生平第一篇GRE作文，求大家指教

BearleftUID: 3449580

89.
Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

Laws has been playing a vital role on all sides of our modern lives. For the evil nature of humans exists, our society would come into a chaos if without the limits of laws. Some laws today apparently still need to be amended to adapt the arising problems during the developing of our society, but those societal problems cannot be solved completely even though we finally legislate perfect laws. Perfect legal codes only exist on papers because they very likely are infeasible in the practice to address our social problems. Maybe problems of modern society were to be solved by laws and legal system if someday laws can change what is in people's hearts or minds.

Some good-intended laws will be impracticable if carried out. For instance, we can legislate to punish littering, but we are unable to supervise everybody and in everywhere. Then laws like that perform practically no function. Another example, generally we hold the opinion that rich people in our society should bear more social responsibility than others. And when disaster like earthquake comes, they usually stand out and help those people who suffered from the disaster. But we cannot legislate that the rich people must donate for the sufferers. Of course government should be responsible to establish some programs to help the poor and suffers, but in addition to that, all members in our society more or less have the obligation to help the sufferers or the people in the lowest levels. This concerns about our social mortality and our conscientious, and we cannot legislate to force people to do so.

To say the least, let's assume that laws can change what is in people's hearts or minds, then maybe all our social problems can be changed. But I can imagine it would turn out to be a terrible scene. In history, many new ideas and thoughts were forbidden by laws at the time when they were born. Our society would stop developing if people's hearts or minds are determined by laws. The essential purpose of laws is to ensure the liberty and rights of every social member by limiting some freedom of everybody. Laws should be ice-cold and solid to society, and they have no obligation to change people's mind. Walking outside of the boundary of laws should be punished, and behaviors within it is legal, but whether they are mortal or not is the issue of media and public opinion.

Laws effectively preserve the rights of every member in our society. But many problems in our modern society still remains to be solved partly by modifying some unjust laws and also by many other aspects of our society such as education and media. Only by this we can ensure our society to develop in a healthy and positive way.

我的提纲：
1，法律在人类生活中的重要作用，解决了很多问题。但现代社会依然存在很多问题。这些问题一部分是法律自身的问题，要需要人们努力去修正，但即使制定出了完美的法律，社会问题也无法完全解决。完美的法律可能在实施过程中根本没有可操作性，而且法律无法改变人们的内心，单靠那些厚厚的法律文本它们没有能力去解决所有问题。

2，法律制定出来不一定有可行性。比如像随手丢垃圾这样的小问题，可以用法律规定这样的行为违法需要得到处罚，但是没有办法监管，这条法律就形同虚设。再比如慈善的问题，有钱人对社会需要承担更大的责任，但社会事件发生的时候，比如地震，社会需要他们慷慨解囊，但不能用法律规定说发生了地震有钱人就必须捐多少钱，这是不公平的。这些问题需要人们自身的觉悟。

3，退一步讲，假如法律能改变人们的感情和思想，或许它就能解决社会中的所有问题，但那将是一幅可怕的场景。历史上，很多新的思想的诞生在当时都是违法和受当局打压的，如果通过法律能改变人们的感情和思想，那么人类还有什么自由可言，社会还怎么进步。从法律的本质上讲，法律没有义务去改变人们的思想，那是教育或媒体宣传应该做的事。法律的本质是通过契约，对社会中的每个人加以一定的约束，从而保障社会中每个人的利益和自由。在法律规定的范围之类，人们的行为是合法的，但是否合乎道德，合乎人们的价值判断，那就是社会媒体舆论的事了。

4，总结观点。法律有效地保障了社会中每个人的权益，但现代社会依旧存在很多问题，一是要法律专家修正法律。二是需要其他方面的配合，比如教育，比如媒体舆论。这样才能保证我们的社会朝着积极健康的方向发展。
求高人点评

BearleftUID: 3449580

求拍砖，求指点啊，为什么没人回复:mad

BearleftUID: 3449580

求高人指点

王sirUID: 3599773

感觉你是同意题目中的观点的，写的不错！
第一段是总述，第二段是肯定claim和举例，第三段是肯定reason和举例，第四段总结。
文字方面可以再简洁一些。错误较少。

王sirUID: 3599773

Bearleft 发表于 2015-5-17 17:49
我的提纲：
1，法律在人类生活中的重要作用，解决了很多问题。但现代社会依然存在很多问题。这些问题一部分 ...

帮我看看这篇Argument吧~~，谢谢了！https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1831360-1-1.html

BearleftUID: 3449580

生平第二篇GRE作文：
Tuition for university has been a large expense to many families. Many talented children choose to drop out from school just because they can not afford the tuition. This situation is not only a sign of social injustice but also a wast of human talent. It is obvious that governments should take the respnsibility to help these people. So some suggest that Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. I consider this suggestion goes too far for many reasons as illustrated below.

Firstly, it is unjusted to ask all governments in the world to do so because every country has its own situation. For example in China many college students cannot find a job after graduation. China needs more experienced technique workers than university students. If China implement this policy, both funds of government and human resources will be largely wasted. Secondly, how to judge whether a student can or cannot afford the tuition? And who decide the standard to judge someone can or cannot affort the tuition? The blurred boundary is a breeding ground for corruption. Thirdly, since education funds from government are limited every year, support for reseach and teaching and many other respect will decline if governments offer free university education to so many people.

