高频issue 17

zxwhy825UID: 2668443

题目：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."
字数：449
用时：00:45:00
日期：2010-8-7 下午 12:08:36

【i原文】In terms of morality, I agree, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. However, whether individual in a society should obey just laws, and disobey unjust laws? It is too hasty to get an conclusion. Especially considering of the complexity of the contemporary environment, we should, in most cases, take a compromise.

To obey the laws, whatever are just and unjust, as the history has told, will result in the chaos of the society, which cause more harm to the society.For examples, the Paris has witnessed countless revoltions aim to enlight and free the people
in France, by disobeying the laws, especially the France Revolution. However, the revolution buries more wise heads, even some leaders of the revolution, which lead France not to the glory but to the darker future and monachry. Although the revolution failed , it successfully demonstrate a lesson vividly: Without the restriction of the law, as the morality of individual differs from each other, the society will be tear into pieces of justice of individual leaving the unrest to our future, which is unjust to the whole society. Laws are not designed for the morality of individual but for the steadiness and progress of the society, which should be clarified from morality . Without the compulsary and powful responsibility to obey them ,the society will fail to survive with the loss of most, for the pursuit of few individual justice.

However, at the premise of the steadiness of society, the correction of some unjust will promote the development of society. As the laws are legislated before the current environment we confronted now, which aims to better the steadiness of the society in the past, they are inevitably
fail to considering some problems, emergant at present, which even result in crisises. For instance, fail to the take the potential harm to the economics, the laws aiming to providing the houses for the poor by debts of the banks, infly^
lead to the economic crisis one yeas ago. Simliar examples repeated in the history, such as the fully advocating of the market economics lead to the to crisis last century, which stimulated the terrible World War II. Learning from the experience of our ancestors, we should revise some unjust laws, to ensure the progress of the society.

Stepping into the millennium, as the develpment of tehnology and science, as we know more and more details, the justice of
laws is becoming more and more obscure, because of the globalnization knitting the whole world together in a web, makes the relationship of things more complex than before. The justice for one thing, may turn out unjustice for the even same thing. For example, the


In sum,


【i修改】In terms of morality, I agree, there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. However, whether individual in a society should obey just laws, and disobey unjust laws? It is too hasty to get an conclusion. Especially considering of the complexity of the contemporary environment, we should, in most cases, take a compromise.

To obey the laws, no matter they are just and unjust, as the history has told, will result in the chaos of the society, which cause more harm to the society. For examples, the Paris has witnessed countless revolutions aim to enlighten and free the people in France, by disobeying the laws, especially the France Revolution. However, the revolution buries more wise heads, even some leaders of the revolution, which lead France not to the glory but to the darker future and monarchy. Although the revolution failed , it successfully demonstrate a lesson vividly: Without the restriction of the law, as the morality of individual differs from each other, the society will be tear into pieces of justice of individual leaving the unrest to our future, which is unjust to the whole society. Laws are not designed for the morality of individual but for the steadiness and progress of the society, which should be clarified from morality. Without the compulsory and powerful responsibility to obey them, the society will fail to survive with the loss of most, for a part of people’s pursuit of justice.

However, at the premise of the steadiness of society, the correction of some unjust will promote the development of society. As the laws are legislated before the current environment we confronted now, which aims to better the steadiness of the society in the past, they are inevitably
fail to considering some problems, emergent at present, which even result in crisis. For instance, fail to the take the potential harm to the economics, the laws aiming to providing the houses for the poor by debts of the banks, ultimately lead to the economic crisis one year ago. Similar examples repeated in the history, such as the fully advocating of the market economics lead to the to crisis last century, which stimulated the terrible World War II. Learning from the experience of our ancestors, we should revise some unjust laws, to ensure the progress of the society.

Stepping into the millennium, as the development of technology and science, as we know more and more details, the justice of
laws is becoming more and more obscure, because of the globalization knitting the whole world together in a web, makes the relationship of things more complex than before. The justice for one thing, may turn out unfairness for the even same thing. For example, the law legislated for rise the lowest standard of salary per hour, purporting for protect the inferior force. However, the rise of salary means increase of cost to the companies. In order to maintain competence, they hire less laborers to relieve the cost, which in turns, aggravates the poverty of the weak. The complexity of the time increases the complexity of the laws. It is hard to testify the justice of the laws just as the example shows. Adapting to the complexity of the society we have to take a balance between the justice and injustice.


In sum, for the sake of the steadiness and development of the society, especially in this complex period, there is no simple to answer the question. However, it is wise to deliberate the whole elements involved, to make a compromise to propel the society to develop steadily.



