【U‘r not alone】小组 第二次作业 issue17

刘文奇UID: 2850560

"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."
17．
有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，应该不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。

Since justice is essential to keep our society moving persistently and steadily, it sounds persuasive that we should not only obey just laws but disobey and resist unjust laws. However, the criterion of justice is vague to most people, and even scholars cannot reach a coincident conclusion. Without a authoritative criterion, great disturbance would be imposed to society if individuals should disobey and resist unjust laws based on one’s own interest.
To some extent, it is righteous, even necessary, for every individual to defend for justice by obeying just laws and resist unjust laws. First, justice is an indispensable factor for existing. Assuming a society imposed injustice morale, namely a society involves a group of people who are naturally more available to some priority and rights. Society of this kind aims at satisfying the specific minority at the cost of interests of the majority. A typical example is feudal society, which eventually ends up with rebellions risen up by the majority. Second, no matter for a society or something else, justice is necessary for development. Take commercial for example. Without just contracts, no companies will cooperate with others since they all want to get most in the expense of least. What’s worse, no employees will apply to companies which like those. Likewise, it is entirely impossible for The Olympic Games to become a fantastic party without just rules. Thus, considering the unique function of laws, it will be more urgent for laws (as a tool of keeping society order and steady) to be just compared to others. As a member of society, it is everyone’s duty to ensure the justice of every law and to resist unjust laws.
Even though the above analysis, there is no sound evidence to support the assumption that there are two types of laws, namely just and unjust. Until now, we have not yet found a hard, fast criterion which is free from our subjective judgments to separate laws into two parts. Thus, it is reasonable for us to claim that it is nonsense to divide laws into two types due to the vague criterion. Perhaps justice laws and injustice laws are not discrete but continuous and they overlap each other. That is to say, a law can be just and unjust at the same time due to the vague criterion.
Finally, it is illegitimate and dangerous to simply divide laws into two types. Moreover, it is more detrimental than beneficial to encourage individual to disobey and resist unjust laws. Extremists would rise up rebellion in excuse of unjust laws. The rational way for us to do is that we should not only obey every legal law but only suggest legislature revising some mistakes we have encountered.
To sum up, even if it seems plausible for every individual to obey just laws and, more importantly, disobey and resist unjust laws, it is untenable without asserting the assumption that laws can divided into just laws and unjust laws. Admittedly, we can offer some advice about the revision of laws for legislature. What’s most important is that everyone should and must obey every law without exceptions.
用时：113min
字数：519words

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Orange-建议

Since justice isessential to keep our society moving persistently and steadily, it sounds persuasive that we should not only obeyjust laws but disobey and resist unjust laws. However, the criterion of justiceis vague to most people, and even scholars cannot reach a coincident(巧合的？) conclusion.Without a(an) authoritative criterion, greatdisturbance would be imposed to(impose后应该是on/upon)
society if individuals should(merely) disobey andresist unjust laws based on one’s own interest.（前面是individuals后面就该是their…）

[先让步，后转折陈述弊端，阐明观点。]

To some extent, it is righteous, evennecessary, for every individual to defend for justice by obeying just laws andresist unjust laws. First, justice is anindispensable factor for existing（？）.Assuming a society imposed injustice morale,namely a society involves a group of peoplewho are naturally more available to some priority and rights. Society of thiskind aims at satisfying the specific minority at the cost of interests of the majority. A typical example is
feudal society, which eventually ends up withrebellions risen up by the majority. Second, no matter for a society orsomething else, justice is necessary for development. Take commercial（commercial是商业广告的意思，我觉得你是不是要说“商业”commerce啊？）for example. Without just contracts, no companies willcooperate with others since they all want to get most in the expense of (cost) least. [要不然这句话有点歧义] What’s worse, no employees will apply to companieswhich like those. Likewise, it is entirely impossible for The Olympic Games tobecome a fantastic party without just rules. Thus, considering the uniquefunction of laws, it will be more urgent for laws (as a tool of keeping societyorder and steady) to be just compared to others(其他的什么？可以说明一下). As a member of society, it is everyone’sduty to ensure the justice of every law and to resist unjust laws.
[分层次说明了法律保持公正的重要性和必要性]

