Issue17 [Victors小组]第八次作业 by solartorch （值得参考的习作）

solartorchUID: 2244205

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."

1, 有些laws很难定义just and unjust. capital punishment,euthanasia,abortion,drug test in UK.
2, 简单的disobey and resist欠考虑.如果这样提倡大家都有理由违抗法律。
3，没有争议的just laws我们有义务obey,维护.

words: 655
Laws affect our everyday life and society in a variety of ways. It rules behaviors ranking from buying a bus ticket to international military action and plays a critical role in guiding civilians and institutions in decisive and mandatory tactics. This statement is obviously based on this background and divides laws into two categories---just ones that should be obeyed and unjust ones that calls for resistance. I cannot share the author's sentiments on this allegation for it ignores the significance of certain constancy in legal system.

First of all, to most extent, to discuss whether a law is just or unjust only leads to interminable controversies in a society. Discrepancies exist based on the interpretations about legal problems viewing from different interest and altered cultures. The lasting debates on the rightness of capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and drug test etc. are testaments of the difficulties on defining a law. For instance, different countries in the world have different opinions in treating capital punishment. If we use distinctive colors to represent their current legal policies on this issue, the world map will be a colorful canvas. Abolitionist countries hold the opinion that by no means a human life is allowed to be taken by others. While in retentionist countries, majorities indicate that capital punishment deters crime, prevents recidivism and is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. Less extreme case like the contentious drug-testing issue in UK, advocators argue that a mandatory drug-testing of offenders and people under arrest can help to enhance the efficiency on the investigation into crime. But the opposition claims that this proposal, which would not only be wrong but highly unworkable, is seriously against civil liberties. From these examples we can figure out that most of the time once a law is put on a table for discussing its justness, result of this discussion becomes obscure. People holding different interest and having various backgrounds inevitably interpret and understand it in a subjective way which makes the boundary indefinable.

Moreover, to allow or even advocate disobedience and resistance to unjust laws is scant of consideration and may causes serious social unstableness. Firstly, the behavior of disobeying "unjust laws" has probably put the resistor into the position of violating just laws already. Taking euthanasia for example, if people who against it believes it as an unjust law, they're supposed to give the rights to resist it according to the author's opinion. In that case, the doctor’s property cannot be protected and the maintenance of society is at risk. Resistors may adopt severe methods like blocking the door of hospital which uses euthanasia; threaten the doctors' safety and so on. In consequence, the basic laws which protect our normal life are offended. Secondly, this advocacy may leave a hole for people who are intended to break the law. It is hard to justify that the violation against the euthanasia which turns out to affect the lives of doctors or the stableness of society is on the basis of resisting the alleged unjust laws or other motives. Thus, the author's opinion on disobeying and resisting unjust laws is naive and premature.

Nevertheless, for the widespread concerned just laws which put majorities intersect at the fist place and receive little disputation, we are supposed to abide by unconditionally. Majority laws provide us with the basic elements to preserve a safety and justified environment. For instance, in many countries, littering is always related to a fine. This simple rule furnishes us a clean environment. Imagine the mess if we disobey this law, it is indeed our responsibility to adhere to just laws.

In conclusion, to divide laws into just and unjust is unwisely. Contentious issues about laws normally elude a obvious define. The advocacy on breaking an unjust law is also lack of consideration. However, for the mass accepted just laws, we, as individuals in a society, are responsible to obey and maintain it.

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-6-27 21:50 编辑 ]

gyyxUID: 2290150

点评：放在word里看了两遍，没挑出来错误，语言方面和论述都很好，第一个分论点写的特别的精彩。

expire7UID: 2160574

seat taken

expire7UID: 2160574

Issue17 [Victors小组]第八次作业 by solartorch
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."