提高打字速度和积极性，还有思维的速度

弱势群体
legitimate
a. 合法的,正当的,婚生的
vt. 认为正当,立为嫡嗣,使合法

加剧
aggravate
intensify
增加的
augmentative
augmented
incremental
multiplicative

zxwhy825UID: 2668443

求PP

zxwhy825UID: 2668443

谢谢。。求P

七星之城UID: 2784227

In terms of morality, I agree, there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. However, should individuals in a society obey just laws, and disobey unjust laws? It is too hasty to get a conclusion. Especially considering (of去掉) the complexity of the contemporary environment, we should, in most cases, make a compromise (这个你上网搜索一下就知道，用take是没有的）.
To obey the laws, no matter whether they are just and unjust, as the history has told us, will result in the chaos of the society, which cause more harm to the society. (三个从句，谨慎使用）For examples （example不大好，换成instance，或者不用这个词组）, (去掉the,如果你指巴黎人，那么需要the,后面用负数) Paris has witnessed countless revolutions aiming at enlightening and freedom of the people in France, by (加入rebels’ ) disobeying the laws, especially the France Revolution （不懂这个句子和上文什么关系）. However, the revolution buried more （和谁在比较？） wise heads, even some leaders of the revolution, which lead France not to the glory but to the darker future and monarchy. Although the revolution failed, it successfully demonstrates a lesson vividly: Without the restriction of the law, as the standard of morality of individual differs from each other, the society will be torn into pieces of (disparate/ different/ various) justice of individuals leaving the unrest to our future, which is unjust to the whole society. Laws are not designed for the morality of individual but for the steadiness and progress of the society, which should be clarified from morality. Without the compulsory and powerful responsibility to restrain (obey 不对) them, the society will fail to survive with the loss of most, for a part of people’s pursuit of justice. （依然不懂，也许是of most people’s pursuit of justice.）
However, on the premise of the steadiness of society, the correction of some unjust laws will promote the development of society. As the laws are legislated before the current environment we confront now, which aimed at
enhancing the steadiness of the society in the past, they inevitably fail to consider some emergent problems （注意顺序） at present, which even results in crisis. (这一个句子有三个从句，太烦乱，要分开) For instance, failing to prevent (去掉两个the) potential harm to the economy (不是经济学), the laws aiming at providing the houses for the poor in debts (去掉of the banks), ultimately lead to the economic crisis one year ago. Similar examples repeated in the history, such as the fully advocating of the market economy that lead to the crisis last century (such as 后只能接名词), which stimulated the terrible World War II. Learning from the experience of our ancestors, we should revise some unjust laws, to ensure the progress of the society.

With our Stepping into the new millennium, and with the development of technology and science, and as we know more and more details (前面两个with已经够多的了，这句最好不要了), the justice of laws is becoming more and more (新东方老师说的，用increasingly) obscure, because (去掉of) the globalization knitting the whole world together into a web (去掉,) makes the relationship of things more complex than before. The justice for one thing, may turn out unfairness for even the same thing after our close inspection. For example, the law legislated for arousing the lowest standard of salary per hour, purports to protect the inferior groups’ force. However, the rise of salary means increase of cost to the companies. In order to maintain their competence, the superintendents of those companies (they 是谁？需要说出来)hire fewer laborers to relieve the cost, which in turn, aggravates the living conditions of the weak. The complexity of the time increases the complexity of the laws. (再次不懂) It is hard to testify the justice of the laws just as the example shows. To adapt to the complexity of the society we have to achieve (take 不对) a balance between the justice and injustice.
In sum, for the sake of the steadiness and development of the society, especially in this complex period, there is no simple answer to the question. However, it is wise to deliberate the whole factors involved and to make a compromise to propel the society to develop steadily.

红色是错误；
绿色是建议。




就改语法已经有了一个多小时。


明天再来整体说。

刚刚又发现了一下问题，修改了一下。


-------------------------------------
抗议word的颜色沾不上！

七星之城UID: 2784227

1、首尾段不错，简洁有力。中间论证无论是分析还是举例都看起来不错。第二部分“unjust laws需要修正”那里举例并没有说明修正的好处，可以考虑换例子。
2、看得出来楼主在努力用GRE单词，这不错。但是一些普通单词也没用对，导致问题很严重。比如consider, aim at, freedom, obey, premise, better, rise.不如把这些不大清楚用法的词查查字典
3、很小的语法错误太多。这是很容易发现的，慢慢练习，上文经常就是些单复数、介词方面的问题。
4、从句、非谓语动词不要繁复了，搞得像写GRE填空题似的。不妨拆开。而且楼主有许多长难句出现两个动词或没有动词，这需要引起注意。
5、总而言之，就是语法错误会严重拉你的分，你仔细看看上面指出的问题。内容上还可以啦。另外我思路上水平不高，也许还需要别人指点。
6、楼主如果不是加入了小组的话，还是精选一些放上来吧。那么多不会有人有时间看的。

七星之城UID: 2784227

必须再补充提醒一句，如果楼主不能有自己修改一个小时的耐心，怎能希望别人会有呢？

zxwhy825UID: 2668443

谢谢。。我仔细看看 6# 七星之城

jakehkUID: 2665316

第二段开头应该是disobey，写错了。

ljz1990UID: 2837432

是9月份考的么 呵呵