There must be a more reasonable solution to the problem. For example building some education foundation so poor students can loan for their education, or increasing investment in scholarship so that students can afford the tuition by winning schorarship. By these means government finance will not be occupied too much, but the problem of these poor students can be solved and these means may spur the students to study harder.

For the sake of social equality we should help those who cannot afford tuition because university is a scarce resource. But we should not have to pay for all people, which is a less efficient and feasible way.  Loaning to those people or provide more scholarship is more reasonable.

大学学费对很多家庭来讲都是不小的开支。有不少有天分的孩子被大学录取之后却因为负担不起大学学费而选择不读大学。这种情况不仅是社会不公平的体现，也造成了人才流失。所以很显然政府有责任帮助这部分人解决问题，于是一些人提出题目观点。但我认为这种方法过于极端。

有很多理由支撑我的观点。1，每个国家的情况不一样，不能一刀切全部政府都这样做，比如在中国全国很多大学毕业生每年毕业找不到工作，社会上缺乏的不是大学生，而是有经验的技术工人，这种情况如果实施题目的政策不仅浪费了政府资源，也造成了人力资源的浪费。2，无法承受学费的标准是什么，谁来定标准，谁来审查，很可能产生腐败。3，如果实行题目观点的政策，政府对学校在其他方面的投入必然减少，比如对科研的补助，对大学的科研工作和教学质量会造成影响。

我认为存在更为合理的方式，比如政府或者民间建立一些教育基金，比如没钱的人可以贷款，这样不仅帮助了那些人，而且不用大规模地占用政府资源，而且鼓励那些利用贷款读书的人很显然会更加努力学习。比如学校建立勤工俭学制度，让贫困的学生可以在课余时间赚钱养活自己。

大学是一种稀缺资源，为了公平我们是应该帮助那些付不起学费的人，但不应该是为所有付不起学费的人买单，这是缺乏操作性也缺乏效率的方法。向没钱付学费的人提供贷款，或者给家庭贫困但是特别优秀的学生提供奖学金，是更有合理的办法。

小雪同学UID: 3673323

修改并且改写了一下，水平有限，互相交流
In this day and age, taking university can make your wallet cry. Costs of universities are getting steeper in recent years. It is not uncommon that brilliant students have to drop out from school only because they cannot afford the skyrocketing tuition fees, which is not only unjust but also inefficient. With this consideration, some people expressed the view that government should respond to the growing public concern over high university tuition and provide free education to any student who has been admitted to university but cannot afford it. As far as I am concerned, although this is a kindly suggestion out of good intention, it goes too far for many reasons as illustrated below.

Firstly, it is unrealistic to ask all governments across the world to provide free university education because the actual condition of different countries varied dramatically one by one. For example, in China, labor shortage and unemployment existed at the same time on job market. On the one hand, there is a huge labor shortage of skilled workers; on the other hand, many university students cannot find job after graduation. Generally speaking, university education tends to be more theory-based in China, which cannot match the demand of current job market very well.  Under this scenario, if government began to provide free university courses, more and more high-school graduates will enroll in university while less and less will choose to be trained as skilled workers. The policy would further aggravate the unbalance of job market and a large portion of government funds and social resources would be wasted.

Secondly, the smooth operation of free university education system highly relies upon a fair assessment mechanism to determine who are eligible for a tuition fee waiver, but in practise, it is hard to build such a system. If the policy was implemented, what criteria should be applied to assess students and other family members’ financial situation? Who are responsible to evaluate the application and make decisions? These are all tough questions in front of decisions makers. Furthermore, if handled improperly, the policy might become a breeding ground for corruption. Based on these considerations, it is impractical to provide free university education in foreseeable future. Thirdly, the education funds from government are limited each year. If a big portion of the fund was used to provide rebates on tuition fee, the resources available for research, teaching and other aspects would be fewer. It is inevitable to exert negative impact on the quality and reputation of the whole education system.

Rather than provide free education, there are better solutions to the problem. For example, government could initiate education funds to offer interest-free loans or provide specific fellowship to students from low-income families. Besides, offering more TA/RA positions is also a good way to lower students’ financial stress.

From the perspective of social justice, the government should help those who cannot afford university because everyone has the right to be educated. Particularly, university education plays a significant role to break up poverty cycle. But at the same time, it is important to accomplish the mission in a more efficient and feasible way. Therefore, I believe providing student loans or fellowship is a better solution than directly offering free university education to anyone that cannot afford it.

小雪同学UID: 3673323

几个小小的建议，
1. 论点展开。比如第二段，说完社会缺乏技工和大学毕业生找不到工作后就直接跳到免费的大学教育会浪费社会资源。如果能展开篇幅深入论证一下大学生找不到工作跟最终论点的内在联系就更好了。这样就用几句话叙述完一个论点会感觉有点说服力不足。
2. 可以注意用词和和语法的多样性。
3. 可以多举几个具体的例证

小雪同学UID: 3673323

另外，像“poor students"这种太直接的词最好避免，可以用students from low-income families这样更委婉的说法