issue17，列出了ouline，感觉在逻辑上有一定的进步，请大家多提意见！

will_foreverUID: 193568

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."
Outline: 1.it is oversimple to categorize law into either just or unjust. The definition of law is indeterminacy.将法律划分为公正和非公正过于简单，法律的概念并不是很明确
2.The law is not invariable. It should be challenged and ameliorated(mended) with the development of the society. the definition of "just" is based upon the general will of the citizens，however, the fairness of law is on the basis of one’s personal interest and value system. 法律并非一成不变，随着社会的进步，它也随之被置疑与修改。法律是代表大部分人的意志，但法律的公正性是基于各人的价值观和喜好，是主观的。                 3. whether a law is just or unjust should be analyzed on case-by-case.法律的公正与否应该进行案例分析，不同的国家的不同时期所采取的法律也不大相同。
4.Resisting the unjust law may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for.(1)the phenomenon will block the  development of society and impede the process of the democracy in the nation。公正与非公正法同样重要，没有轻重之分，而且反抗非公正法有可能带来危害.这种现象将会阻碍社会的进步和国家民主化的进程。                                                                   5.in sum, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guideline for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a stabilized (steady) climate (ethos)
经过POOH JJ 和小鬼的修改，自个也好好想了许久，有一些观点我仍是坚持，而有许多没注意到的地方和逻辑上的漏洞都要谢谢两位的修改，还有一些地方希望能与大家共同探讨！

Originally "the just and unjust laws" were presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, who said (and I paraphrase):"An just law is the representation of the general will and uplifts human personality; on the other hand, an unjust law is that the majority compels the minority group to obey and does not make binding on itself." When it comes to this topic, I would like to put forward my question: does it rightly categorize the law as either just or unjust? Were I left to offer my opinion, I would not hesitate a moment to say that the statement, according to which people have the responsibility to not only obey the just laws but also resist the unjust ones, is too extreme. In my point of view, the just laws and unjust ones should be analyzed on case-by-case study.

In the first place, though the law represents the general will and uplifts the human personality, nowadays the fairness of any law is based upon one’s personal inclination and value system. Just as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s viewpoint, who is an 18th century French Political Philosopher (and I paraphrase):"The ideal state is a world where the laws express people in general will, a will that aims at a common good.' Based on Rousseau's talking, we can find not only his definition of law is established on the ideal state and in his opinion it goes without saying that it is our ultimate goal，but also the law is not invariable and should be challenged and mended with the development of the society. Let us take a glance at one of the example on the fairness of the law. Consider, for example, the controversial of homosexuality. Confronted with this topic, different people have different opinion due to their respective value system. The law in most countries forbids the homosexualities intermarry Some people think that it violates the ethics and they cannot accept such person, while others argue that it is one's right to choose his or her life style and we should treat such person equally. From what has been analyzed above, whether a law is just or unjust is not a straightforward but an indeterminacy issue, which depends on one’s personal interest and value system and in fact is based upon one’s subjective viewpoint.

Furthermore, the thing I would like to take a glance at is that whether a law is just or unjust should be analyzed on case-by-case. In most peaceful countries, the just law almost represents the general will and stands for the general interests. All citizens, including all dignities and all public occupations and all public positions, are equal in the eyes of the law, whether it protects or punishes; on the other hand, in some troublous countries, the public has no choice but to enact some high-pressure measures as their laws, which seem to be the unjust laws in our opinion, but the public cannot help but adopt those laws to guard all the society. Take Soviet Union for example, during Stalin's time, the enactments of the laws were mostly based upon Stalin’s subjective viewpoint. It goes without saying that those were unjust laws, whereas those high-pressure measures were indispensable to ensure the steady of temporal society.
  
According to the statement, resisting the unjust laws is more important, but both obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law are of significance to our society, moreover, resisting the unjust law may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for. The just laws reflect the general will and achieve the general good of a society, therefore, any people should obey the just laws in their social responsibility. On the contrary, the unjust laws are deleterious to hurt the general interests and go against the general will and the human rights. The most prominent result based on the unjust law is that it may block the development of the society and impede the process of the democracy in the nation. Therefore, any conscientious person has the responsibility to resist the unjust laws. However, it cannot be denied that resisting the unjust law may cause some risks that we have not imagined.

