@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第四次作业 issue17 请组员跟帖

saybia1993UID: 2625112

Issue 17 “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.”

作者的观点有偏差，凡是称之为法的，无论怎样，都应该去遵守

1.法律的意义，法律总体上是公平且必须去遵守的，因为：法律是一种国家强制力保实施的非常普遍的，严谨的社会规范。他有强有力的保证（司法），他是从大量生活中抽取出来的普遍行为（杀人犯法），他在管辖范围内是普遍适用的，他规定最为严谨。是行为规范的底线。
2.即使有些法律，
对某些人不公平，甚至于道德上不忍，
也要去遵守。
因为：这种规范的公正与否因人的自身价值观，所处的社会阶层与环境而异。（举例，同居现象，赌博等等。）不能应为某些时候，某些地方的不公，或者于道德上说不过去（安乐死，吗啡）。就去破坏法律的权威，法律是底线，规定了人类作为社会的一份子所要遵守的最低准则。法律永远没有客观公正这一说。
3.法律也可以在适当的时候更改。

结尾

求拍，别留情，管不了了，拍的最狠的奖一次有事暂缓一天交作业的机会！
（名字后面有￥符号意味着你第一次开会准时上线，奖励一次延缓一天交作业的机会，此机会每人拥有不超过2次，使用一次只能延缓一天，使用不叠加。每次截止交作业的时间为当天晚上10点）


ISSUE by EXTOL



According to the definition of law, what the author asserts is a one-sided view. The rules must be observed at any time when it is regarded as laws. In this case, I don’t agree that there are two types of laws and we must obey the just laws, disobey and resist the unjust laws.

Law is a set of extremely universal, strict social regulations whose implementation is ensured by country. First, law can be considered to be the collection of universal behaviors in our daily lives. And, these universal behaviors represented the common morality which human beings had come to a mutual agreement. Robbery, stealing and murder are wrong, if so, one must pay for his action. The judgment of these actions is obviously depends on the common morality of human beings. So, the people who did these go against law and should be punished by law. Second, although common morality is the guidance of human behaviors, it contains widely. Law only rules actions which have straightforward definition boundary. Robbery, stealing are all illegal, for the reason that they can be considered the action of infringement of title. While picking up is not defined right or wrong by law because of the attitude towards this action varies from person to person. Third, why these rules can be regarded as laws due to the reason that they can be widely used and ensured by country. Not only Public Security Bureau, Justice Bureau and court but also other national administrative organs are all executors of law. Their performance is under controlled by law and, according to law, they maintain the running of national machine in order. So to speak: law is the bottom line of human’s action, it depends on the definite common morality, it can be widely admitted and used, and, the most important is, law can be executed ensured by national force. If some of these bases still be treated “right or wrong” by individuals or small group of people and cannot be obey completely. Why law exists?

In addition, different value system, different social level and different circumstances can make people have different ideas in same things. So do laws. Gambling is definitely forbidden by law in China. But, in America, it sometimes recognized as an industry. Huge gambling house can be seen everywhere. Chinese people consider gambling as bad habits, it erodes people’s spirit, it caving out emptiness in people’s heart. Yet, Americans only consider it as a game. When few Chinese people also consider gambling as a game, could they change laws in China? Of course not. It certainly goes against most of people’s mind in China. Not to mention euthanasia, cohabitation and so on. What we must acknowledge is that we still can’t change laws for the injustice in someplace or sometime, and, no one can judge a law whether it is just or not. Otherwise, law will lose its purpose: the bottom line of human’s action.

Admittedly, law is still revised by group of people according to the common morality. If dated laws can’t keep pace with modern society, yet, we can change it through strict procedure, for the purpose of serving people better.

To sum up, we must obey the law in any circumstance and no one can judge a law whether it is right or wrong. Law only can be revised according to present basic common morality in present society.




extol 改 yeshen

The issue presents that there are two kinds of laws--just and unjust. It also states that everyone should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws (obey just laws and, disobey unjust laws). I am quite doubtful with this assertion. From my perspective, I am inclined to hold the position that everyone should obey the existing laws.

Firstly, there does not exist a method to measure whether a law is just or not.(according to the definition) In dictionary, law means the whole system of rules that everyone in a country or a society must obey. From this definition(去掉), we cannot figure out how to gauge a law.？？意思

Secondly, different people hold different ideas on whether a law is fair（用题目里面的是不是更好些just） or not. There is a law in China for high school students who are minorities. The law states that if minority students want to go to colleges, their scores can be extrally added ten to thirty. The policy cannot be applicable for Han nationality. For majority, especially Han nationality
this policy is not fair这里是什么原因导致汉族认为不公平？这一片连词用的不是太好. But for minorities, they think the law is fair. Because they live in relatively poor areas, they do not have good education facilities, and even more they do not have enough teachers. But it is much easier for Han nationality students to get all things above. So they consider that the law can help them fulfill their college dreams as the same as Han nationality students.


Thirdly, whether it is a fair law or not depends on place. Different places have different laws to treat the same thing. Take death penalty for example. Many European countries, such as France, German and the Great Britain, object to death penalty. These countries believe that death penalty is a negation of human dignity and integrity个人认为这些有点牵强. If the death penalty is implemented, it will be unable to recover the errors. But in some other countries, such as China, America, and South Africa, they hold the opposite views. South Africa once abolished death penalty in 1994. After that, the criminal rate was increasing year by year. According to a poll in recently, 98.1% of South African prefer to reinstate death penalty which was an effective way to reduce the high criminal ratio. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa elected in the 2009 general election, suggested to hold a national referendum on bringing back the death penalty which was welcomed by most political parties. 每个列子举完了，最好总结一下。

Forthly, laws should advance with times. As the society development, some laws are outdate or not suitable for new decades. In this case, we should adjust and improve them, even abandon them. Take American Slavery for example. Slavery in the United States lasted a legal institution from 1654 to 1865. Slavery was one of the principal issues leading to the American Civil War. After the Union prevailed in the war, Slavery was abolished throughout the United States with the adoption of the Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution. 最好前后呼应一下，废除的原因就是，奴隶制度非常残忍，剥削了奴隶们的人生自由，不平等，这违背了世界观，背离了当前人类的观念，所以奴隶制度经过努力被废除了。

To sum up, basing my conclusion on the illustrations and expositions mentioned above, I believe that 无论个人或某个小群体的看法好坏，everyone should obey the existing laws.同时，在某些时候，法律也可以变通以适应当前社会需要。

调理还可以，也基本说清了 我就说缺点吧：
需要注意细节，我自己的语法也不是太好，就从文章内容上大体的改了一下
需要注意，第一 连词的运用。中文里不习惯用连词，但英文文章中必须用到连词。好的连词运用使文章增色不少。 第二 论据的使用，尽量做到 论述，论据的结合。 不要2个脱节
第三， 文章最好前后顾及 比如说最后一段，并没有写出整个文章所要表达的内容。 最后一段也很重要！！  第四， 尽量培养英语语感，有些时候感觉你还是脑子里想着中文，然后顺着中文翻译英文。 这个我也说不清。。。估计就是给老美感觉Chinglish吧。


extol 改 SNOW   


17 "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."

By snow

According to the speaker, the law is divided into two tapes（types）（There are two types of law是不是更好点？）: Just and unjust. (and) He thinks that(去掉) we should obey the just and（去掉改为，） disobey the unjust. I don’t agree with this viewpoint（it）. It seems to me that there is no absolute definition for just or unjust （law）and everyone should（must） obey the law . Even if the law you think is not just , you should not（can’t）语气强一点是不是更好啊 resist it, or even do something forcefully（或者做出更出格的举动？）. We have a lot of other methods to deal with this state of affairs.（说的意思不太好，想表达什么意思呢？）

To begin with , as the sentence says, there are a thousand readers having a thousand Hamlet(个人认为这句话不合适，删了反而更好，法律不是文学，法律经过了严格的审核，强调 有时。), to different people , the law has different meanings in their eyes. For example , everyone should have power（。。。rights） to drink .However, in some countries, the law forbids the young(youth更professional点 呵呵) who under the age of 18 to drink . The government just wants to avert to（去掉） the trouble which is（2个重句了，去掉） made by the young（youth） who is easy to get impetuous after drinking . Maybe（去掉） teachers and parents （may）think this is right and just ,but to the young ,unjust(however, young people won’t think so). Another example, everyone has right to love. After people fall in love with each other for a period ,  they may think it is time to get married ,(这一长段可以浓缩为一句) but the law maybe forbid that . In China, man and woman can get married only until they reach（grow to） the legal age which is 22 to man and 20 to woman(22 to man, 2 years older than woman) . To the government , it wants to control the population , it thinks doing this has a good effect to the development to the country and it is just(中式英语，The purpose of government is to control population, to do something good for development.) . However , to the people who want to get marry but under the legal age(illegal because of age) , it is unjust. So, I want to say ,there is no absolute definition to just or unjust law, the law just takes effect to make the society in order.

Secondly, law plays a role in governing the society, controlling the behavior of its members. resolving disputes peacefully. So when people have conflicts on profits, they must find laws to judge. According to the result of the judgment, it is impossible to satisfy both sides who have conflicts. As thus, there must be unjust to one side .So , in my opinion , if there is dispute ,there must be judge . Therefore, the just and the unjust which is leaded by the judgment must exist forever because the dispute exists by every minute in the society.（这里感觉还可以）

Another aspect is that even if you think the law is unjust, you shouldn’t disobey it , otherwise, you may be punished , including be forced to pay a fine, pay damages, or go to prison. We have a lot of methods to deal with this situation. Sending emails , writing letters , making a telephone call and so forth（哈） to the interrelated leaders or the department to explain your ideas is much better than disobeying or resisting it（the law） . If your ideas gain a lot of people’s approval , the law may be changed or be canceled. （不严谨， 许多人人认为改变就应该改变了吗？）

To sum up , it is of no concern for us to consider whether the law is just or unjust , we should obey all the laws which our government have constituted ,otherwise ,we may make trouble to the society and also ourselves . To the unjust law which we consider ,we can take reasonable ways to resolve .



