豪...凸(‵′)凸
(￣ε(#￣) ╮(￣▽￣)╭　∑( ° △ °|||)︴ (=￣ω￣=)　(→_→)　 (￣▽￣)~*

使用道具举报

yinxingxiaoya
UID：2595671

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 9
寄托币: 3609
注册时间: 2009-1-28
精华: 0
帖子: 19

7楼

发表于 2010-12-24 09:38:52 |只看该作者

字数最好上多少？？？？悲催啊。。。我基本也就是四百多。。。

爱笑的女孩运气都不会太差。
---------------------------------
You will when you believe.
不到最后一刻谁知道结果。
人要为，心要平。

使用道具举报

lasselore UID：2735490 lasselore 当前离线最后登录 2013-9-27 在线时间 622 小时寄托币 3287 声望 219 注册时间 2009-12-7 阅读权限 5 帖子 321 精华 0 积分 8937 UID 2735490 禁止发言声望 219 寄托币 3287 注册时间 2009-12-7 精华 0 帖子 321 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	8楼发表于 2010-12-24 11:14:01 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽
	签名被屏蔽
	使用道具举报

咖啡盐
UID：2973669

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 1556
寄托币: 29103
注册时间: 2010-12-13
精华: 2
帖子: 1216

9楼

发表于 2010-12-24 12:05:37 |只看该作者

8# lasselore
呵呵，早上起来太空虚了....

我更年期提前我自豪...凸(‵′)凸
(￣ε(#￣) ╮(￣▽￣)╭　∑( ° △ °|||)︴ (=￣ω￣=)　(→_→)　 (￣▽￣)~*

使用道具举报

lasselore UID：2735490 lasselore 当前离线最后登录 2013-9-27 在线时间 622 小时寄托币 3287 声望 219 注册时间 2009-12-7 阅读权限 5 帖子 321 精华 0 积分 8937 UID 2735490 禁止发言声望 219 寄托币 3287 注册时间 2009-12-7 精华 0 帖子 321 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	10楼发表于 2010-12-24 14:09:30 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽
	签名被屏蔽
	使用道具举报