issue17 欢迎互拍

maiqidiliwuUID: 2119412

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 446          TIME: 上午 0:54:32          DATE: 2007-2-15

According to this statement, a law is either just or unjust. In my opinion it is too extreme. And it is improper to recommend individual to resist unjust law, if it is. I agree with it under certain conditions.

First, it is hard to decide whether a law is just and unjust in a simple way. The valid of any law depends on one's personal value system. Different religions and cultures result in different judgment on the same issue. For example, people in some Arabic world consider it is normal for a husband has more than one wife at the same time, while a husband is allowed to have only one by law in most countries.

Also the valid of law depends on the interest relationship between individual and the group in favor of the law, especially in the economic field. For an instance, a law which forbids a company to pour its industrial wastes to the river is designed to protect the health of local residents. However it does harm to the interests of the company. The company's costs will rise for additional money paid to recycle these wastes so that the profit will be less. Hence the employers from high-level executives to the staff in that company may get less salary than before. However there is no such law in another state where one of its competitors locates. So this law, in their eyes, may be unjust. In this case the judgment on law is quite subjective.

The second point of this statement involves its recommendation for individual’s disobeying and resisting unjust laws. First I concede that sometimes individual’s resisting unjust law can trigger revolutionary movement to advance our law system. As we all know, a black woman’s brave fight against the unjust law forcing the American African to sit at the back of bus contributes a lot to triggering the American African’s fight for their rights at that time. However our encouragement for individual to resist law when it is unjust in his or her own eye in a society almost amounts to permitting any resist to our law. As the company we mentioned in the third paragraph, the ECO will be encouraged and allowed to disobey the law unjust in his eye. In this condition, there is no use of our law system because no law can satisfy all individuals in a society and each one can resist and disobey the unjust law he or she think.

In sum, law is a complex concept and involves interests of many parts. We can only judge its value under certain conditions. When we find it undermines the rights of majority in society, we should find proper way to advance it rather than let the individual to handle it as he or she like.  
   

[ 本帖最后由 maiqidiliwu 于 2007-2-15 22:03 编辑 ]

qusarUID: 2188950

According to this statement, a law is either just or unjust. In my opinion it is too extreme. And it is improper to recommend individual to resist unjust law, if it is. I agree with it under certain conditions.（我觉得这没说清楚同意什么？可以再写的清楚些）

First（firstly）, it is hard to decide whether a law is just and unjust in a simple way. The valid(??) of any law depends on one's personal value system. Different religions and cultures result in(have ) different judgment on the same issue. For example, people in some Arabic world consider it is normal for a husband has more than one wife at the same time, while a husband is allowed to have only one(wife) by law in most countries. （法律的公平与否要因国家和文化而异）

Also the valid of law depends on the interest relationship between individual and the group in favor of the law, especially in the economic field. For an instance, a law which forbids a company to pour its industrial wastes to the river is designed to protect the health of local residents. However it does harm to the interests of the company. The company's costs will rise for additional money paid to recycle these wastes so that the profit will be less. Hence the employers from high-level executives to the staff in that company may get less salary than before. However there is no such law in another state where one of its competitors locates. So this law, in their eyes, may be unjust. In this case the judgment on law is quite subjective.(法律的公平与否要因人而异，因地而异)

The second point of this statement involves its recommendation for individual’s disobeying and resisting unjust laws. First I concede that sometimes individual’s resisting unjust law can trigger revolutionary movement to advance our law system. As we all know, a black woman’s brave fight against the unjust law forcing the American African to sit at the back of bus contributes a lot to triggering the American African’s fight for their rights at that time.（有时候人们违反法律是为了更好的改造那些不公平的法律） However our encouragement for individual to resist law when it is unjust in his or her own eye in a society almost amounts to permitting any resist to our law. As the company we mentioned in the third paragraph, the ECO will be encouraged and allowed to disobey the law unjust in his eye. In this condition, there is no use of our law system because no law can satisfy all individuals in a society and each one can resist and disobey the unjust law he or she think.

In sum, law is a complex concept and involves interests of many parts. We can only judge its value under certain conditions. When we find it undermines the rights of majority in society, we should find proper way to advance it rather than let the individual to handle it as he or she like.  

我个人觉得你的论证稍微有些问题，不过也可能是我没怎么看懂，我把我总结的你的每段的思想写了一下，你看是不是这么个理。如果对的话，那么你前两段都在论证法律有公平和不公平之分，其公平与否的标准是各种差别和利益的影响。然而文章主要让我们论证的是我们是否应该遵守公平的法律而违反不公平的法律？但是在你的文章中好像并没有GRE作文有的那几种表态，比如有保留的同意，有保留的反对，或者中间立场。文章最后总结好像稍微有点意思了，但是还是没能展开论证点。这是我个人的观点，你看有道理吗？