说实话前面看的比较仔细。。， 我语法也烂 我就捻重点的和缺点一起说

语言上还是句子有些中式化， 有些地方读的很别扭。 最好的方法就是去收集整理连词和，短的经典的句子

内容上，还好，死住磕JUST和UNJUST的对比也可以。 但有些地方不严谨。最好不要有To the unjust law which we consider ,we can take reasonable ways to resolve .这种出现， reasonable way 又是什么呢，你前面说的法律之所以UNJUST是因为法律在不同人眼里观念不同等等，不能改，这里怎么又改了呢？我有时也会想当然的就模模糊糊地写一句话。


不知我说的对否，有时间可以私下交流，理清思路，注意语言

shenxianhuUID: 2455394

by SHX@2.23
It’s impossible that dramatically rapid development of the society departs from laws. The speaker takes laws as two sides: just and unjust. And he asserts that in addition to obeying just laws, we also disobey and resist unjust laws. Well, there is no doubt that we should obey just laws. However, the speaker extends the extreme assertion to the point about disobeying and resisting unjust laws. Meanwhile, it’s too straightforward to definite laws as just and unjust ones,.

It’s quite controversial that laws are defined as just and unjust by the speaker. Firstly, since many laws are found based on keeping everything in order, we fail to define they as just laws or as unjust laws. An apt example involves the law that doesn’t allow the man below 22 years to marry. Considering this law is made based on both psychological and physiological mature age, we have to hesitate. It’s hard to attribute this law as the just one, and meanwhile it’s also not adaptive to consider this law as the unjust one. Moreover, when it involves the same law, different people may have respective opinions based on diversified standpoints and interests. Consider human cloning as an example. The advance of the technology of cloning is companied with a myriad of problems. And human cloning is still under fierce debates when it emerges. Public and socialists oppose the technology of human cloning since it may bring devastating and unpredictable results in addition to chaos from ethics. In a result, many governments of countries announce the law to forbid people from researching any technology referring to human cloning. However, a number of scientists argue the justice of this law because it completely keeps human beings from progress and breakthrough in medical and physiological research. In this sense, whether laws are just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue, it based on our subjective perspectives.

Even though it’s hard to define laws as just ones or unjust ones, it is obviously not an obstacle for us to obey just laws in our opinions. when we refer to the law as an important and unique role for balancing interests of human and keeping the order of society, there is no doubt that we have responsibilities to comply with just laws. Laws refer to criminal help people deal with murdering, theft. Laws refer to economy provide rules for commercial activities and settle disputes between both sides of financial corporations. But what if involves unjust laws in our opinions？

One thing I have to admit is that it was reasonable to disobey even resist unjust laws before. In the 19th centuries, Hitler made a series of laws which could be treated as unjust laws including killing Jews. It was advocating and appreciating that a myriad of warm hearted people all over the world came to disobey and resist these unjust laws. No peace would reach if no one resisted. However, it’s not only improper but also harmful in nowadays. On the one hand, most of contraries focus on democracy and human rights more and more, most of laws are made by citizens so it appears as just laws at least in the horizons of most of people. Even though most of people consider laws as unjust ones, citizens have rights to overthrough them instead disobeying and resisting them. On the other hand, if we disobey and resist unjust laws we think while ignoring the peaceful trade of the whole world, it’s believed that people will fly in the face of unjust laws and gradually discord all laws which will definitely drive the world in the catastrophe.

So back to our topic, whether laws are just or unjust is judge by subjective views of people. We also need to comply with laws irrespective of whether they are just or unjust. After all, most of laws today are placed on interests and needs of most of people and they are just. Of course, we have responsibilities to denote unreasonable laws.
谢谢stone同学

改临暄
Law, generally is defined as a rule that is supported by the power of government and that governs the behavior of members. For thousands of years, enactment and application of different laws ensure people have a peaceful life, and pass downward to now.(似乎不是法律的制定和施行流传至今，应该是法律)

Law represents his members’ interest, while it governs the behavior of members. So it is true to say that law is just for specifically appointed society and his members, and it is a key factor to maintain social stability. On the other hand（on the one hand在哪）, when every individual enjoys his rights of the law, he must obey law; otherwise law（the law） does not act well. We may make an example that society is compared to one machine, and then every individual is components like screw cap etc, law is lubricant. Components will be against each other without lubricants; as a result, the machine does not work well. If only parts of components are lubricated, the machine does not work well and may minimize its service life time. At the same time, components have been broken down, even though they are lubricated, the machine will not run and do its functions.
这个比喻用的很好，但是这段你想论述什么，可是这段你似乎没有概括的句子，应该表述的是正义的法律很重要，还是法律很重要？让人摸不着头脑。
In addition, just law is a relative instead of absolute definition because law aims（the aims of laws） to particular period, specific society and its members. Just law would turn out to be unjust along with social environment. For instance, we thought that law in feudal society is unjust and is not suitable for today, but in that time feudal seems just and suitable for the development of feudal society, and the same does that law of U.S. also is not suit for other countries（我不知道这句是否可以倒装，即使可以，does也不对，要改成is that law...）, perhaps law at present will be invalidate in future. Moreover, one’ habit, mode of thinking and concepts would be(缺动词了) another factors influence the evaluation of just law. Thus, law whether just or unjust would be revised to allow for future changes. For those just laws, every individual should obey them naturally. For those unjust laws, it is even more importantly to revise or amend to keep pace with social development rather than to indulge in disobeying and resisting them.
这段问题很多。首先，例子用的不好。你在论述公平的法律也可能成为不公平的。这个你想说，时代不同，对待法律的看法就不同。但不可能让现代人来评价以前的法律公不公正，这显然不合适。
另外，两个分论点支持你的论述吗，支持这个issue吗？我看你想说的是法律并不是简单的分为公正和不公正。但两个分论点似乎不能支持你的论述。
还有，最后两句话，和这段似乎又没有什么关系。应该另起一段
To sum up, the assertion is not well reasoned that the author simply put laws into two categories, while does not point out background(词用的有问题) of just and unjust laws, （应该另起一句话）and the author still asserts that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws are not convinced.（这句话有问题了，后面加了个convinced反而不知道你要表达什么意思） Law as an important means for social stability need to be constantly improved and meets individuals along with social development. The author should provide more information concerning on range of application and legislation period of just and unjust laws etc to support his argument.（这句话我觉得不合适吧，这是issue，不是argument，你主要应该论述自己的，不该说作者该怎么样。如果放在开头为自己的论述开个头，倒是有意义。我这个想法不知道何不合理，有不对请指出。）

首先，是你在说法律这个词的时候，我觉得要么统一说laws，要么统一说成the law，你全文交替用来用去，而且常常把冠词the也省掉了。按照issue的题目，都改成laws吧，也恰当，当然，排除那些特指了。你很多定冠词都漏了，这个好好改改，一两个则已，不然会因为这个被扣分太不应该了。

其次，全篇，我想说，很多句子，用词啊，成份啊，有问题。论述应该考虑全篇的逻辑从而串联起来。估计是时间紧的原因。希望有时间能再好好写，毕竟是高频。有不正确的地方请指出。

mikestoneUID: 2734495

17"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."

My view to the statement is that people can see laws as just or unjust based on their own standpoints. However, they must obey all of them. If they think some articles of laws are unjust, they can let legislatures know through many ways, not disobey or resist them.
(法律条款)
To begin with, I state that not all articles of laws are just; one can see laws as just or unjust from his/her own stand. There are mainly two reasons. First, there are many defects in every law, because legislatures and governors cannot consider everything when they are proposing an article. For example, things, like religion, age, gender, position, custom and personal contribution, need to be considered; however, sometimes, one or two of them may be ignored. Since this may infringe some people’s benefits, they no doubt judge the articles unjust. Second, factors considered may conflict to each other, therefore, if some of them are taken, others must be excluded. For instance, as extinction of wild animals becomes an urgent problem, some customs that sacrifice these animals are limited by laws. So, those who cannot continue their customs may think these articles are unjust. Therefore, based on personal standpoint, one can judge laws just or unjust.

However, every individual in a society has responsibility to obey all laws; no matter they are just or not. One of the most important reasons is that there may be chaos, if everyone merely obeys just laws. Essentially, laws are rules. They are the fundamentals of governors’ decisions and regulations. If people disobey those articles they consider unjust, then the whole law system will be ineffective. For example, criminals may complain laws on theft are unjust and they can disobey them. Then how can we punish those thieves? So, to avoid chaos, every person should obey all laws, even they are unjust. Another reason is also important, that sometimes personal judgment may be partial, because it originates from individual profits. For example, laws of tax are often considered unjust, because people have to pay part of their income to the government. Actually, some of them don’t know the money has been used in the public affairs. Therefore, they should obey these laws before their minds are mature. In short, based on these two reasons, I conclude that people should obey all laws of a society.

In fact, if we think some articles are unjust to us, there are a number of approaches to solve it. For instance, we can send email to the legislatures or write down our own questions and advices on the government’s homepage. We can also let more civilians focus on the problems through media. At last, there will be a solution anyway.

To sum up, laws can be seen just or unjust according to personal standpoint; however, one should obey all of them, even they are unjust. If considering some articles are unjust, he/she can let the government and legislature know by many ways. Finally, there may be a proper solution.