1, 有些laws很难定义just and unjust. capital punishment,euthanasia,abortion,drug test in UK.
2, 简单的disobey and resist欠考虑.如果这样提倡大家都有理由违抗法律。
3，没有争议的just laws我们有义务obey,维护.

words: 655
Laws affect our everyday life and society in a variety of ways. It rules behaviors ranking from buying a bus ticket to international military action and plays a critical role in guiding civilians and institutions in decisive and mandatory tactics. This statement is obviously based on this background（this background就是前面两句么？不过感觉前面两句与这个陈述并无明显联系。此外，前面两句感觉有点与题目无关。） and divides laws into two categories---just ones that should be obeyed and unjust ones that calls for resistance. I cannot share the author's sentiments on this allegation for it ignores the significance of certain constancy in legal system. （开头还是不错，唯一遗憾是前面两句。）

First of all, to most extent, to discuss whether a law is just or unjust only leads to interminable controversies in a society. Discrepancies exist based on the interpretations about legal problems viewing from different interest and altered cultures. The lasting debates on the rightness of capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and drug test etc. are testaments of the difficulties on defining a law. For instance, different countries in the world have different opinions in treating capital punishment. If we use distinctive colors to represent their current legal policies on this issue, the world map will be a colorful canvas. Abolitionist countries hold the opinion that by no means a human life is allowed to be taken by others. While in retentionist（？？） countries, majorities indicate that capital punishment deters crime, prevents recidivism and is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. Less extreme case like the contentious drug-testing issue in UK, advocators argue that a mandatory drug-testing of offenders and people under arrest can help to enhance the efficiency on the investigation into crime. But the opposition claims that this proposal, which would not only be wrong but highly unworkable, is seriously against civil liberties. From these examples we can figure out that most of the time once a law is put on a table for discussing its justness, result of this discussion becomes obscure. People holding different interest and having various backgrounds inevitably interpret and understand it in a subjective way which makes the boundary indefinable. （很不错的一段。一气呵成。而且和大多数人写这文章出发点不同，值得一看。）

Moreover, to allow or even advocate disobedience and resistance to unjust laws is scant of consideration and may causes serious social unstableness. Firstly, the behavior of disobeying "unjust laws" has probably put the resistor into the position of violating just laws already. Taking euthanasia for example, if people who against it believes it as an unjust law, they're supposed to give the rights to resist it according to the author's opinion. In that case, the doctor’s property cannot be protected and the maintenance of society is at risk. Resistors may adopt severe methods like blocking the door of hospital which uses euthanasia; threaten the doctors' safety and so on. In consequence, the basic laws which protect our normal life are offended. Secondly, this advocacy may leave a hole for people who are intended to break the law. It is hard to justify that the violation against the euthanasia which turns out to affect the lives of doctors or the stableness of society is on the basis of resisting the alleged unjust laws or other motives. Thus, the author's opinion on disobeying and resisting unjust laws is naive and premature.（不错）

Nevertheless(这个连词，不如on the other hand。感觉这里并不是一个完全互相转折的两个段落，而是互相相辅的段落。如果要表示强烈的对比，那么你的用词和语气还需要更加强烈) , for the widespread concerned just laws which put majorities intersect at the fist （first）place and receive little disputation, we are supposed to abide by unconditionally. Majority laws provide us with the basic elements to preserve a safety and justified environment. For instance, in many countries, littering is always related to a fine. This simple rule furnishes us a clean environment. Imagine the mess if we disobey this law, it is indeed our responsibility to adhere to just laws.

In conclusion, to divide laws into just and unjust is unwisely. Contentious issues about laws normally elude a(an) obvious define. The advocacy on breaking an unjust law is also lack of consideration. However, for the mass accepted just laws, we, as individuals in a society, are responsible to obey and maintain it.

写得不错的文章，记得北美范文这个题目的例子也写得十分精彩。看这篇文章让我想起当时的感觉。
总体感觉I问题不大了，小地方需要注意。单词的笔误能注意就注意，不过都是比较苛刻的要求了。

iq28UID: 2152875

俺果然没看错人;d:

solartorchUID: 2244205

非常感谢版主指点;d:
body1 retentionist countries 和 abolitionist countries对应，一个指的是延用死刑的国家，一个是废除死刑的国家。:loveliness: