issue [火箭 小组] 第一次作业

byysUID: 2294038

题目：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."

When it comes to laws, the author insists that the responsibility of first importance for people is to disobey the unjust
laws and to obey just ones. While passive obedience of unjust laws is unwise, one should give top concern to the stability of
laws and seek other rational alternatives to deal with unfair laws.

When faced with unjust laws, absolute silence is no more than pure fear of the authority. Take a glance at the
human history,there were rules violently against the essence of humanism spirits, such as equality, kindness, faith; a large
number of people choose to obey it for fear of the reprisal and penalty. In the dark days of the blacks in North America, the
slaves are the outlaws, deprived of the basic human right. Without the arduous efforts of the abolitionists to fight against
this unfair laws, the miserable lives of the blacks would become much longer. These partial laws should be questioned; in
these historical background, resisting them seems to be the only choice to guard the truth.

However, the laws are too complicated to be divided into the two kinds. Of course, one has the basic ability to tell right
from wrong, hence the previous mentioned unequal treatment to humans is unjust without doubt. Yet just look around, the world is buzzed with assorted controversy in which both side ironically defends plausible and compelling. Even as to a same issue, euthanasia for instance, the bills vary all over the world, and the relative laws have no use stopping the continuing debates concerning them. The complexity resulted from the variety of cultures, religions, political believes which relate with every inch of modern lives. The inherent complication in lives, therefore, leaves laws an embarrassing role to act complete justly. No matter how fair the legislators thought the laws are, there still are a minor group feel angerly that they are unfairly treated. Unless the outlooks of all human beings are uniform, the justice of laws cannot be unanimously admitted.

Secondly, laws are necessary to be consistent; every tiny change will have profound influence on the whole nation, it cannot be too cautious before amending the laws. The fundamental character in laws is their authority: citizens, since their birth, are obligated to obey them, which is determined by the Constitution in every country. This nature requires the legislature cannot randomly enact laws one day or repeal them the other day. Just imagine, a business man would never invest in a country where he might lose the land-use right of his company, or be imposed fickle tax later in his run. If the laws are changeable, masses will lose the sense of security and trust. The function of laws as a compulsive country machinery will be discounted to an astonishing extent. The caprice of laws will in turn undermine the well being of the entire society, upset to a final anarchy.

It is urgently called for a rational attitude toward controversial and problematic laws. Rashly disobeying them will do nothing but catch the nation in a vicious circle: govenment enacts a law; opponents break it; the former changes it; the latter break it again... Both passive obedience and active resistence them are far from right. Taking account of the significance of consistence and the inborn complication regarding legal rules, a better option for people is to speak out to the professional legislature the unfairness which lies in particular laws.

leanneqiuUID: 2463430

When it comes to laws, the author insists that the responsibility of first importance for people is (感觉有点不顺，改成这样好点吧it is individuals’ first important responsibility) to disobey the(删掉) unjust
laws and to obey just ones. While passive obedience of unjust laws is unwise, one should give top concern to the stability of
laws and seek other rational alternatives to deal with unfair laws.

When faced with unjust laws, absolute silence is no more than pure fear of the authority. Take a glance at the
human history, there were rules violently against the essence of humanism spirits, such as equality, kindness, faith; a large
number of people choose to obey it for fear of the reprisal and penalty. In the dark days of the blacks in North America, the
slaves are the outlaws, deprived of the basic human right. Without the arduous efforts of the abolitionists to fight against
this unfair laws, the miserable lives of the blacks would become much longer. These partial laws should be questioned; in these historical background, resisting them seems to be the only choice to guard the truth.

However, the laws are too complicated to be divided into（用词不当改为：categorized as，divide是分开或把什么分为几部分的意思，categorize是归类的意思） the two kinds. Of course, one has the basic ability to tell right
from wrong, hence the previous mentioned unequal treatment to humans is unjust without doubt. Yet just look around, the world is buzzed with assorted controversy in which both side ironically defends plausible and compelling. Even as to a same issue, euthanasia for instance, the bills vary all over the world, and the relative laws have no use stopping the continuing debates concerning them. The complexity resulted from the variety of cultures, religions(不可数), political believes which relate with every inch of modern lives. The inherent complication in lives, therefore, leaves laws an embarrassing role to act complete justly. No matter how fair the legislators thought the laws are, there still are a minor group feel angerly(anger\angry) that they are unfairly treated. Unless the outlooks of all human beings are uniform, the justice of laws cannot be unanimously admitted.

Secondly, laws are necessary to be consistent; every tiny change will have profound influence on the whole nation, it cannot be too cautious before amending the laws. The fundamental character in laws is their authority: citizens, since their birth, are obligated to obey them, which is determined by the Constitution in every country. This nature requires the legislature cannot randomly enact laws one day or(while对比) repeal them the other day. Just imagine, a business man would never invest in a country where he might lose the land-use right of his company, or be imposed fickle tax later in his run. If the laws are changeable, masses will lose the sense of security and trust. The function of laws as a compulsive country machinery will be discounted to an astonishing extent. The caprice of laws will in turn undermine the well being of the entire society, upset to a final anarchy.

It is urgently called for a rational attitude toward controversial and problematic laws. Rashly disobeying them will do nothing but catch the nation in a vicious circle: government enacts a law; opponents break it; the former changes it; the latter break it again... Both passive obedience and active resistence（拼写） them(删掉) are far from right. Taking account of the significance of consistence and the inborn complication regarding legal rules, a better option for people is to speak out to the professional legislature the unfairness which lies（lays） in particular laws.

这篇文章结构很清晰，第二段让步，后三段论述，不过我觉得你的最后一段应该作为文章的主体部分而不是结尾，可以再写一段结尾简要的总结下会更好。例子举得非常好，句式变化也很多，有些拼写上和选词上的错误，大概是粗心吧。总而言之，写的很不错哦，比我的可好多了，继续加油吧！(第一次改，难免又改得不当的地方，见谅，可以随时跟我讨论。）

[ 本帖最后由 leanneqiu 于 2008-6-2 23:37 编辑 ]