改SXH的习作
by SHX@2.23
It’s impossible that dramatically rapid development of the society departs from laws. The speaker takes laws as two sides: just and unjust. And he asserts that in addition to obeying just laws, we also disobey and resist unjust laws. Well, there is no doubt that we should obey just laws. However, the speaker extends the extreme assertion to the point about disobeying and resisting unjust laws. Meanwhile, it’s too straightforward to definite laws as just and unjust ones.
（全文的瑕疵就集中在了第一段，首段没开好头，主要问题就是没有把你要说的主要观点说清楚，标红的地方建议改改。）
It’s quite controversial that laws are defined as just and unjust by the speaker. Firstly, since many laws are found based on keeping everything in order, we fail to define they as just laws or as unjust laws. An apt example involves the law that doesn’t allow the man below 22 years to marry (这个条目是中国特有的). Considering this law is made based on both psychological and physiological mature age, we have to hesitate（这里你用的是这个词吗？我觉得你好像不是表达这个意思）. It’s hard to attribute this law as the just one, and meanwhile it’s also not adaptive to consider this law as the unjust one. Moreover, when it involves the same law, different people may have respective opinions based on diversified standpoints and interests. Consider human cloning as an example. The advance of the technology of cloning is companied with a myriad of problems. And human cloning is still under fierce debates when it emerges. Public and socialists oppose the technology of human cloning since it may bring devastating and unpredictable results in addition to chaos from ethics. In a result, many governments of countries announce the law to forbid people from researching any technology referring to human cloning. However, a number of scientists argue the justice of this law because it completely keeps human beings from progress and breakthrough in medical and physiological research (这个例子有100字，用的挺好，说的到位，建议稍微缩短点，能完成一个论证过程就行了。). In this sense, whether laws are just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue, it based on our subjective perspectives.
（这段分出两个论点来，每个论点都有独立的论证过程，最后也能支持主题，相当不错。我写的时候也习惯采用这种方法，学习了。）
Even though it’s hard to define laws as just ones or unjust ones, it is obviously not an obstacle（直截了当说） for us to obey just laws in our opinions. When we refer to the law as an important and unique role for balancing interests of human and keeping the order of society, there is no doubt that we have responsibilities to comply with just laws. Laws refer to criminal help people deal with murdering, theft. Laws refer to economy provide rules for commercial activities and settle disputes between both sides of financial corporations. But what if involves unjust laws in our opinions？
（这段最后一句放到这里不合适吧，我觉得下一段加个过渡再写这句话更好。）
One thing I have to admit is that it was reasonable to disobey even resist unjust laws before. In the 19th centuries, Hitler made a series of laws which could be treated as unjust laws including killing Jews. It was advocating and appreciating that a myriad of warm hearted people all over the world came to disobey and resist these unjust laws. No peace would reach if no one resisted. However, it’s not only improper but also harmful in nowadays. On the one hand, most of contraries focus on democracy and human rights more and more, most of laws are made by citizens so it appears as just laws at least in the horizons of most of people. Even though most of people consider laws as unjust ones, citizens have rights to over through them instead disobeying and resisting them. On the other hand, if we disobey and resist unjust laws we think while ignoring the peaceful trade of the whole world, it’s believed that people will fly in the face of unjust laws and gradually discord all laws which will definitely drive the world in the catastrophe.
（这段的开头没有提出论点来，直接就进入两个分论点的讨论，这样可能会让人摸不着你的思路。加一个差别待遇的帽子可能会更好。这样你也可以把第一段写的更清楚。每个分论点内部没有问题，很好。）
So back to our topic, whether laws are just or unjust is judge by subjective views of people. We also need to comply with laws irrespective of whether they are just or unjust. After all, most of laws today are placed on interests and needs of most of people and they are just. Of course, we have responsibilities to denote unreasonable laws.
（这个结尾挺不错的，学习了）
憋了3个小时才出来，请狠拍
总结：SXH，确实下了很多功夫，语言和结构方面都可以清楚表达自己的思想。文章的架构方面我们差不多，所以虽然有些观点不同容易共鸣吧，反正我看你的文章的时候发现很多方面我没有考虑全面。一些小的意见就在文中提出来了。要向你好好学习。

改 EXTOL

According to the definition of law, what the author asserts is a one-sided view. The rules must be observed at any time when it is regarded as laws. In this case, I don’t agree that there are two types of laws and we must obey the just laws, disobey and resist the unjust laws.

单从这里来看，你虽然说不同意作者的观点，但是没有具体给出你的观点。这里你是两个都不同意呢，还是有保留的同意呢？（这个意见我弄错了，observe意思 遵守, 奉行(法律、习俗、规章等)）

Law is a set of extremely universal, strict social regulations whose implementation is ensured by country. First, law can be considered to be the collection of universal behaviors in our daily lives （这里你的意思是法律是普遍行为的集合，其实应该是普遍行为的regulations的集合。）. And, these universal behaviors represented the common morality which human beings had come to a mutual agreement. Robbery, stealing and murder are wrong, if so, one must pay for his action. The judgment of these actions is obviously depends on the common morality of human beings. So, the people who did these go against law and should be punished by law. Second, although common morality is the guidance of human behaviors, it contains widely. Law only rules actions which have straightforward definition boundary. Robbery, stealing are all illegal, for the reason that they can be considered the action of infringement of title. While picking up is not defined right or wrong by law because of the attitude towards this action varies from person to person. Third, why these rules can be regarded as laws due to the reason that they can be widely used and ensured by country. Not only Public Security Bureau, Justice Bureau and court but also other national administrative organs are all executors of law. Their performance is under controlled by law and, according to law, they maintain the running of national machine in order. So to speak: law is the bottom line of human’s action, it depends on the definite common morality, it can be widely admitted and used, and, the most important is, law can be executed ensured by national force. If some of these bases still be treated “right or wrong” by individuals or small group of people and cannot be obey completely. Why law exists?


这段确实写得挺乱的，虽然给出了一些提示词，但是感觉仍然是思路不清。我建议段前有个总论点，你看怎么样？然后三个分论点分别与题目中公平不公平挂钩，你看行不行，咱好好讨论下。

In addition, different value system, different social level and different circumstances can make people have different ideas in same things. So do laws. Gambling is definitely forbidden by law in China. But, in America, it sometimes recognized as an industry. Huge gambling house can be seen everywhere. Chinese people consider gambling as bad habits, it erodes people’s spirit, it caving out emptiness in people’s heart. Yet, Americans only consider it as a game. When few Chinese people also consider gambling as a game, could they change laws in China? Of course not. It certainly goes against most of people’s mind in China. Not to mention euthanasia, cohabitation and so on. What we must acknowledge is that we still can’t change laws for the injustice in someplace or sometime, and, no one can judge a law whether it is just or not. Otherwise, law will lose its purpose: the bottom line of human’s action.

这段还是再说这个题目的前一部分。

Admittedly, law is still revised by group of people according to the common morality. If dated laws can’t keep pace with modern society, yet, we can change it through strict procedure, for the purpose of serving people better.


这段写得比较草率，这儿的例子是比较好写的，比如宪法没几年都要修订一次。还有一些法律本身就不全，比如关于网络的法律，就不全。

To sum up, we must obey the law in any circumstance and no one can judge a law whether it is right or wrong. Law only can be revised according to present basic common morality in present society.

你整个文中都没有提到我们到底该不该遵守法律，该不该反对，这是这个题目的另一个重点。建议也写写。
总之，我想说的就是重写吧。群主别生气哈。
第一段，
表达自己的论点
第二段，
写关于公平不公平的看法，也就是把你文中的两段整合。
第三段，
写该不该遵守公平法律，该不该反对不公平的。发表看法。
第四段，
表达不公平的法律应该采取些措施。
第五段，
总结论点。
我只是给出了参考的思路，呵呵。群主考试紧张的话，可以放在考完后再改，改好了说一声我再改，好吧？

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

【17】.  by懒蚂蚁
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.
有两种法律：公正的和不公正的。每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，但是更重要的是，更应该不遵守和反抗不公正的法律。
Disobey（不遵守，违反）   resist（抵抗，压制）
社会和个人之法律公正

With the range of human activity becomes largerer and largerer, more and more laws are put into practice to restrain human's activities. While people are arguing about whether we should obey the just law and disobey or resist the unjust law, I think it is hard to distinguish just laws and unjust laws. What's more, one should obey laws he think are just and resist unjust ones according to his criterions rather than disobey it.



In the first place, it is our value and interests that upon which we depend to judge whether a law is just or not. So it is an subjective result, in other words, different people maybe have distinct attitudes toward the same law regarding to their unique values and interests they concern. On one hand, because people with different value analyse one thing from different angles, so do with the law, it is obvious and normal that there maybe arguments upon the justice of a law, especially upon the ethical ones. Discussion about abortion is an apt example. Some people think, basing on the fundamention that foetuses have the same rights as people, it is unjust, while others think it is just since foetuses are not real people at all. On the other hand, people's interests play an essential role in the determination of the justice of a law. Because of people's selfishness, it is easy to foresee that people will treat laws that can protect or even augment their profits as just ones and others that have negative effects on their interests as unjust laws. In a word, the justice of laws can not be judged impartially.



However, people should obey the laws that they think are just no matter what criteria they use to make this judgement. Firstly, the purpose of laws is to contribute an equal competing circumstance for the ones living under them. They make a subtle balance between the majority and minority of a society. If one disobey the just law, this balance will be disturbed, which will ultimately lead the society to a dramatically havoc. What's more, the one who disobeys the just law will be published by this law in the end and has no reason to escape this penalization since he have already admitted the justice of this law. So for the stability of our society and ourselves, we should obey the just laws.



When it comes to unjust laws, it is people's responsibilities to resist them instead of disobeying. If we disobey unjust laws, we will be penalized by our governments in the reason of driving our society into turmoil. What's more, this activity of noncompliance will lead to an opposite aftermath to what we expect since the rulers may build up new laws or figure our more strict disciplines to restrain our activities because of our wrong actions. However, we can resist these unjust laws in rational ways which can avoid the outcomes of disobeying them. By doing this, we can appeal governors to amend unjust laws. If not, at least we can make them know there are some complaints about those laws and what we are striving for. I believe that with our continuous struggle, we will finally get to our destination.



To sum up, it is an subjective issue about judging the justice of one law. However, it is our responsibilities to obey just laws and resist unjust laws in appropriate ways for the goal of making a more wonderful society.