Taking into account all the factors, it is not difficult to say that the laws, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society and the guide for almost all the citizens , do not simply categorize as either just or unjust. Moreover whether a law is just or unjust should be analyzed on case-by-case study and ultimately we can attain the conclusion.

poohUID: 146994

占座:)

poohUID: 146994

我来献香吻了，:)

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."
outline: 1.it is oversimple to categorize law into either just or unjust. The definition of law is indeterminacy.
2.the law is not invariable. It should be challenged and ameliorated(mended) with the development of the society. eg: the definition of "just" (1)is based upon the general will of the citizens and personal value system;(2)is on the basis of one's personal interest.
3.obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law excessively may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for.(1)the phenomenon will block the social's development and impede the process of the democracy in the nation.
4.in sum, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guideline for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a stabilized (steady) climate (ethos)
这个topic是从小鬼那得到不少启发，呵呵，再次表示感谢！
这也是第一次列outline，是觉得可以写不少东西，但感觉肚里的东西还是太少，想的也过于简单，不管怎么样，大家一起讨论总比一个人想来的有效率且吸收消化更快，所以请大家多提意见！

Originally "the just and unjust laws" were presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, who said(and I paraphrase):"An just law is the representation of the general will and uplifts human personality; On the other hand, an unjust law is that the majority compels the minority group to obey and does not make binding on itself." When it comes to this topic, I would like to put forward my questions : does it rightly to categorize the law as either just or unjust ? Were I left to offer my opinion, I would not hesitate a moment to say that it is oversimple to categorize the law as either just or unjust. topic有两个句子，你thesis只说出了你对于其一的观点，那么另一个你是否同意呢？不同意，你又是怎么看待的呢？

In the first place, the law is not invariable and its fairness should be challenged and mended 只能说法律被订正，不能说fairness被订正 with the development of the society. Just as Jean-Jacques Rousseau's viewpoint, who is an 18th century French Political Philosopher(and I paraphrase):"The ideal state is a world where the laws express people in general will , a will that aims at a common good.' Based on Rousseau's talking, we can find his definition of law is established on the ideal state and it goes without saying that it is our ultimate goal. Nowadays, the fairness of any law is based upon one's personal inclination and value system. For example, the homosexuality. Confronted with this topic, different people have different opinion due to their respective value system. Some people think that it violates the ethics and they cannot accept such person, while others argue that it is one's right to choose his or her life style and we should treat such person equally.
例子不好
因为第一个例子是卢梭站在社会的角度说的
第二个例子是从个人角度说的

当今世界法律的基础也是代表大多数人的利益和意志，只不过每个人对于法律的认识不同罢了。这一点在过去和现在都是一致的。


这段没有收尾

Another problem with this topic is that obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law excessively may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for. The most prominent result based on the problem is that it will block the social's development development of society and impede the process of the democracy in the nation. You 避免用you,显得很无礼 would not forget the result of the centralization in Soviet Russian during the Stalin's time.centralization 跟law还是不同的，你最好具出一个具体点的例子  Another example I would like to bring forward is the income taxation, the aftermath of which is tax evasion and thus brings lots of reversed effects.这个例子很唐突，突然来这么句话，别人知道你指的tax evasion是什么吗，带来了什么effects? 不要只说一半，要解释清楚，读者很难和你有心点感应。

到底应不应该遵守和反抗呢？你只说不应该excessively的遵守和反抗。

另外你前面否掉了有just 和unjust的分类，后面怎么又继续用种分类来讨论呢？有些自相矛盾。

没有收尾

The last thing I would like to take a glance at this issue is that the just and unjust should be analyzed on case-by-case. In most peaceful countries, the just law almost represents the general's will; On the other hand, in some troublous countries, the regime have no choice but to enact some high-pressure measures as their laws. 你只是说了两种情况，没有给出solution,在这两种情况下人们应该怎么做呢？

Taking into account all the factors, it is not difficult to say that the laws, as one of the most crucial elements so modern society, have to be served as the guide for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a steady ethos.