Even though theabove analysis (is true，even though后面要加句子), there is no sound evidence to support the assumptionthat there are two types of laws, namely just and unjust. Until now, we havenot yet found a hard, fast criterion which is free from our subjectivejudgments to separate laws into two parts. Thus, it is reasonable for us toclaim that it is nonsense to divide laws into two types due to the vaguecriterion. Perhaps justice laws and injustice laws are not discrete butcontinuous and they overlap each other. That is to say, a law can be just andunjust at the same time due to the vague criterion.（感觉这一段一直在说一个意思：因为没有一个标准所以不能把laws分成just/unjust。观点很好放在第三段转折很有意味。但缺乏具体的解释和例证，读完之后虽然明白了意思还是觉得作者没说透。建议具体说说某个law是如何justand unjust at the same time due to a vague criterion的。）


Finally, it is illegitimate and dangerous to simply divide laws into two types. Moreover, it is more detrimental than beneficial to encourage individual todisobey and resist unjust laws. Extremists would rise up rebellion
in excuse of unjust laws. The rational way for usto do is that we should not only obey every legal law（合法的法律？） but only（是not .. but…的用法还是想说not only…, but also?） suggest legislature revising some mistakeswe have encountered.

To sum up, even if it seems plausible for every individual to obey just lawsand, more importantly, disobey and resist unjust laws, it is untenable withoutasserting the assumption that laws can divided into just laws and unjust laws.(前后矛盾啊。如果你认为是不能divideinto just/unjust laws的，前面为什么还说plausible to obey/disobey just/unjustlaws? 我觉得可以说 even if it is plausible to stand forjustice while resisting the opposite, the laws themselves cannot be defined asjust/unjust.) Admittedly, we can offer some advice about the revision of laws for(to) legislature. What’s most important is thateveryone should and must obey every law without exceptions.
小结：结构清晰。对立法机关提出建议这一点很有特色。橙色部分就是我的建议，加点例证会更好一点。







P.S.为什么我贴上来字的大小就不一样了颜色也变了@！！！ /___\ 凑合着看叭不好意思啊 我再研究下~



P.S.S. 无奈之下你还是看看我改的这个word文档吧。。。。。。

刘文奇UID: 2850560

提醒一下，plausible 的意思是“ 似乎合情理的，似乎可信的 ”。谢谢你为我提的建议，例证确实是我的一个弱项，总感觉找不到合适的例子。当然，语言也非常需要加强了！！

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结

刘文奇UID: 2850560

二改完成版
Since justice is essential to keep our society moving persistently and steadily, it sounds persuasive that we should not only obey just laws but only disobey and resist unjust laws. However, the criterion of justice is vague to most people, and even scholars cannot reach an agreed conclusion. Without an authoritative criterion, great disturbance would be imposed on society if individuals should disobey and resist unjust laws based on their own interests.
To some extent, it is righteous, even necessary, for every individual to defend for justice by obeying just laws and resist unjust laws. First, justice is an indispensable factor for our living. Assuming a society imposed injustice morale, namely a society involves a group of people who are naturally more available to some priority and rights. Society of this kind aims at satisfying the specific minority at the cost of interests of the majority. A typical example is feudal society, which eventually ends up with rebellions risen up by the majority. Second, no matter for a society or something else, justice is necessary for development. Take commence for example. Without just contracts, no companies will cooperate with others since they all want to get most at the expense of least. What’s worse, no employees will apply to companies which like those. Likewise, it is entirely impossible for The Olympic Games to become a fantastic party without just rules. Thus, considering the unique function of laws, it will be more urgent for laws (as a tool of keeping society order and steady) to be just compared to any others. As a member of society, it is everyone’s duty to ensure the justice of every law and to resist unjust laws.
Even though the above analysis is true, there is no sound evidence to support the assumption that there are two types of laws, namely just and unjust. Until now, we have not yet found a hard, fast criterion which is free from our subjective judgments to separate laws into two parts. Thus, it is reasonable for us to claim that it is nonsense to divide laws into two types due to the vague criterion. Perhaps justice laws and injustice laws are not discrete but continuous and they overlap each other. That is to say, a law can be just and unjust at the same time due to the vague criterion.
Finally, it is illegitimate and dangerous to simply divide laws into two types. Moreover, it is more detrimental than beneficial to encourage individual to disobey and resist unjust laws. Extremists would rise up rebellion in excuse of unjust laws. The rational way for us to do is that we should not only obey every legal law but also suggest legislature revising some mistakes we have encountered.
To sum up, even if it seems plausible for every individual to obey just laws and, more importantly, disobey and resist unjust laws, it is untenable without asserting the assumption that laws can divided into just laws and unjust laws. Admittedly, we can offer some advice about the revision of laws to legislature. What’s most important is that everyone should and must obey every law without exceptions.