修改stone的，但是估计要晚上才能交，因为今天下午有事，望见谅。


修改stone

My view to the statement is that people can see laws as just or unjust based (basing) on their own standpoints. However, they must obey all of them. If they think some items of laws are unjust, they can let (make) legislatures know through many ways, not disobey or resist them(要用个名词的形式.)
开头不错，有三个方面。用词我觉得有问题的都标出来了。
To begin with, I state（admit） that not all items of laws are just; one can see laws as just or unjust from his/her own stand. There are mainly two reasons. First, there are many defects in every law, because legislatures and governors cannot consider everything（我觉得用every aspect是不是好点） when they are proposing an item. For example, things, like religion, age, gender, position, custom and personal contribution, need to be considered; however, sometimes, one or two of them may be ignored. Since this may infringe some people’s benefits, they no doubt judge the items unjust（这句话不明确哦，this代表前面的什么？是不是想说前面的那种法律？）. Second, factors considered may conflict to each other, therefore, if some of them are taken, others must be excluded. For instance, as extinction of wild animals becomes an urgent problem, some customs that sacrifice these animals are limited by laws. So, those who cannot continue their customs may think these items are unjust. Therefore, based on personal standpoint, one can judge laws just or unjust.
从两个方面说明法律的公正与否和个人有关系。后一个关于传统的例子我感觉是你自己杜撰的，说服力不是很强。
However, every individual in a society has responsibility to obey all laws; no matter they are just or not. One of the most important reasons is that there may be chaos, if everyone merely obeys just laws. Essentially, laws are rules. They are the fundamentals of governors’ decisions and regulations. If people disobey those items they consider unjust, then the whole law system will be ineffective. For example, criminals may complain laws on theft are unjust and they can disobey them. Then how can we punish those thieves? So, to avoid chaos, every person should obey all laws, even they are unjust. Another reason is also important, that sometimes personal judgment may be partial, because it originates from individual profits. For example, laws of tax are often considered unjust, because people have to pay part of their income to the government. Actually, some of them don’t know the money has been used in the public affairs. Therefore, they should obey these laws before their minds are mature. In short, based on these two reasons, I conclude that people should obey all laws of a society.
这段观点明确，但是说理不强，论证不足。两个例子都不能充分说明自己的观点。第一个关于偷，这个没有代表性，我们都认为它是对的。你从小偷的角度说他们认为不对，我觉得有点可笑。是不是可以换一个角度，从大众来说。个人所得税的例子，OFTEN 对吗？？只是当个人所得税过高时，人才有意见，所以分析还得深入些。还有就是短句太多，要长短结合。
In fact, if we think some items are unjust to us, there are a number of approaches to solve it. For instance, we can send email to the legislatures or write down our own questions and advices on the government’s homepage. We can also let more civilians focus on the problems through media. At last, there will be a solution anyway.
太草率，你可以把这种途径和不遵守相比较下，能强化你的观点。
To sum up, laws can be seen just or unjust according to personal standpoint; however, one should obey all of them, even they are unjust. If considering some items are unjust, he/she can let the government and legislature know by many ways. Finally, there may be a proper solution.
总体来说文章的大的条理比较清楚，但是每段的论证不是很足，例子的说服力不够。
给人的感觉就是你大道理很多，但是我为什么要信你？
建议就是要论证充分写。不要急于求成。先理清思路，弄明白自己到底要说什么，而不是有个模糊的轮廓就写。
还有就是句子要长短句结合。你短句太多了。
个人愚见，多加指正。

zy0921UID: 2738668

谢谢！

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: 582
TIME: 00:46:20
DATE: 06/01/2010 20:32:32

The speaker has two claims: one is that laws can be classified as "just" and "unjust", the other one is that unjust laws should be disobeyed as a result. I strongly disagree with both of the contentions, as it is wrong to define laws in this way and law, by its nature should be obeyed by every individual in the society.

To begin with, it is fraudulent to categorize laws as two types - just and unjust. Although laws that are define as rules of conduct and actions prescribed or formally enforced as binding, seem to be an objective existence, whether they are just or not, however, is highly subjective. First and foremost, the standard is greatly dependent on people's value. A paradigmatic example is the different laws concerning bigamy. While it is forbidden in most of the country in the world, it is just in Arab countries to the extent that a man with more wives are more respected as he is rich enough to afford a big family.

Secondly, as a person's social identity changes, his view of justness of a certain law would change relying on his interest. For example, when a person is employed in a big state-owned company, he may think that monopoly is justifiable as monopoly indicates a high benefit for the company which in turn could be in the form of higher salary, whereas he may think that monopoly is unfair if he is working in a private and struggling company. In short, the fairness of laws is subjective and categorizing them objectively is erroneous.

As a result of subjectivity of fairness of laws, disobedience of so-called unjust laws will lead to havoc of a society. After all, the very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people upon whom laws are enforced. If there are people who think killing evil people is just although laws prescribe the ban of any form of murder, the personal safety of every citizen is not secure the general will feel panic. If any factory who thinks emission of wasted gas is just for them to earn profit, then the general's health will be in danger. To sum up, if people could disobey a law arbitrarily depending on their views of its fairness, the law will lose his authority and perform practically no function.

Moreover, break of law may even lead to counterproductive results. Consider the rule of birth control in China. Since the inception of the law, there are continuously people who discard the law and give birth to as many babies as they want. As a result, the population is not effectively controlled and the government has to burden a more rigid law on people that whoever has a second child without valid reasons will be punished severely.

Last but not the least, some people say that law is not always a final thing, it needs to be flexible and adaptable to the time and situation. However, that does not mean to adapt through resisting. It is the legislative body not every individual who have the right to amend the laws when there are obvious flaws in the current laws.

In conclusion, because of the nature of laws, their justness is rather subjective than objective and consequently, they must be obeyed to function normally to keep the any society stable and harmonious, and even if there exist conspicuous flaws, the amendment should not be done by individual in a way of breaking.

yuxiang1900UID: 2558709

17"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."

小翔飞飞

I find the statement specious on two aspects. First, it is inappropriate to define a law as just or unjust. Second, if individual can disobey and resist laws, I am afraid we will be haunted by a prospect that our world would turn into one that is fraught with crimes.

At threshold, I cannot agree with the speaker on the assertion that a law can be defined as just or unjust. To judge whether a law is just or unjust is most likely depending upon individual's stake, interest, religion and so forth, which is too subjective. For example, if the government is going to publish a law to require all the tobacco companies shut down for protecting the health of all the social members. Of course, most of un-smoking people would be happy to obey it and believe it is just. But the benefits of smoking ones, the owners and workers of tobacco industries would certainly be injured by the law, and they must consider it as unjust.

And the most fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying and resisting 'unjust' laws would destroy the authority of laws and lead us toward a world that is full of kinds of illegal behaviors. Law, as the body of official rules and regulations, is the most important means to control our society, it acts as glue that keeps our society together and it is indeed the base of development. Therefore, to protect the authority of law is the duty and right of all members of the society. If violating the law can be permitted only for it seems unjust to somebody, beside the profits of the people who respect the law lose protection, the law completely lose functions. The most serious problem is that you would soon find that any illegal behaviors come into just. An extreme example is if one person considered the law that rules on murder as unjust, dose that mean he or she has the right to kill people? If so, we would quickly face a world that is flooded of crimes.

Admittedly, with the development of society, there are indeed many laws that cannot fit for the era any more. For instance, in ancient China, women's status was lower than men in almost all the laws. However, in the civilized society now, this kind of rule is certainly unjust and should be deleted. So, how to deal with such kind of laws? The best way, as far as I concerned, is to appeal to the nation's legal system, but not to resist and disobey it. It is the basic human right admitted by most of the constitutions, and also the most civilized and rational manner for responsible citizens.

In sum, the speaker's suggestion on resisting and disobeying the "unjust" law is too subjective and extreme. On one hand we have the rights, and even duties, to point out the unfitness of a law, which can help perfect the law and make it provides better service to us. On another hand, to any civil and responsible citizens, respecting and obeying law must be the most essential principles without any doubt.

小翔飞飞改懒蚂蚁
With the range of human activity extending larger and larger, more and more laws are put into practice (published) to restrain (rule) human's activities. While people are arguing about whether we should obey the just law and disobey or resist the unjust law, I think it is hard to distinguish just laws and unjust laws. What's more, one should obey laws no matter it is just or unjust according to his criterions rather than disobeying it.
In the first place, it is our values and interests that upon which we depend to judge whether a law is just or not. So the judgment is subjective, in other words, different people maybe have distinct attitudes toward the same law regarding to their unique values and interests they concern. On one hand, because people with different values analyse one thing from different angles (in different views), so do the law, it is obvious and normal (natural) that there maybe arguments upon the judgment of a law, especially upon the ethical ones. Discussion about abortion is an apt example. Some people think, based on that fetuses have the same rights as people, abortion is unjust, while others think it is just since fetuses are not real people at all. On the other hand, people's interests play an essential role in the determination of the judgment of a law. Because of people's selfishness, it is easy to foresee that people will consider laws that can protect or even augment their profits as just ones and others that have negative effects on their interests as unjust laws. In a word, the judgment of laws might not be impartial.
However(这里没有转折关系，遵守恰当的法律是共识，现实中和作者的观点中都没有反对), people should (这里的should不能要，你在叙述一个大家公认常识，现实中认可，作者的assertion中也并没有否认，所以没有必要用表建议的should) obey the laws that they think are just no matter what criteria they use to make this judgment. Firstly, the purpose of laws is to provide an equal competing circumstance for the people. They make a subtle balance between the majority and minority of a society. (法律维持了多数人于少数人之间的平衡？另：不管是恰当的还是不恰当的法律，本来目的都如你所说， 要想逻辑正确，你需要在每一个观点前加上“人们认为恰当的的法律…” 如 Firstly, people think the function of just laws is to provide an equal competing circumstance for them.)If one disobeyed the just law, this balance will be disturbed, which will ultimately lead the society to a dramatically havoc. What's more, the one who disobeys the just law will be punished in the end and has no reason to escape this penalization since he or she has already admitted the justice of this law. （如果我是那人，我会在法律判我之前，否认那条法律是正当的！这个结论有点机械了）So for the stability of our society and ourselves, we should(should 去掉) obey the just laws.
When it comes to unjust laws, it is people's responsibilities to resist them instead of disobeying. If we disobey unjust laws, we would be penalized by our governments for the reason of driving our society into turmoil. What's more, this activity of noncompliance would lead to an aftermath opposite to what we expect since the rulers may build up new laws or figure out more strict disciplines to restrain our activities. However, we can resist these unjust laws in rational ways which can avoid the outcomes of disobeying them. We can appeal governors to amend unjust laws. At least we can make them know there are some complaints about those laws and what we are striving for. I believe that with our continuous struggles, we would finally get to our destinations.（虽然我明白你的意思，但是我觉得你这样精确地区分disobey 和 resist有点小危险！）
To sum up, it is subjective to judge the justice of one law. (issue没有主观的，观点才有主客观之分) However, it is our responsibilities to obey just laws and resist unjust laws in appropriate ways for the goal of making a more wonderful society. （评判法律是否正当太主观了，但是我们要遵守正当的法律，抵制不正当的法律。前半句否定法律应该被分为正当的和不正当的，后半句却认可了这种区分。中间至少要有个假设性的过度吧。）

Athena.missingUID: 2710486

By Athena

According to the speaker, the laws are divided into two types: just and unjust. We must obey the just laws and disobey the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, it isn’t all-inclusive and proper to judge a law simply by just and unjust, and the attitude we take should be a wise assessment of the situation accordingly.