总的来说，逻辑上的漏洞比较多，还是要再梳理一下

will_foreverUID: 193568

谢谢POOH JJ，我会再好好梳理的，希望下次能写出让POOH姐说好的文章。
继续奋斗中，呵呵。

鬼谷子UID: 159645

ssue 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."
outline: 1.it is oversimple to categorize law into either just or unjust. The definition of law is indeterminacy.
2.the law is not invariable. It should be challenged and ameliorated(mended) with the development of the society. eg: the definition of "just" (1)is based upon the general will of the citizens and personal value system;(2)is on the basis of one's personal interest.
3.obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law excessively may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for.(1)the phenomenon will block the social's development and impede the process of the democracy in the nation.
4.in sum, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guideline for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a stabilized (steady) climate (ethos)
这个topic是从小鬼那得到不少启发，呵呵，再次表示感谢！:D
这也是第一次列outline，是觉得可以写不少东西，但感觉肚里的东西还是太少，想的也过于简单，不管怎么样，大家一起讨论总比一个人想来的有效率且吸收消化更快，所以请大家多提意见！

Originally "the just and unjust laws" were presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, who said(and I paraphrase):"An just law is the representation of the general will and uplifts human personality; On 【分号后面的句子开头不用大写】the other hand, an unjust law is that the majority compels the minority group to obey and does not make binding on itself." When it comes to this topic, I would like to put forward my questions : does it rightly to categorize【病句】 the law as either just or unjust ? Were I left to offer my opinion, I would not hesitate a moment to say that it is oversimple to categorize the law as either just or unjust. 【这里的表达有一点罗嗦。而且，你回避了比较的问题，是否属于一种beg the question呢？】

In the first place, the law is not invariable and its fairness should be challenged and mended with the development of the society. 【此处同pooh意见，法律的公正怎么能够被mended呢？另外，这个论点与just或unjust没什么联系。法律可以被挑战和修改，法律也不是一成不变的，但是，我觉得just和unjust明显是对立的两面，不能说因为挑战和修改就互相转化了吧，所以就不至于两者混淆至不能categorize的，不能支持你开头的观点。】Just as Jean-Jacques Rousseau's viewpoint, who is an 18th century French Political Philosopher(and I paraphrase):"The ideal state is a world where the laws express people in general will , a will that aims at a common good.' Based on Rousseau's talking, we can find his definition of law is established on the ideal state and it goes without saying that it is our ultimate goal. 【我觉得这个逻辑有问题的，他心目中的ideal state就一定是our ultimate goal吗？再者，这个论据可以证明法律需要修改和变化吗？】Nowadays, the fairness of any law is based upon one's personal inclination and value system. 【这个论断问题大了，个人怎么能够左右法律的公正呢？】For example, the homosexuality. 【这个不是完整的句子】Confronted with this topic, different people have different opinion due to their respective value system. Some people think that it violates the ethics and they cannot accept such person, while others argue that it is one's right to choose his or her life style and we should treat such person equally. 【这个是人们的看法理念的分歧，与法律，与法律的just与否，与法律是否改受到挑战没有什么关系的。如果你想说的是，因为有人赞同homo而应该改变法律的话，是否表述的不够清楚呢？而且，如果这样，跟你前面的论述就脱节了。】

【首先要说，这段的例子跟你的论点关系不大，或者说，你没能让读者看出来你想让我们看出来的关系。第二，这段的论点有些问题，似乎没能说明不能categorize的问题】

