Issue174 快要考了急啊 有回必拍

vieripingUID: 207712

Issue 174 Should laws be more flexible or rigid?
Laws are considered as the criterion of human behaviors for thousands of years, defined as rigid, stable from its birth. To some extent, I agree that laws should be more  flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, however, when it comes to some extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability.

It might be tempting to place laws at a more flexible level considering the development of economy. Suppose a thief steals 1500 in 1970s, his punishment is probably death penalty while he may only be put in prison for three or four years in current society. The contrast doesn't not boil down to the statement that the current law connives stealing. The difference of punishment of the same crime has to do with the development of economy. In 1970s, 1500 is a relative amount of money. But now, 1500 is not as large amount of money as 1970s. On condition that if we still abide the 1970s law, imagine how many people will be judged everyday? Obviously, the past law is not suitable for current society. The punishment of the crime is determined by the extent to which it jeopardizes the society. As I see to it, we should adapt our law according to the time.

However, I have to point out that when it comes to some extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability. We all know that laws are characterized by signal of justice, regardless you are a noble or an ordinary people. Law may tend to be partial to nobles provided it become too flexible. If so, the flexibility of laws is just utilized by some guys. In spite of this, the flexibility of laws should not become the excuse of some crimes. For example: Drug traffickers who are caught in Golden triangle area assert that they have to live a living by this. It's true that as Golden triangle area which is located around the boundary of China and Myanmar is a quite isolated region, which make it hard to find a job. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable for law to permit drug in this region. Laws must adhere to rigidity and stability when involving some fundamental issues.

In sum, to some extent, I agree that laws should be more flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, bringing more benefit to us humans. However, laws should still be rigid and stable facing some issues which defy the nature of laws as laws always stand for justice and right.

zjcq2002UID: 2113577

Laws are considered as the criterion of human behaviors for thousands of years, defined as rigid, stable from its birth. To some extent, I agree that laws should be more  flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, however, when it comes to some [other？我觉得就算是用词组，也应该把两种情况分开]  extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability.

It might be tempting to place laws at a more flexible level considering the development of economy. Suppose [Supposing] a thief steals 1500 in 1970s, his punishment is probably death penalty while he may only be put in prison for three or four years in current society. The contrast doesn't not boil down to the statement that the current law connives stealing. The difference of punishment of the same crime has to do with the development of economy. In 1970s, 1500 is a relative amount of money. But now, 1500 is not as large amount of money as 1970s. On condition that if we still abide the 1970s law, imagine how many people will be judged everyday? Obviously, the past law is not suitable for current society. The punishment of the crime is determined by the extent to which it jeopardizes the society. As I see to it, we should adapt our law according to the time.

However, I have to point out that when it comes to some extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability. We all know that laws are characterized by signal of justice, regardless you are a noble or an ordinary people. Law may tend to be partial to nobles provided it become to [ becomes?] flexible. If so, the flexibility of laws is just utilized by some guys. In spite of this, the flexibility of laws should not become the excuse of some crimes. For example: [,？可能是我孤陋寡闻,好像没看到过后面加冒号的] Drug traffickers who are caught in Golden triangle area assert that they have to live a living by this. It's true that as Golden triangle area which is located around the boundary of China and Myanmar is a quite isolated region, which make it hard to find a job. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable for law to permit drug in this region. Laws must adhere to rigidity and stability when involving some fundamental issues. [例子很好,很新颖,不过论点虽然在主旨句中有提到，但是法律严格的范围没有很精辟的归纳出来。In spite of this, the flexibility of laws should not become the excuse of some crimes.作为作者本段具体支持的观点，出场还显的比较平淡，埋没于一堆道理之后，比较中国化，建议向前提。]

In sum, to some extent, I agree that laws should be more flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, bringing more benefit to us humans. However, laws should still be rigid and stable facing some issues which defy the nature of laws as laws always stand for justice and right.[拍了些砖，因为是第一次给别人改，所以说错了大人8打我，如果有问题欢迎讨论，总的来说，这篇文章很值得我学习呢，尤其是一些词句]

[ Last edited by zjcq2002 on 2005-7-10 at 18:36 ]

超度者UID: 2113274

哥们,我看咱俩水平好像差不多.你几号考?估计目标是多少分?

lemontree02UID: 2103534

Issue 174 Should laws be more flexible or rigid?
Laws are considered as the criterion of human behaviors for thousands of years, defined as rigid, stable from its birth. To some extent, I agree that laws should be more  flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, however, when it comes to some extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability.