I concede that there are some special laws enacted and enforced in favor of particular groups of people, such as “Disabled People Protection Law”, “Child-rights Protection law”, and etc. They seem to be “unjust” to some degree, for under the articles stipulated, the whole society must show consideration to some special groups, and these people enjoys a lot of privileges in social activities. But is there anyone with social responsibilities would criticize these laws as unjust and improper? I don’t think so. In my opinion, the society is an indivisible integrity. It is necessary to ensure everyone’s happiness to make the society on the track of sound progress. When there are some people in lack of basic living skills to survive around us, and when they are also part and parcel of us, we must show our love and concerns to protect and support them. That’s the meaning of the existence of special laws. They are not only just, but humane.

In fact, justness is not an absolute concept. It is relevant, concerning with different people with different religions, knowledge background, and even moral level. The same law may be viewed polar different. For instance, in 1924, the United States Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act. It rules a quota system that the number of people allowed to emigrate from a given country each year was based on the number of people from that country already living in the US. It actually gives great preference to relatives of the existing inhabitants and people from the countries which have an immigration tradition, but imposes great restriction to others. As a result, it was warmly welcomed by the beneficial owners for it has guaranteed their job and housing opportunities from the flooding of foreign immigrants, but criticized severely by others who regarded it as unjust and declared it a kind of racial discrimination. How can we judge it now without personal prejudice? There will never be a simple answer if only linked with single individuals. To put it in another way, the meaning of an existing law should not be judged by one’s own experiences and values, but from a large picture. If it can serve a goal larger than one’s immediate needs, it is worth obedience, and this obedience, is a must.

Laws have taken into the majority into consideration when enacted, thus so they are in accordance with most people’s interest. When certain clauses become laws, they also own the connotation that every citizen must obey them unconditionally. That is to say, laws are compulsive; no matter it is just or not according to one’s personal value system.

If a law, however, becomes out of date and loses its capability to benefit the majority, we may think about abandoning it. India has abolished the Caste System, for it is a virtual racial discrimination system, which has limited the freedom to pursue equality and happiness and severely checked the development rate of India. There is no perfect law in the world, and we have opportunities all the time to revise it. One way is to repeal it, for it has lost its function completely. The other can be melioration moderately. The US Constitution is the best example. Since its birth, it has served as the basic code of behavior in American society. It has never been changed, only added by several amendments according to the demand of the time.

Therefore, back to our topic, it is an obligation to obey laws, or they exist in name only. If we think a law is not good enough, we can either abandon it or revise it, to promote the progress of legal system. Blind resistance will do no good, but bring chaos or an anarchic state. The correct attitude toward the flaws of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper way.

修改link 424

The law, as we will soon discuss, should be considered from two aspects. Firstly, is it just? Secondly, what should we reflect to the just or unjust laws? I think that there are no unconditionally unjust laws, and that (如果宾语从句前面有了that, 后面也一定要. 要不然两个都不要)we should obey to(obey) the justifiable laws, resist the unjustifiable laws. However, we should make the justifiable laws more perfect and not do something too extremely to resist the unjustifiable laws.

第一段看下来.觉得有点混乱.
而且那个however的前后看来不是转折关系. 这个词弄乱了整段的结构.
可以再捋顺一下.

There is no absolutely parity; accordingly, the law is not absolutely just. For instance, in The Merchant of Venice played by William Shakespeare, the (为什么要用个the 呢.)Antonio is requested to cut three ponds’ (如果没记错, 应该是one pound.嘿嘿.)flesh from him by Shylock, as repayment of debt, though it is brutal, but it is accord with(用法应该是be in accord with) the law. Obviously, it is an invalid contract at this moment (有点指代不明, 直接用nowadays吧), because it is illegal. The law always changes, and becomes more sophisticated. Hence, we often define the law justifiable or un justifiable.

又是最后一句. 前面说法律在变化, 没有绝对的公平和不公平
可是最后这个因此..实在是看不出来因果关系. 而且这句话摆在这有点莫名其妙.

  It is our responsibility to obey the justifiable laws. The law is a criterion to judge what we should do, and what not. Hence, we need to obey it. Even if someone receive a just looked unfair, he should obey it without reason, because everyone judge a thing from his own standpoint. Can you image this situation that a person could disobey the judgment just due to his discontent of it? Therefore, in order to live in a regulated environment, we ought to obey it unconditionally, if the rule crystallized into law and the majority of people concede that it is justifiable,

  There is no benefit to obey an unjustifiable law, on the one hand(这个词组好像不能这么用, 放到句首才行.). The unjustifiable law is a very significant impediment to the development of the society. And it also affects people lives' quality(people’s life quality) seriously. For example, feminism was not considered long time ago. It hampers the society's(social) process fatally, and the amendment writing the feminism into the constitution(这句话要表达什么? ). After this the society became more humanity(humane), and women can also performance(perform) in the stage of politics. Hence, there are still some unjustifiable(这是形容词) really existing in our society, we should harness the power to change it. It will be a more excellent society, if the law becomes more perfect.

后面举例..不大清楚..句与句之间的承接不够, 所以感觉跳跃性太强..
而且写到这里你似乎有些松懈了.好多词的词性都被弄混了.
呵呵..要坚持下去…..

  But, on the other hand, can we disobey it straightly, or even do some extreme behaviors in the most cases? As I said (even though)the unjustifiable laws obstructs our efforts to obtain a better society, (这里的but被我去掉了)we cannot disobey it straightly. We can organize a procession along the street(是说抗议吗? 用hold a protest march吧.这样表述不大容易明白, 有点擦边球.), or send mails to the government. In (另起一句)other words, peace is better than violence. Protesting the Iraq War is a good example to illustrate my notion. If they(the protesters) show their discontent by violence, such as refusing paying tax which may be used for Iraq war, perhaps the government will not consider whether (to)stop the Iraq War immediately but arrest them. Even the Civil War due to the objection to the right of keeping black slaves is after the negotiating with the south government. Hence, the peace method is always the first way we should come up with. Only after prove (proving) that this mean is not effective, can we disobey it.  

  In general, we cannot decide which law is just simply. And we should obey the justifiable laws, , resist the unjustifiable laws by some reasonable methods.

整篇文章有一个最致命的错误. Just 和justifiable.
Just 是公正.
Justifiable.是有道理的. 可辩解的
虽然依旧是在讨论just的内容.但是乍一看,肯定以为你偏题了.
我都没改过来. 你自己看看吧..
细节的地方注意一下, 词的词性不要弄错.
另外我觉得你的句子之间没有衔接.跳跃性太强了.
一句一句研究才行.
想看快点就一头雾水.

鱼晒月亮UID: 2723622

临暄的作业

17"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."

Law, generally defined as a rule that is supported by the power of government and that governs the behavior of members. For thousands of years, enactment and application of different laws ensure people have a peaceful life, and pass downward to now.
Law represents his members’ interest, while it governs the behavior of members. So it is true to say that law is just for specifically appointed society and his members, and it is a key factor to maintain social stability. On the other hand, when every individual enjoys his rights of the law, he must obey law; otherwise law does not act well. We may make an example that society is compared to one machine, and then every individual is components like screw cap etc, law is lubricant. Components will be against each other without lubricants; as a result, the machine does not work well. If only parts of components are lubricated, the machine does not work well and may minimize its service life. At the same time, components have been broken down, even though they are lubricated, the machine will not run and do its functions.
In addition, just law is a relative instead of absolute definition because law aims to particular period, specific society and its members. Just law would turn out to be unjust along with social environment. For instance, we thought that law in feudal society is unjust and is not suit for today, but in that time feudal seems just and suitable for the development of feudal society, and the same does that law of U.S. also is not suit for other countries, perhaps law at present will be invalidate in future. Moreover, one’ habit, mode of thinking and concepts would another factors influence the evaluation of just law. Thus, law whether just or unjust would be revised to allow for future changes. For those just laws, every individual should obey them naturally. For those unjust laws, it is even more importantly to revise or amend to keep pace with social development rather than indulge in disobeying and resisting them.
To sum up, the assertion is not well reasoned that the author simply put laws in to categories, while does not point out background of just and unjust laws, and the author still asserts that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws is not convinced. Law as an important means for social stability need to be constantly improved and meets individuals along with social development. The author should provide more information concerning on range of application and legislation period of just and unjust laws etc to support his argument.