Another problem with this topic【看这里感觉有点argu的味道，呵呵】 is that obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law excessively 【这个是你说的啊，人家可没说要excessively的去遵守或不遵守啊。而且，就算你要说过犹不及，也应该在两者间做比较，这样一下把两个都打死了，还是跟没比较一样啊】may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for【intend to，what law？ was inetended。。。】. The most prominent result based on the problem is that it will block the social's 【？？这样的错误怎么能犯呢】development and impede the process of the democracy in the nation. 【感觉说的是unjust law的危害】You 【we，这样才能让人认同】would not forget the result of the centralization in Soviet Russian during the Stalin's time. 【这不就是unjust law吗？你把这段的TS换了的话，估计这段还是可以的】Another example I would like to bring forward is the income taxation, the aftermath of which is tax evasion and thus brings lots of reversed effects. 【我觉得这个不能算是过度反抗unjust law，更不算是过度遵守just law，这个后果是一种犯罪，跟法律没什么关系，是人的问题】
【这段开头把just和unjust武断的都打倒了，而且有点强词夺理的意味，因为人家题目没有说过要excessive的。而且，后面的东西偏离论点，说的都是unjust的方面的。然后，最后没有结论，你说excessive不对，那么，应该怎么样呢？没说。】

The last thing I would like to take a glance at this issue【病句啊】 is that the just 【不是名词】and unjust 【也不是名词】should be analyzed on case-by-case. In most peaceful countries, the just law almost represents the general's will; On the other hand, in some troublous countries, the regime【觉得这个用的不好，这里你还是想用百姓的意愿做为标准的，所以用public，people，nation这类的好点】 have【has啊】 no choice but to enact some high-pressure measures as their laws.
【分不同国家的情况来谈应该再展开一点比较好，要in detail，举出具体例子比较好】

Taking into account all the factors, it is not difficult to say that the laws, as one of the most crucial elements so【？？of？？】 modern society, have to be served as the guide for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a steady ethos. 【结尾结的不好，怎么说到法律的作用上面去了呢？】

【这篇写的不是太成功，逻辑上面要注意前后连接的，more的问题你过于回避，我觉得你没有很好的回应题目。
还需要努力。】

G猫UID: 192988

哇，刚刚才发现你也又写了一篇，看到poohJJ和鬼谷子画的红红蓝蓝的，我要好好学习一下：）

JungreUID: 192044

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."

my outline:

law is enacted by authoritis to set up standard in society. obey just laws and disobey unjust are both necessary.

obey just laws good for society.

should people disobey unjust laws? yes, because
1) unjust laws contradict with human nature, would not be good for society
2) only by disobey and fight against it can society progress.

G猫UID: 192988

最初由 Jungre 发布
[B]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."

my outline:

law is enacted by authoritis to set up standard in society. obey just laws and disobey unjust are both necessary.

obey just laws good for society.

should people disobey unjust laws? yes, because
1) unjust laws contradict with human nature, would not be good for society
2) only by disobey and fight against it can society progress.
[/B]

感觉你后面的论点不支持你的立场呀, 既然都是necessary, 后面又要disobey, 这样不矛盾吗?

will_foreverUID: 193568

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."
Outline: 1.it is oversimple to categorize law into either just or unjust. The definition of law is indeterminacy.将法律划分为公正和非公正过于简单，法律的概念并不是很明确
2.The law is not invariable. It should be challenged and ameliorated(mended) with the development of the society. the definition of "just" is based upon the general will of the citizens，however, the fairness of law is on the basis of one’s personal interest and value system. 法律并非一成不变，随着社会的进步，它也随之被置疑与修改。法律是代表大部分人的意志，但法律的公正性是基于各人的价值观和喜好，是主观的。
3.Resisting the unjust law may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for.(1)the phenomenon will block the  development of society and impede the process of the democracy in the nation。反抗非公正法可能带来的危害.这种现象将会阻碍社会的进步和国家民主化的进程。
4.in sum, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guideline for almost all the citizens and also provide them with a stabilized (steady) climate (ethos)
经过POOH JJ 和小鬼的修改，自个也好好想了许久，有一些观点我仍是坚持，而有许多没注意到的地方和逻辑上的漏洞都要谢谢两位的修改，还有一些地方希望能与大家共同探讨！
Outline我也修改了一下！