It might be tempting to place laws at a more flexible level considering the development of economy. Suppose a thief steals 1500 in 1970s, his punishment is probably death penalty while he may only be put in prison for three or four years in current society. The contrast doesn't not boil down to the statement that the current law connives stealing. The difference of punishment of the same crime has to do with the development of economy. In 1970s, 1500 is a relative amount of money. But now, 1500 is not as large amount of money as 1970s. On condition that if we still abide the 1970s law, imagine how many people will be judged death penalty everyday? Obviously, the past law is not suitable for current society. The punishment of the crime is determined by the extent to which it jeopardizes the society. As I see to it, we should adapt our law according to the time.

However, I have to point out that when it comes to somethe other extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability. We all know that laws are characterized by signal of justice, regardless you are a noble or an ordinary people. Law may tend to be partial to nobles provided it become too flexible. If so, the flexibility of laws is just utilized by some guys. In spite of this, the flexibility of laws should not become the excuse of some crimes. For example: Drug traffickers who are caught in Golden triangle area assert that they have to livemake a living by this. It's true that as Golden triangle area which is located around the boundary of China and Myanmar is a quite isolated region, which make it hard to find a job. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable for law to permit drug in this region. Laws must adhere to rigidity and stability when involving some fundamental issues.这一段好像说了两层意思，法律之所以不能灵活是因为一，法律要体现人人平等，二，法律要有基本原则不能变，但我认为这两者之间的过渡有些突然

In sum, to some extent, I agree that laws should be more flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, bringing more benefit to us humans. However, laws should still be rigid and stable facing some issues which defy the nature of laws as laws always stand for justice and right.
作者驾驭文字的能力很不错
这篇文章用的是平行的写法，在某种程度上要灵活，在某种程度该严厉，但这两种程度之间的关系作者交待的不是很清楚，因而论证显得不够严密。
提供我的写作思路，以供参考
1，        某种程度上要灵活
2，        但是不能所有都灵活，要有一个限度，这个限度是什么（比如公平公正的原则）
3，        总结
（基本上是按照作者的材料组织文章，但是这样可能层次更清楚一些，建议调整一下第二个论证的顺序）
修改的第二篇作文，呵呵，发现了好多值得我学习的地方，同时也希望能够有所帮助

vieripingUID: 207712

非常感谢楼上对我的批改，不知道我这篇可以得到几分
呵呵，我也是南京的。8月29号 PS我是MM

shinekqUID: 210236

首先感谢搂主给偶的作文提出的意见;)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3Dtype%26typeid%3D9

Issue 174 Should laws be more flexible or rigid?
Laws are considered as the criterion （criteria是否改用复数）of human behaviors for thousands of years, defined as rigid, stable from its birth. To some extent, I agree that laws should be more  flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, however, when it comes to some extent, laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability.
个人感觉这一段里的两个to some extent 有些模糊，是否可以根据下面的论述在详细一点？（看很多范文都是这样的）

It might be tempting to place laws at a more flexible level considering the development of economy. Suppose a thief steals 1500 in 1970s, his punishment is probably death penalty while he may only be put in prison for three or four years in current society. The contrast doesn't not boil down to the statement that the current law connives stealing. The difference of punishment of the same crime has to do with the development of economy. In 1970s, 1500 is a relative amount of money. But now, 1500 is not as large amount of money as 1970s. On condition that if we still abide the 1970s law, imagine how many people will be judged everyday? （感觉有点不爽，我想作者的意思应该是说不同情况下所受的惩罚力度不同，而不是不被judge）Obviously, the past law is not suitable for current society. The punishment of the crime is determined by the extent to which it jeopardizes the society. As I see to it, we should adapt our law according to the time.

However, I have to point out that when it comes to some extent(to what ？可以将最后一句稍加修改放到这里来), laws should still hold fast to rigidity and stability. We all know that laws are characterized by signal of justice, regardless you are a noble or an ordinary people. Law may tend to be partial to nobles provided it become too flexible. If so, the flexibility of laws is just utilized by some guys. In spite of this, the flexibility of laws should not become the excuse of some crimes. For example: Drug traffickers who are caught in Golden triangle area assert that they have to live a living by this. It's true that as Golden triangle area which is located around the boundary of China and Myanmar is a quite isolated region, which make it hard to find a job（语法有点问题，稍微细心就可以发现）. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable for law to permit drug in this region. Laws must adhere to rigidity and stability when involving some fundamental issues.

In sum, to some extent, I agree that laws should be more flexible in order to adapt to the time, circumstance and region, bringing more benefit to us humans. However, laws should still be rigid and stable facing some issues which defy the nature of laws as laws always stand for justice and right.

搂主写得挺好的，看了之后觉得偶应该加把劲儿了，呵呵，偶7月29号的，刚开始，不知道为什么就是紧张不起来。