修改楼上的，郁闷，偶的issue题库存到优盘上，很不幸的是又丢了，这是第二次丢了，我都快恨死我自己了。
昨天晚上看了楼上的作文，才发现是Athena的，怀着崇拜的心情看完了作文，我更多的是看到了差距而不是错误。作文写得很native，语言简洁流畅，可以说是5分以上的那种。尤其里面的例子比较广泛，实用性较强。偶决定以后就把Asthena的看作范文了，假设考试的时候偶也能写出如此的作文就心满意足了。强烈推荐大家都看一下。看看偶那干干的作文，真是无地自容阿，同生长在一片土地上，差距怎么就这么大呢！

sonia0318UID: 2674482

Issue 17 by Sonia
What the speaker mainly recommends is that we should follow the just laws and disobey the laws that we consider is unjust. From my personal perspective, the speaker’s statement is unreasonable and illogical from some respect, even though I agree with speaker that laws can be divided into two parts: just and unjust.

The chief reason why I disagree with the speaker is that different people who have different interests have different opinion about the justice of the laws. For instance, manufacturers always have confliction with the environmentalists. From the perspective from the mot manufacturing factory, it is unavoidable and undoubted to discharge air pollution and water pollution into the environment which is often regarded as industry pollution especially for paper industry and chemical industry. They think that it is the law’s obligation to protect their rights for normal operation and legal property. On the other hand, for most residents and environmentalists who reside around the factories, air pollution and water pollution are intolerable and nauseous to their usual life, even though these industries can resolve the employment problems. Laws also should be responsible for their health and daily life. However, it seems to be impossible and unpractical for laws to protect both interests at the antithetic circumstance. So does the international law, which is relevant with different nation and respects. Enforcement of international law is often difficult because nations are sovereign powers that put their own interests ahead of those international communities.

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that I believe the laws are different with the morality. No matter how one like it or not, agree with it or not, once he breaks the law, he must be punished. He has to pay the fine, pay damage, or take the term of incarceration. On the other hand, morality, principle or standards of human conduct, is not so strict as laws. We need laws to secure our society and protect our legal rights and morality to make people’s behavior and action fit the customs. The punishment of laws is more strict and even cruller than that of morality. In ancient times, offenders often have to take the law of equal retaliation “an eye for eye”, such as corporal punishment. While contemporary punishment is based on the fine and restriction of personal freedoms. However it is still imperative. In short, whether one have to take the punishment should and must have no relevance with whether the law is fair or not to someone’s view. From my personal perspective about the issue, people need to compromise and obey the laws even though they have different and even contrary opinion with it. If we choose to use some extreme method to disobey the law like the strike or riot, we would be like the anarchists who ruin the peace of our society.

The last reason I disagree with the speaker is that when we confront with unjust laws, resorting to rational and legislative alternatives is the sensible choice. As I mention above, ruthless violation toward existing laws is regarded as unfair action. Fortunately, we have some other legal remedies to appeal such laws if there appears much of irrationality. For instance, Constitution has been amended for many times in that with ever-changing situation, a host of regulation or laws do not adapt to modern society. Consequently, we have such opportunities to presents our viewpoint toward some certain unfair laws. Now any democracy countries, say, American, Canada, have such whole and complete constitutional system to amend those laws suffering some unfairness. That is to say, we have no better alternatives than seek such legal organization to repeal or amend such seemly not so friendly laws.

To sum up, the author’ recommendation is not quite feasible in today’s world. Only by obeying what he thinks is right meanwhile disobeying the opposite ones will surely cause the chaos of a society. Real justice is most people’s common recognition which is better fit the society’s needs. Only through people working out impartial legislations which are the fruits of their consensus would we accomplish the justice.

临暄的作业
17"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."

Law, generally defined as a rule that is supported by the power of government and that governs the behavior of members. For thousands of years, enactment and application of different laws ensure people have a peaceful life, and pass downward to now（pass downward to now有这个用法吗？另外作者的观点在这一段明确的体现出来，agree或者disagree要说出来）.
Law represents his members’ interest, while it governs the behavior of members. So it is true to say（believe） that law is just for specifically appointed society and his members, and it is a key factor to maintain social stability. On the other hand, when every individual enjoys his rights of the law, he must obey law; otherwise law does not act well. We may make an example that society is compared to one machine, and then every individual is components like screw cap etc, law is lubricant.(这个比喻合适吗？) Components will be against each other without lubricants; as a result, the machine does not work well. If only parts of components are lubricated, the machine does not work well and may minimize its service life. At the same time, components have been broken down, even though they are lubricated, the machine will not run and do its functions.（此段中心意思是法律为社会的润滑剂，我认为应该再加重强掉法律在安定社会等方面的作用使文章更丰满）
In addition, just law is a relative（用词不当吧？） instead of absolute definition because law aims to particular period, specific society and its members.（这句是不是有毛病） Just law would turn out to be unjust along with social environment. For instance, we thought that law in feudal society is unjust and is not suit for today, but in that time feudal seems just and suitable for the development of feudal society, and the same does that law of U.S. also is not suit for other countries, perhaps law at present will be invalidate in future. Moreover, one’ habit, mode of thinking and concepts would another factors influence the evaluation of just law. Thus, law whether just or unjust would be revised to allow for future changes. For those just laws, every individual should obey them naturally. For those unjust laws, it is even more importantly to revise or amend to keep pace with social development rather than indulge in disobeying and resisting them. （这段是说法律应该通过修改使其完善）
To sum up, the assertion is not well reasoned that the author simply put laws in to categories, while （主语？）does not point out background of just and unjust laws, and the author still asserts that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws is not convinced. Law as an important means for social stability need to be constantly improved and meets individuals along with social development. The author should provide more information concerning on range of application and legislation period of just and unjust laws etc to support his argument.
没做太大的变动，不过建议作者多加一些例子和自己的思考以及分析使文章更丰满，一点愚见

不过奇怪的是我的文章居然没一个人改，难道是写得太烂？？？

woaicarfieldUID: 2568106

ISSUE 17 BY 小爱

According to this statement, the speaker’s contention that people should choose between the two types of laws, just and unjust, and claims that every individual in a society has to obey just laws as well as disobey the unjust laws. In my view, it seems to be too extreme about the laws,because there are some laws cannot be categorized as either just or unjust. Except that I have to agree with the speaker’s contention. And in current democratic society, the laws can be changed and improved with time going.
In the first place ,sometimes whether a law is just or unjust is a controversial or vague, the legislator always represent the different beneficial group, so there would be different view to the laws. For instance, in China, the government appeal the system of family planning, that is, one family can only has one child and forbided to get another child , if they want to get the second child or even more, they will be punished or cannot enjoy many beneficial. This policy is necessary in China because of the increasing number of Chinese people. But this policy was seemed to be human-right violation in USA, because in America the government advocate fair human rights, so they consider the Chinese law is unjust. Another apt illustration involves the abortion law even in America, in some states of United State, the abortion is allowed, for some individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws which allow mothers an abortion as unjust, while some other persons with other value might view it just. Whether the law is just or unjust depends on people’s different values and situations.
In the secone place, I have to admit that the true aim of legislation is to pursue the steady and peace of the whole society, so when the legislator of one country begin to insititue the laws ,they should base on the fairness, rationalization, popularity and so on , not base on their personal benefits and interests. On this level, the law has its justness or unjustness. For example, when the law of tariff can really prevent smuggling or trafficker, then this law is just, and there are laws to punished murder who killed innocent people, it is also a just law . On the contrary, when a law formulated to reinstate autocracy or Nazi system, this kind of law seems to be unjust and must be avoided. In current society, the legislator should lay more emphasis on the law’s making.
At the last but not the least, laws is always undergoing a period of mature, take the marital property rights for instance, which varied with time. In earlier times husbands owned all property acquired during marriage as well as property brought into marriage including either spouse. Undoubtedly, this was proved to be rigid and unfair, and ultimately replaced by separate-property systems, which gave property rights of both spouses. Recently , community property system has come out, which advocated that each spouse owns half of all property acquired during the marriage, while each one keep a separate property before marriage , this seems to be more flexible and just than before. With the development of society, the law will be more and more perfect.

To sum up, because the content and function of the laws is for public, it is hard to say the law is just or unjust, after all the same law suit to different people’s benefits. But in today’s society, the law is becoming more and more improved and perfect.



小爱修改SONIA
What the speaker mainly recommends is that we should follow the just laws and disobey the laws that we consider is unjust. From my personal perspective, the speaker’s statement is unreasonable and illogical from some respect, even though I agree with speaker that laws can be divided into two parts: just and unjust这个是自己的观点，尽管是让步但还是放在前面会比较好.句子有点不通，请注意结构

The chief reason why I disagree（你前面不是说同意作者观点吗，只是认为有点不合理） with the speaker is that different people who have different interests have different opinion about the justice of the laws. For instance, manufacturers always have confliction with the environmentalists. From the perspective from the mot manufacturing factory, it is unavoidable and undoubted to discharge air pollution and water pollution into the environment which is often regarded as industry pollution especially for paper industry and chemical industry. They think that it is the law’s obligation to protect their rights for normal operation and legal property. On the other hand, for most residents and environmentalists who reside around the factories, air pollution and water pollution are intolerable and nauseous to their usual life, even though these industries can resolve the employment problems. Laws also should be responsible for their health and daily life. However, it seems to be impossible and unpractical for laws to protect both interests at the antithetic circumstance. So does the international law, which is relevant with different nation and respects. Enforcement of international law is often difficult because nations are sovereign powers that put their own interests ahead of those international communities.例子不错

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that I believe the laws are different with the morality. No matter how one like it or not, agree with it or not, once he breaks the law, he must be punished法律与道德确实不同，可跟主题有关系吗. He has to pay the fine, pay damage, or take the term of incarceratio。On the other hand, morality, principle or standards of human conduct, is not so strict as laws. We need laws to secure这是形容词 our society and protect our legal rights and morality to make people’s behavior and action fit the customs. The punishment of laws is more strict and even cruller than that of morality. In ancient times, offenders often have to take the law of equal retaliation “an eye for eye”什么意思啊，感觉你的话有点CHINGLISH, such as corporal punishment. While contemporary punishment is based on the fine and restriction of personal freedoms. However it is still imperative. In short, whether one have to take the punishment should and must have no relevance with whether（WITH后面不能直接接WHETHER） the law is fair or not to someone’s view. From my personal perspective about the issue, people need to compromise and obey the laws even though they have different and even contrary opinion with it. If we choose to use some extreme method to disobey the law like the strike or riot, we would be like the anarchists who ruin the peace of our society.这段写的跟主题不太搭

