Issue 7 第一篇恳请哥哥姐姐请教

RMgXUID: 171911

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."

The speaker asserts that individuals' attitudes towards laws should depend upon the types of the laws, whether just or unjust. At first glance, this viewpoint seems to be somewhat reasonable, however, further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the reasons presented below.

Though justice is a controversial issue on which views among people from different countries in different times are sharply divided, the basements of these views are more or less the same. Individuals always evaluate whether something is just from their own advantages, while a government establish, lay down and enforce various rules of conduct or action, which is called the law, in order to make the greater good for the whole society. Thus, there will be the situations that the law contradicts with some persons' interests. And I cannot find a better example than the revenue policy in China to illustrate this point: In china, the more you earn, the higher percentages of your income will be taxed by the government, according to the related law, which may seem unfair to the wealthy people. But these people cannot resist or even disobey the law for the seemingly injustice, for the government spends a lot to keep the society running in a peaceful way, which to some extent protects all the people, those wealthy persons included, from such dangers as murders or robbery.

Simply put, if all the individuals only obeyed what they think just and disobeyed or even resisted what they thing unjust, the world would find itself bogged down in the sea of mess. Take the revenue problem mentioned above, the whole revenue would obviously lowered rapidly if the wealthy people disobey the tax law, the government would lack money to control the crimes and consequently the number of criminals would increase. Moreover, these conducts or actions would at last do greater harm to the wealthy persons.

Admittedly, the laws need amending occasionally. As we all know, no law is perfect; even though it is perfect at present, it will not be totally available in future. Therefore, every individual has the right to question those unfair laws through some legal ways. The government and only the government can establish, amend of abolish laws. Not only actions such as resistance make no sense to amend or abolish unjust laws, but also influence other just laws' effect.

In conclusion, due to the analysis and reasons mentioned above, I strongly commit to the notion that individuals' conducts and actions should conform to laws, including perfecting the unjust laws.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

The speaker asserts that individuals' attitudes towards laws should depend upon the types of the laws, whetherwhether不要 just or unjust. At first glance, this viewpoint seems to be somewhat reasonable, however, further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the reasons presented below.回应主题以后,还要表述归纳一下自己的观点,不要写成argument

Though justice is a controversial issue on which views among people from different countries in different times are sharply divided, the basements of these views are more or less the same.作为主心句这样写不好,要精炼一段的中心,构造一个尽管但是在这里没有意义. [U]Individuals always evaluate whether something is just from their own advantages, while a government establish, lay down and enforce various rules of conduct or action, which is called the law, in order to make the greater good for the whole society. [/U]为什么要写这么长的句子?自己看看能怎么改.  Thus, there will be the situations that the law contradicts with some persons' interests. [U]And I cannot find a better example than the revenue policy in China to illustrate this point: [/U] 直接说例子 In china, the more you earn, the higher percentages of your income will be taxed by the government, according to the related law, which may seem unfair to the wealthy people. But these people cannot resist or even disobey the law for the seemingly injustice, for the government spends a lot to keep the society running in a peaceful way, which to some extent protects all the people, those wealthy persons included, from such dangers as murders or robbery.
学习一下范文,体会一下中心句对于一段的重要.

不要用太复杂的句子,表达清楚意思最重要.

Simply put, if all the individuals only obeyed what they think just and disobeyed or even resisted what they thing unjust, the world would find itself bogged down in the sea of mess. Take the revenue problem mentioned above, the whole revenue would obviously lowered rapidly if the wealthy people disobey the tax law, the government would lack money to control the crimes and consequently the number of criminals would increase. Moreover, these conducts or actions would at last do greater harm to the wealthy persons.

Admittedly, the laws need amending occasionally. As we all know, no law is perfect; even though it is perfect at present, it will not be totally available in future. Therefore, every individual has the right to question those unfair laws through some legal ways. The government and only the government can establish, amend of abolish laws. Not only actions such as resistance make no sense to amend or abolish unjust laws, but also influence other just laws' effect.

body的第一段写的不明白,后面两段意思清楚但是论证比较薄弱,建议再重新组织一下每一段的中心句.第三段是个让步段,那么你在首段怎么没有反映呢.

In conclusion, due to the analysis and reasons mentioned above, I strongly commit to the notion that individuals' conducts and actions should conform to laws, including perfecting the unjust laws.

第一次写会有很多问题,加油.
这个题目不是很好写,提纲还要再想想.可以去精华区看看别人是怎么写的.
写作的过程中要养成习惯去想想这个句子怎么表达最简单最清楚

希望你也能多改改别人的文章 :)

RMgXUID: 171911

修改成这个样子不知道好一点没有
提纲大概是说
1法律是整个社会而言的，有可能对某些群体不公
2即使面对不公的法律也要通过特定的合法程序操作，消极抵制践踏于事无补

The speaker asserts that individuals' attitudes towards laws should depend upon whether the laws are just or unjust. At first glance, this viewpoint seems to be somewhat reasonable, however, further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it totally. Personally, every individual has the obligation and responsibility to conduct or act conforming to the laws, no matter what type the laws are.

Laws, broadly defined as rules of actions or conducts for the whole nation, may sometimes contradict the advantages of certain groups. From these individuals’ viewpoints, certain laws can be deemed injustice, though they actually make the greater good for the whole society. For example, according to the Revenue Law in China, the more one earns the more he or she would be taxed, which may seem unfair to the wealthy people. However, the wealthy and only the wealthy can provide such financial support for the government, in order to ensure the prosperity of the nation and control the crimes. By contrast, people with low incomes even have difficulty surviving, and how can they contribute to the government in a financial way? If the wealthy people, I fear, disobeyed or even resist the Revenue law, such as lowering their tax, the government would consequently lack money in dealing with public affairs, such as crimes, which would naturally lead the whole society to a mess. Moreover, the estate and life of the wealthy people would also be threatened, though they obtain extra savings from the tax. Therefore, even some seemingly unjust laws should be unconditionally confirmed to, since they represent the whole advantages of the nation.

On the other hand, laws need amending. No doubt there exist more or less flaws in present laws; Even if they are perfect now, they cannot fit the future situations totally due to the great change in social life. In order to ensure laws would advance with the times, laws were often established, amended or abolished during the past centuries. For example, the present Chinese Constitution, the 1999th Constitution, is the fifth edition during the fifty-year period. However, the Congress and only the Congress has the power and right to establish, amend or abolish laws. Only through the Congress can any rejective ideas about laws can be accepted legally. Actions such as disobey or resist laws occasionally make no sense to the laws themselves. What is worse? These conducts also influence the public respect for laws, even the just laws. Furthermore, the Council and government would lose trust and support from their nations, and thus the whole society would suffer a period of turbulence and confusion. In a word, it is only through the Council that individuals’ attitudes and critics to laws has the possibility to amend or perfect the laws, while such actions as resistance make no sense but worsen the circumstances.

To conclude, laws are rules for every citizen to comply with and everyone has the obligation and responsibility to abide by the laws. Even facing the ridiculous-looking laws, individuals should still choose the legal approach, never disobey or even resist the laws.

RMgXUID: 171911

re一下
怕被淹没了~~

RMgXUID: 171911

有没有谁再来看一眼啊？