Originally "the just and unjust laws" were presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, who said (and I paraphrase):"An just law is the representation of the general will and uplifts human personality; on the other hand, an unjust law is that the majority compels the minority group to obey and does not make binding on itself." When it comes to this topic, I would like to put forward my question: does it rightly categorize the law as either just or unjust? Were I left to offer my opinion, I would not hesitate a moment to say that it is oversimple to categorize the law as either just or unjust.【这里的表达有一点罗嗦。而且，你回避了比较的问题，是否属于一种beg the question呢？】hehe。这是我惯用的模式(were I left to offer my opinion， I would not hesitate a moment to say that)是比较罗嗦。                                     topic有两个句子，你thesis只说出了你对于其一的观点，那么另一个你是否同意呢？不同意，你又是怎么看待的呢？这个我实在是没注意到，谢谢POOH姐的提醒，我补充如下：                                                           Were I left to offer my opinion, I would not hesitate a moment to say that the statement, according to which people have the responsibility to not only obey the just laws but also resist the unjust ones, is too extreme. In my point of view, the just laws and unjust ones should be analyzed on case-by-case study.
   
In the first place, the law is not invariable and its fairness should be challenged and mended with the development of the society. In the first place, though the law represents the general will and uplifts the human personality, nowadays the fairness of any law is based upon one’s personal inclination and value system.  【此处同pooh意见，法律的公正怎么能够被mended呢？另外，这个论点与just或unjust没什么联系。法律可以被挑战和修改，法律也不是一成不变的，但是，我觉得just和unjust明显是对立的两面，不能说因为挑战和修改就互相转化了吧，所以就不至于两者混淆至不能categorize的，不能支持你开头的观点。】小鬼，我的想法是法律既然是可以随着社会而变化的，那公正与否就难说了。若在暴乱的国家所执行的法律是高压的在我们现在看来是不公正的，但这种非常时期的非常措施在当时也许就是公正的呀。你所说的just和unjust是明显对立的两面，但我觉得法律的公正性与否是基于个人的倾向和价值观，有的人认为这法是公正的，但有的人不认为。【这个论断问题大了，个人怎么能够左右法律的公正呢？】我想表达的不是说个人来左右法律的公正，而在于在这个人看来这种法是公正的，而在另一个人看来也许就是不公正的，况且法律的公正与否也是由大家来判定的呀. Just as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s viewpoint, who is an 18th century French Political Philosopher (and I paraphrase):"The ideal state is a world where the laws express people in general will, a will that aims at a common good.' Based on Rousseau's talking, we can find not only his definition of law is established on the ideal state and in his opinion it goes without saying that it is our ultimate goal，but also the law is not invariable and should be challenged and mended with the development of the society【我觉得这个逻辑有问题的，他心目中的ideal state就一定是our ultimate goal吗？再者，这个论据可以证明法律需要修改和变化吗？】不知道在其中加上in his opinion 可以吗？可以用来解决你的第一个问号吗？还有我把法律不是一成不变和需要置疑和修改放在后面可以吗？ Let us take a glance at one of the example on the fairness of the law. consider, for example, the controversial of homosexuality. 【这个不是完整的句子】这个可以不是句子吧，小鬼Confronted with this topic, different people have different opinion due to their respective value system. The law in most countries forbids the homosexualities intermarry Some people think that it violates the ethics and they cannot accept such person, while others argue that it is one's right to choose his or her life style and we should treat such person equally. 【这个是人们的看法理念的分歧，与法律，与法律的just与否，与法律是否改受到挑战没有什么关系的。如果你想说的是，因为有人赞同homo而应该改变法律的话，是否表述的不够清楚呢？而且，如果这样，跟你前面的论述就脱节了。】我觉得这个就是人们对法律公正性的不同看法，有的人接受同性恋认为这是个人的权利，因此他们就会认为制止同性恋的法律是不公正的，而有的人认同法律认为禁止同性恋是公正的。因此不能单纯的将法律划分为just和unjust From what has been analyzed above, whether a law is just or unjust is not a straightforward but an indeterminacy issue, which depends on one’s personal interest and value system and in fact is based upon one’s subjective viewpoint.  