The last reason I disagree with the speaker is that when we confront with unjust laws, resorting to rational and legislative alternatives is the sensible choice. As I mentionED above, ruthless violation toward existing laws is regarded as unfair action. Fortunately, we have some other legal remedies to appeal such laws if there appears much of irrationality. For instance, Constitution has been amended for many times in that with ever-changing situation, a host of regulation or laws do not adapt to modern society. Consequently, we have such opportunities to presents our viewpoint toward some certain unfair laws. Now any democracy countries, say, American, Canada, have such whole and complete constitutional system to amend those laws suffering some unfairness. That is to say, we have no better alternatives than seek such legal organization to repeal or amend such seemly not so friendly laws.这段讲法律是可以被修正的，观点不错，但论证上要多下功夫

To sum up, the author’ recommendation is not quite feasible in today’s world. Only by obeying what he thinks is去掉 right meanwhile disobeying the opposite ones will surely cause the chaos of a society. Real justice is most people’s common recognition which is better fit the society’s needs. Only through people working out impartial legislations which are the fruits of their consensus would we accomplish the justice.
你的三段都写的是不同意作者观点，可在开头却表现得很隐晦，最好观点与论述能一致

cycy881125UID: 2625420

written by AlanC

I agree that laws represent the nation’s highest rights, and regulate the order and stability of society, and then we must obey the restraint of the rules. However, not all laws would make a contribution to the prosperity of the long-term development of our society. Every human might hold special thoughts in an identical law, and then it might have an opposite influence on the separate part. Thus, people should conform to the law which would make the majority benefit from it.



Tentatively, every citizen and even country in the society should conform to the laws for their responsibility to keep our world secure and prosperous. Since law is a system of rules, it shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of the relation between people and other relations. In economic domain, it plays a role of a contact between both sides which might be people, firms or even nations. In society domain, laws act as a mediator to solve the issue among the citizens and make people live and work in peace and also help citizens gain their own rights and interests. In recent years, along with the cooperation between China and US has extremely increased. the trade friction of China-US becomes incandescent. How severe the relation is, for that both sides might not abandon its just rights to obtain benefits. In this particular situation, the commercial law would act as the mediator for both sides, and let two sides make a compromise. Without obeying the laws, our community would be confused, and the prosperity might never achieve.




However, in my opinion, It is different that whether the laws being just or unjust, and every individual would have its own opinions, so I strongly suggest that we should abide by the law which has an active affection to the majority. Since all around the world, every seeming excellent thing should have its fallacious aspect, just like law, the nation’s symbol of the superior rights and interests is also a double-edged sword. So that whether it is just or not could be ambiguous. On the other hand, human beings are innately creative, so thoughts of us should vary from one to other, this reason makes laws ambiguous. The ambiguity causes that the law being beneficial to one person might lead the other one’s life to fall off the bottom. In our community, every year, the property loss caused by the corruption of officials heavily weighted in the position of nation’s incoming. Corruption have become the approach to make a profit for the corrupt officials, they seek the bug of law based on the dual character of law and then exploit it. Thus, this kind of law seems beneficial for them, but however, it would decrease the rights of others, or even do harm to them. Consequently, one must abide by the law, when it benefits the majority.


In conclusion, society would develop in a stable, secure and well-orderly situation to prosper long, if citizens have conformed to the rules which make a positive affection to the world and everyone takes care more of each other.

修改小爱Issue17

According to this statement, the speaker’s contention that people should choose between the two types of laws, just and unjust, and claims（前面and去掉） that every individual in a society has to obey just laws as well as disobey the unjust laws. In my view, it seems to be too extreme about the laws, because there are some laws cannot be categorized as either just or unjust. Except that I have to agree with the speaker’s contention. And in current democratic society, the laws can be changed and improved with time going.



In the first place ,sometimes whether a law is just or unjust is a controversial or vague, the legislator always represent （represents）the different beneficial group, so there would be different view to the laws. For instance, in China, the government appeal the system of family planning, that is, one family can only has one child and forbidden(should be forbidden) to get another child , if they want to get the second child or even more, they will be punished or cannot enjoy many beneficial(用benefits or profits). This policy is necessary in China because of the increasing number of Chinese people. But this policy(it) was(is) seemed to be human-right violation in USA, because in America the government advocate (advocates) fair human rights, so they consider the Chinese law is unjust. Another apt illustration involves the abortion law even in America, in some states of United State, the abortion is allowed, for some individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws which allow mothers an abortion as unjust, while some other persons with other value might view it just. Whether the law is just or unjust depends on people’s different values and situations.

(这两个例子用的挺贴切的，在例子中再次呼应了你的主题。不过我倒是感觉例子不能占太多的篇幅,后面的例子和前面表达同一样的意思，个人意见是两者择一。)


In the secone（second） place, I have to admit that the true aim of legislation is to pursue the steady and peace of the whole society, so when the legislator of one country begin to insititue(institute) the laws ,they should base on the fairness, rationalization, popularity and so on , not base on their personal benefits and interests. On this level, the law has its justness or unjustness. For example, when the law of tariff can really prevent smuggling or trafficker, then this law is just, and there are laws to punished murder who killed innocent people, it is also a just law . On the contrary, when a law formulated to reinstate autocracy or Nazi system, this kind of law seems to be unjust and must be avoided. In current society, the legislator should lay more emphasis on the law’s making.
(这段你的观点是支持共性，是对作者的观点的让步吧，所以我感觉是不是应该把让步放在前面的说呢)


At the last but not the least, laws is always undergoing a period of mature, take the marital property rights for instance, which varied with time. In earlier times husbands owned all property acquired during marriage as well as property brought into marriage including either spouse. Undoubtedly, this was proved to be rigid and unfair, and ultimately replaced by separate-property systems, which gave property rights of both spouses. Recently , community property system has come out, which advocated that each spouse owns half of all property acquired during the marriage, while each one keep a separate property before marriage , this seems to be more flexible and just than before. With the development of society, the law will be more and more perfect.
（我感觉吧，你的第三种观点同样是在说法律的公正与否不能太绝对，所以我认为你的第三种观点可以算作是第一种观点的子观点，这样看来文章就会显得比较臃肿了。观点一与观点三只是在时间与空间上的区别，个人意见是两段合一。）

To sum up, because the content and function of the laws is for public, it is hard to say the law is just or unjust, after all the same law suit to different people’s benefits. But in today’s society, the law is becoming more and more improved and perfect.

建议你下次用word来写，这样可以检查出大部分的拼写错误。
这是我改的第二篇你的作文吧，我感觉你这篇作文逻辑上比上一篇清晰很多，而且例子的使用上也挺贴切的。

niyinanUID: 2693578

niyinan(塞纳)


17"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 have already been an indispensable part of our society since long ago, exerting its both its positive and negative effects on our daily life while being questioned about its justice from time to time. Concerning this, some propose that people should disobey and resist unjust laws while obey the rest laws—just laws. However, as for me, I disagree with this view as it ignores the characters of modern laws and the devastating results of disobeying laws.

Firstly, laws can not be simply divided into two types—just and unjust. Along with the development of human society, most of the time the problems we confront are no longer pure white or pure black, those are grey ones, which need the judgment and intellect of individuals. Different people have different views and attitudes towards certain problem due to their various career experience, education level, culture background and beliefs. An illustration involves in cloning. Faced with cloning, some sociologists and philosophers who concern more about ethical and moral problems may brought from cloning resist the development of cloning technology, while scientists and medical staff insist that cloning should be not only permitted but also encouraged for the reason advances in clone technology would help solve various diseases that can not be cured under the current medical level. Thus, the law disobeying cloning is a controversal one and it is hard to say whether such law is just or unjust.

The efficiency of the laws needs the obedience of every member of the society regardless of its justice, if we overlook such significant point, the problem we will soon confront is the collapse of the law system. If some people obey certain laws that they consider them as just while others regard them as unjust ones that should be abandoned, the law would lose both its efficiency and its dignity since people’s behaviors are just dominated by their own value and restricted by their own thoughts. Facing the laws that are against their willing and conductions, people would avoid law punishment by noting that in my opinion those laws are unjust. Under such condition, how can we promise the efficiency of laws and what is the meaning of law system?

Furthermore, such view according to the statement might cause serious society upheavals, many selfish persons and criminals, especially anti-social individuals, may cause numerous violent crimes, such as robbery, murders, sabotages, for the their own interests and willing. Perhaps, the central park of the city where people usually come to relax and enjoy leisure time may be fraught with fire and dead body and broken glasses instead of mirth of the children and the relaxed music. The beautiful society and splendid and glorious civilization we have created would be undermined in a short time.

In my opinion, such statement is already out of date not only due to that the problem we are faced with is becoming more and more complex, but also because the laws of our society are no longer have obvious flaws. The reason that Martin luther king proposed that people should obey just laws, but what is more important is that unjust laws should be disobeyed and resisted is that in his time, laws permitting racial criminations are still exerting its negative influence on the society, women still could not embrace the same opportunities and rights as men, however, in our today’s society, no such laws that are against the trends of the progress of human civilization survive. Such statement has lost its meaning in our modern society where human rights, racial equality, freedom of citizens are highly valued and respected.

From what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that the statement fails to have an insight and comprehensive of neither the characters of modern laws nor the devastating influence of resisting laws. Respecting the laws means respecting ourselves and our civil fruitions.

塞纳改alanc
written by AlanC

I agree that laws represent the nation’s highest rights, and regulate the order and stability of society, and then we must obey the restraint of the rules. However, not all laws would make a contribution to the prosperity of the long-term development of our society. Every human might hold special thoughts in an identical law, and then it might have an opposite influence on the separate part. Thus, people should conform to the law which would make the majority benefit from it.