Luise8891UID: 2906459

Since justice is essential to keep our society moving persistently and steadily, it sounds persuasive that we should not only obey just laws but only disobey and resist unjust laws. However, the criterion of justice is vague to most people, and even scholars cannot reach an agreed conclusion. Without an authoritative criterion, great disturbance would be imposed on society if individuals should（去掉） disobey and resist unjust laws based on their own interests.

To some extent, it is righteous, even necessary, for every individual to defend for justice by obeying just laws and resist unjust laws.（你这段是讲遵守法律的重要性吧，并且你文中的观点是不应该抵制，不要用这么含糊和隐晦的to some extent,这样人摸不清你的论点到底什么。而应该就是说遵守法律是必要的） First, justice is an indispensable factor for our living. （这句话的作用不清楚，一个封建社会的例子也好像没有怎么论证它）Assuming a society imposed injustice morale, namely a society involves a group of people who are naturally more available to（sth. is available to sb./ sb. Have access to sth. ） some priority and rights. Society of this kind aims at satisfying the specific minority at the cost of interests of the majority. （缩写，因为你写了这么两长句就表示了一个意思，你会让读者失去读下去的耐性），A typical example is feudal society, which eventually ends up with rebellions risen up by the majority.（你举了一个例子就把他晾在那儿，都不清楚他的作用） Second, no matter for a society or something else, justice is necessary for development. Take commence（commerce） for example. Without just contracts（你最好说公正的合同法）, no companies will cooperate with others since they all want to get most at the expense of least(地道吗？再看看). What’s worse, no employees will apply to（for） companies which like those(太口语化了). Likewise, it is entirely impossible for The Olympic Games to become a fantastic party without just rules. Thus, considering the unique function of laws, it will be more urgent for laws (as a tool of keeping society order and steady) to be just compared to any others. As a member of society, it is everyone’s duty to ensure the justice of every law and to resist unjust laws.
这一段是讲遵守法律的重要性。
Even though the above analysis is true, there is no sound evidence to support the assumption that there are two types of laws, namely just and unjust.(上面的分析和下面的这句话有这种虽然但是的关系吗？) Until now, we have not yet found a hard, fast criterion which is free from our subjective judgments to separate laws into two parts. Thus, it is reasonable for us to claim that it is nonsense to divide laws into two types due to the vague criterion. Perhaps justice laws and injustice laws are not discrete but continuous and they overlap each other. That is to say, a law can be just and unjust at the same time due to the vague criterion.
讲法律法律不能单纯分为正义和不正义。但你没有说明白怎样评定有的法律有问题，而有的法律没问题，评定标准是什么。还有这一段其实就讲了一个意思，但洋洋洒洒写了一段，就是因为没标准，不能判定公正和不公正。
Finally, it is illegitimate and dangerous to simply divide laws into two types. （这一句应该放在上一段把）Moreover, it is more detrimental than beneficial to encourage individual to disobey and resist unjust laws. Extremists would rise up rebellion in excuse of unjust laws. The rational way for us to do is that we should not only obey every legal law but also suggest legislature revising some mistakes we have encountered.（这里论证要加强，你说不应该抵制法律，说他的坏处，但解决方案你只是提一个建议而已，又没有论证并让人信服建议立法修改的可能性，毕竟一般人会觉得修改一个法律不是那么轻易的事。

To sum up, even if it seems plausible（似乎是真的？你想表达什么？） for every individual to obey just laws and, more importantly, disobey and resist unjust laws, it is untenable without asserting the assumption that laws can divided into just laws and unjust laws.（你表让步的话，你的前提必须是肯定的，即承认某一事物的合理性，即使怎样怎样，但你用了一个不太肯定的词，让人摸不着头脑，后一分句也很模糊） Admittedly, we can offer some advice about the revision of laws to legislature. What’s most important is that everyone should and must obey every law without exceptions.（要遵守每一条法律，即使那些有错误的法律？）
那你的观点是应该遵守法律，不应该不遵守和抵制法律，并且你不认为法律可以分为正义的和非正义的。而是有的法律有一些问题，需要修改来解决。
基本逻辑比较清晰，有些地方没说清楚。正文第一段说的比较充分，第二段的话，应该精简几句话，并且说清楚怎么判断法律有问题的标准。第三段论证不充分，首先把抵制法律的问题更应该突出，而不是一句话带过，因为那是你文中的一个论点，还有你提的建议可不可行，还是未知数。
一个很大的问题就是句子不精简，如上面我标出的，还有正文第三段，其实两到三句话就可以说得很明白。
其实整体讲已经比上次我看你的作文有很大进步了，逻辑还比较清晰。个人意见，与我交流。