【首先要说，这段的例子跟你的论点关系不大，或者说，你没能让读者看出来你想让我们看出来的关系。第二，这段的论点有些问题，似乎没能说明不能categorize的问题】
例子不好
因为第一个例子是卢梭站在社会的角度说的
第二个例子是从个人角度说的我把开头的TS做了修改，这样第一个例子就是根据though来说，而后一个例子就是根据TS的后半句。可以否？
当今世界法律的基础也是代表大多数人的利益和意志，只不过每个人对于法律的认识不同罢了。这一点在过去和现在都是一致的。
这段没有收尾结尾已经补补出来了，不知道可以否？

Another problem with this topic【看这里感觉有点argu的味道，呵呵】小鬼有没有什么好的关联词承上启下呀，我实在是不知该怎么接了，呵呵 is that obeying the just law and resisting the unjust law excessively 【这个是你说的啊，人家可没说要excessively的去遵守或不遵守啊。而且，就算你要说过犹不及，也应该在两者间做比较，这样一下把两个都打死了，还是跟没比较一样啊经由你们的修改，是这样我是多加了一个excessively，我决定这样修改：is that resisting the unjust law may cause risks or have some opposite effects on what was intended or hoped for【intend to，what law？ was inetended。。。】呵呵，这个我是从老外280中看来的. The most prominent result based on the unjust law is that it may block the development of the society and impede the process of the democracy in the nation. We 【we，这样才能让人认同】would not forget the result of the centralization in Soviet Russian during the Stalin's time, when the enactment of the laws were mostly based upon Stalin’s subjective. It goes without saying that those high-pressure measures were unjust laws, whereas they were    Another example I would like to bring forward is the income taxation, the aftermath of which is tax evasion and thus brings lots of reversed effects. 【我觉得这个不能算是过度反抗unjust law，更不算是过度遵守just law，这个后果是一种犯罪，跟法律没什么关系，是人的问题】
【这段开头把just和unjust武断的都打倒了，而且有点强词夺理的意味，因为人家题目没有说过要excessive的。而且，后面的东西偏离论点，说的都是unjust的方面的。然后，最后没有结论，你说excessive不对，那么，应该怎么样呢？没说。】这一段我是不应该用excessively的，所以我就决定写resisting the unjust law的危害，先说unjust law 的危害再说resisting the unjust law的危害】
这个例子很唐突，突然来这么句话，别人知道你指的tax evasion是什么吗，带来了什么effects? 不要只说一半，要解释清楚，读者很难和你有心点感应。

到底应不应该遵守和反抗呢？你只说不应该excessively的遵守和反抗。(这一段我是不应该用excessively的，所以我就决定写resisting the unjust law的危害，先说unjust law 的危害再说resisting the unjust law的危害)


另外你前面否掉了有just 和unjust的分类，后面怎么又继续用种分类来讨论呢？有些自相矛盾。（POOH姐，我是觉得不应该简单的将法律分为just和unjust，这一段是单单就后半句再说出自己的看法，resisting the unjust law的危害,而且在第一段中提到，这样可以吗？）

没有收尾
The last thing I would like to take a glance at is that the just law and unjust law should be analyzed on case-by-case. In most peaceful countries, the just law almost represents the general will; On the other hand, in some troublous countries, the public has no choice but to enact some high-pressure measures as their laws. For example, during Stalin's time, the enactments of the laws were mostly based upon Stalin’s subjective viewpoint. It goes without saying that those were unjust laws, whereas those high-pressure measures were indispensable to ensure the steady of temporal society.  
color=red【分不同国家的情况来谈应该再展开一点比较好，要in detail，举出具体例子比较好】

Taking into account all the factors, it is not difficult to say that the laws, as one of the most crucial elements of modern society and the guide for almost all the citizens , do not simply categorize as either just or unjust. Moreover whether a law is just or unjust should be analyzed on case-by-case study and ultimately we can attain the conclusion. (重新写的结尾)
【这篇写的不是太成功，逻辑上面要注意前后连接的，more的问题你过于回避，我觉得你没有很好的回应题目。
还需要努力。】