Tentatively, every citizen and even country in the society should conform to the laws for their responsibility to keep our world secure and prosperous. Since law is a system of rules, it shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of the relation between people and other relations. In economic domain, it plays a role of a contact between both sides which might be people, firms or even nations. In society domain, laws act as a mediator to solve the issue among the citizens and make people live and work in peace and also help citizens gain their own rights and interests. In recent years, along with the cooperation between China and US has extremely increased. the trade friction of China-US becomes incandescent. How severe the relation is, for that both sides might not abandon its just rights to obtain benefits. In this particular situation, the commercial law would act as the mediator for both sides, and let two sides make a compromise. （题目是说 individual ，使用国家间的例子不如人与人之间的好吧。）Without obeying the laws, our community would be confused, and the prosperity might never achieve.（前面说citizen和country 这里说community 感觉衔接不太好）




However, in my opinion, It is different that whether the laws being just or unjust, and every individual would have its own opinions, （这句话说的不明确，换一种说法吧）so I strongly suggest that we should abide by the law which has an active affection to the majority. Since all around the world, every seeming excellent thing should have its fallacious aspect, just like law, the nation’s symbol of the superior rights and interests is also a double-edged sword. So that whether it is just or not could be ambiguous. On the other hand, human beings are innately creative, so thoughts of us should vary from one to other, this reason makes laws ambiguous（不是法律ambiguous，是人对待法律的观点ambiguous）. The ambiguity causes that the law being beneficial to one person might lead the other one’s life to fall off the bottom. In our community, every year, the property loss caused by the corruption of officials heavily weighted in the position of nation’s incoming. Corruption have become the approach to make a profit for the corrupt officials, they seek the bug of law based on the dual character of law and then exploit it. Thus, this kind of law seems beneficial for them, but however, it would decrease the rights of others, or even do harm to them. Consequently, one must abide by the law, when it benefits the majority.（有点感觉论述不清，呵呵，不严谨，上下衔接不易理解）


In conclusion, society would develop in a stable, secure and well-orderly situation to prosper long, if citizens have conformed to the rules which make a positive affection to the world and everyone takes care more of each other.

个人感觉，举得例子不太好，还有就是论述上有些不清晰，逻辑不太严谨，说服力不太好，个人观点，呵呵

yeshen2010UID: 2744103

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."

提纲：
一、提出观点：每个人都应该遵循现行的法律。
二、首先并不存在衡量法律是否合适的准则。
三、不同的人对于法律是否平等的看法不同。例子：少数民族高考加分。
四、不同地区针对同一事物制定的法律也不同。例子：死刑。
五、法律也要与时俱进。不合时宜的法律应该加以完善、改进，甚至废除。如美国的农奴制度。
六、总结。

The issue presents that there are two kinds of laws--just and unjust. It also states that everyone should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. I am quite doubtful with this assertion. From my perspective, I am inclined to hold the position that everyone should obey the existing laws.

Firstly, there does not exist a method to measure whether a law is just or not. In dictionary, law means the whole system of rules that everyone in a country or society must obey. From this definition, we cannot figure out how to gauge a law.

Secondly, different people hold different ideas on whether a law is fair or not. There is a law in China for high school students who are minorities. The law states that if minority students want to go to colleges, their scores can be extrally added ten to thirty. The policy cannot be applicable for Han nationality. For majority, especially Han nationality, this policy is not fair. But for minorities, they think the law is fair. Because they live in relatively poor areas, they do not have good education facilities, and even more they do not have enough teachers. But it is much easier for Han nationality students to get all things above. So they consider that the law can help them fulfill their college dreams as the same as Han nationality students.

Thirdly, whether it is a fair law or not depends on place. Different places have different laws to treat the same thing. Take death penalty for example. Many European countries, such as France, German and the Great Britain, object to death penalty. These countries believe that death penalty is a negation of human dignity and integrity. If the death penalty is implemented, it will be unable to recover the errors. But in some other countries, such as China, America, and South Africa, they hold the opposite views. South Africa once abolished death penalty in 1994. After that, the criminal rate was increasing year by year. According to a poll in recently, 98.1% of South African prefer to reinstate death penalty which was an effective way to reduce the high criminal ratio. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa elected in the 2009 general election, suggested to hold a national referendum on bringing back the death penalty which was welcomed by most political parties.

Forthly, laws should advance with times. As the society development, some laws are outdate, or not suitable for new decades. In this case, we should adjust and improve them, even abandon them. Take American Slavery for example. Slavery in the United States lasted a legal institution from 1654 to 1865. Slavery was one of the principal issues leading to the American Civil War. After the Union prevailed in the war, Slavery was abolished throughout the United States with the adoption of the Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution.

To sum up, basing my conclusion on the illustrations and expositions mentioned above, I believe that everyone should obey the existing laws.



改niyinan(塞纳)
17"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 have already been an indispensable part of our society since long ago, exerting its（删除） both its positive and negative effects on our daily life while being questioned about its justice from time to time. Concerning this, some propose that people should disobey and resist unjust laws while obey the rest laws—just laws. However, as for me, I disagree with this view as it ignores the characters of modern laws and the devastating results of disobeying laws.
这一段说不同意原文的观点，不过好像没把自己的观点摆出来。
Firstly, laws cannot be simply divided into two types—just and unjust. Along with the development of human society, most of the time the problems we confront are no longer pure white or pure black, those are grey ones, which need the judgment and intellect of individuals. Different people have different views and attitudes towards certain problem due to their various career experience, education level, culture background and beliefs. An illustration involves in cloning. Faced with cloning, some sociologists and philosophers who concern more about ethical and moral problems may brought from cloning resist the development of cloning technology, while scientists and medical staff insist that cloning should be not only permitted but also encouraged for the reason advances in clone technology would help solve various diseases that cannot be cured under the current medical level. Thus, the law disobeying cloning is a controversial one and it is hard to say whether such law is just or unjust.

The efficiency of the laws needs the obedience of every member of the society regardless of its justice, if we overlook such significant point, the problem we will soon confront is the collapse of the law system. If some people obey certain laws that they consider them as just while others regard them as unjust ones that should be abandoned, the law would lose both its efficiency and its dignity since people’s behaviors are just dominated by their own value and restricted by their own thoughts. Facing the laws that are against their willing and conductions, people would avoid law punishment by noting that in my(改为their) opinion those laws are unjust. Under such condition, how can we promise the efficiency of laws and what is the meaning of law system?
Furthermore, such view according to the statement might cause serious society upheavals, many selfish persons and criminals, especially anti-social individuals, may cause numerous violent crimes, such as robbery, murders, sabotages, for the their own interests and willing. Perhaps, the central park of the city where people usually come to relax and enjoy leisure time may be fraught with fire and dead body and broken glasses instead of mirth of the children and the relaxed music. The beautiful society and splendid and glorious civilization we have created would be undermined in a short time.
建议具体说明such view指代哪种view.
In my opinion, such statement is already out of date not only due to that the problem we are faced with is becoming more and more complex, but also because the laws of our society are no longer have obvious flaws. The reason that Martin Luther king proposed that people should obey just laws, but what is more important is that unjust laws should be disobeyed and resisted is that in his time, laws permitting racial criminations are still exerting its negative influence on the society, women still could not embrace the same opportunities and rights as men, however, in our today’s society, no such laws that are against the trends of the progress of human civilization survive. Such statement has lost its meaning in our modern society where human rights, racial equality, freedom of citizens are highly valued and respected.

From what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that the statement fails to have an insight and comprehensive of neither the characters of modern laws nor the devastating influence of resisting laws. Respecting the laws means respecting ourselves and our civil fruitions

总结：行文很流畅，句子很优美（要多向你学习）。要是能把提纲贴出来就更好了。由于水平有限，暂时还没找到其他要拍的问题。

BryanpengUID: 2705644

17 "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."

By snow

According to the speaker, the law is divided into two tapes: just and unjust. He thinks that we should obey the just and disobey the unjust. I don’t agree with this viewpoint . It seems to me that there is no absolute definition for just or unjust and everyone should obey the law . Even if the law you think is not just , you should not resist it, or even do something forcefully. We have a lot of other methods to deal with this state of affairs.

To begin with , as the sentence says, there are a thousand readers having a thousand Hamlet, to different people , the law has different meanings in their eyes. For example , everyone should have power to drink .However ,in some countries, the law forbids the young who under the age of 18 drink . The government just wants to avert to the trouble which is made by the young who is easy to get impetuous after drinking . Maybe teachers and parents think this is right and just ,but to the young ,unjust. Another example, everyone has right to love. After people fall in love with each other for a period ,  they may think it is time to get married , but the law maybe forbid that . In China , man and woman can get married only until they reach the legal age which is 22 to man and 20 to woman . To the government , it wants to control the population , it thinks doing this has a good effect to the development to the country and it is just . However , to the people who want to get marry but under the legal age , it is unjust. So, I want to say ,there is no absolute definition to just or unjust ,the law just takes effect to make the society in order.

Secondly, law plays a role in governing the society , controlling the behavior of its members . resolving disputes peacefully. So when people have conflicts on profits , they must find laws to judge. According to the result of the judgment , it is impossible to satisfy both sides who have conflicts. As thus , there must be unjust to one side .So , in my opinion , if there is dispute ,there must be judge . Therefore , the just and the unjust which is leaded by the judgment must exist forever because the dispute exists by every minute in the society.

Another aspect is that even if you think the law is unjust, you shouldn’t disobey it , otherwise, you may be punished , including be forced to pay a fine, pay damages, or go to prison. We have a lot of methods to deal with this situation . Sending emails , writing letters , making a telephone call and so forth to the interrelated leaders or the department to explain your ideas is much better than disobeying or resisting it . If your ideas gain a lot people’s approval , the law may be changed or be canceled.

To sum up , it is of no concern for us to consider whether the law is just or unjust , we should obey all the laws which our government have constituted ,otherwise ,we may make trouble to the society and also ourselves . To the unjust law which we consider ,we can take reasonable ways to resolve .