【☆09GRE作文冲刺组】ccd 2月11日作文

ccdUID: 2535452

ISSUE 17
“There are two kinds 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.”

Does individual have the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws? The speaker claims, to extent the obligation of people to obey just laws, those individuals who dare to challenge the unjust laws are of more importance to the society. I concede that in any developing and developed society, laws can never be completed as it cannot cover every situation and catch up with the high-speeded society. In my view, to disobey or resist individually is powerless in front of the whole systems of laws and certainly not the best way to truly solve the preblems.

First, to disobey individually has small or no chance to change the conflict of law, but has posibilities to offend legal sancity. Law is the base of a society, which means every amendment of the law will have a deep influence in the society. A changeable legal environment will result in an unrest social environment, and no society would like to afford the risk for any single individual. And unnecessarily, one may cost not only time and money, but also the credit or even their freedom. What’s worse, the “sacrifice” of the individual will even be unacceptable to the group of people he stands for and contrarily threaten the core interests of them.

What’s more, different people have different expectations towards “a just law”, even if they sucseed, it may turn out to be a more “unjust” law. In fact, to mend unjust laws is a huge mission of the entire legal system in order to keep the society stable by considering the interests of most organizations and individuals. While most individuals tend to unfairly concern more about the interests of the class they actually belong to. For example, people from middle class care more about the social insurance and the education policy towards their descentants; but people of a lower class will hope to enjoy the protection of employment and financial aids from the law. This illustrates clearly that the standar of being just differs from people to people and proves that law can never be completed.

Yet, there are other wiser and more practical ways to suggest a legal amendment. People can lead a discuss in public, on a report and on the internet, about the flaw of the contemporary law which will call up people who share the same point and may draw attention of some legal esperts to join; or people can connect with some legal adviser or legal agency for professional help ensure what they sugest is reasonal and practical; people can also write to or even visit the legal organization to have a effectical suggestion to make sure that their sound will be fully heard.

In sum, to disobey a low is the last choice to present one’s disagreement about the law. Every individual in a society has responsibility to obey the contenporary legal rule, even resistance should under the limitaion, so that the social environment can possiblely be harmony.

tanyujing2UID: 2600111

09/02/13 ISSUE 17 “There are two kinds 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.” Does individual have the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws? The speaker claims, to extent the obligation of people to obey just laws, those individuals who dare to challenge the unjust laws are of more importance to the society. I concede that in any developing and(or) developed society, laws can never be completed as it cannot cover every situation and catch up with the high-speeded society. In my view, to disobey or resist individually is（用动名词吧，to do is +adj. 好像没有这个结构，不确定，是吗？你回信告诉我吧~！） powerless in front of the whole systems of laws and certainly not the best way to truly solve the preblems. First, to disobey individually has small or no chance to change the conflict of law, but has posibilities（主语应该是人吧？） to offend legal sancity. Law is the base of a society, which means every amendment of the law will have a deep influence in the society. A changeable legal environment will result in an unrest social environment, and no society would like to afford the risk for any single individual. And unnecessarily, one may cost not only time and money, but also the credit or even their freedom. What’s worse, the “sacrifice” of the individual will even be unacceptable to the group of people he stands for and contrarily threaten the core interests of them. What’s more, different people have different expectations towards “a just law”, even if they sucseed, it may turn out to be a more “unjust” law. In fact, to mend unjust laws is a huge mission of the entire legal system in order to keep the society stable by considering the interests of most organizations and individuals. While most individuals tend to unfairly concern more about the interests of the class they actually belong to. For example, people from middle class care more about the social insurance and the education policy towards their descentants; but people of a lower class will hope to enjoy the protection of employment and financial aids from the law. This illustrates clearly that the standar of being just differs from people to people and proves that law can never be completed. Yet, there are other wiser and more practical ways to suggest a legal amendment. People can lead a discuss in public, on a report and on the internet, about the flaw of the contemporary law which will call up people who share the same point and may draw attention of some legal esperts to join; or people can connect with some legal adviser or legal agency for professional help ensure what they sugest is reasonal and practical; people can also write to or even visit the legal organization to have a effectical suggestion to make sure that their sound will be fully heard. In sum, to disobey a low is the last choice to present one’s disagreement about the law. Every individual in a society has responsibility to obey the contenporary legal rule, even resistance should under the limitaion, so that the social environment can possiblely be harmony.（harmonious）

恩，ccd的语言啊，思维啊都很不错的，我来总结一下你的论证思路哈，看你是不是这样的：首先，你的反驳点是“要不要resist”,然后你的结论是“在驳杂的法律体系中，个人的resist不是解决问题的最好的方式”。第二段，继续论述为什么个人的努力不太起作用的原因。第三段，从”unjust”和”just”的角度来说，法律没有所谓的公平或者不公平之分，随着人们所属的利益集团不同而不同罢了。第四段，对法律的修改提出个人建议，——最好来段conclusion说，“多数民众参与的法律的修改和制定，才是相对完美的法律” 最后，扣紧了第一段总结。分析你的思路之后，觉得要是段和段之间的联系再紧密就更好啦,特别是第二段和第三段之间的过渡~

ccdUID: 2535452

2# tanyujing2

嗯嗯~你说得很对，我的整体思路还不够连贯和深入展开。。谢谢谢谢~
下次我要先把文章整体把握住才好！

文中你指出的错误都是对的！嘻。。终于有人真正意义上地改我文章了！！感动。。