【☆09GRE作文冲刺组☆】nkjancy.2月11号作业

nkjancyUID: 2549844

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."

The speaker states that unjust laws exist and every individual has the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with this statement insofar as that resisting the unjust laws in an appropriate way is ultimately beneficial to the evolution of legal system. However, in some measure, the speaker begs the question, by neglecting the fact that the individual opinions of the fairness are not the same in most cases.
In one important respect I agree with the speaker’s statement. A main goal of the law is fairness, which means that the law should sever to protect basic human rights, such as liberty and equal, and to treat everyone justly, howbeit the unfairness, even in the contemporary most democratic nations, inevitably undeniably exists. Accordingly, in order to guarantee the fairness of laws, every individual in a society should seek to protest the flawed laws rather, instead of only obeying the laws no matter whether just. Although resisting the unjust laws will cause short-term chaos sometimes, the unequal elements will be ultimately eliminated and in the end the stability of society comes back.
History is filled with the examples to illustrate this point. Consider the common example of Civil Rights Act, which became known as the Montgomery bus boycott. In the movement, the black people were aroused to withstand any abuse they encountered. And ultimately the Jim Crow Laws was abolished.
In addition, it is worth to notice that the approach to accomplish the goal. History lessons inform us violence is not the only way. As forgoing example, the movement did not carried about the violence or war.
Despite the merits of speaker’s claim, I find it problematic in one respect. Whether a law is just or unjust is not a straightforward issue. People often have different opinions to the same laws, because every people own his or her own standard and the judgment largely lies on the personal value system, which is relevant to social status, religious belief, and cultural background and so forth. The contrary attitude to the abortion aptly illustrates this point. On the one hand, abortion rights supporters, who believe that a woman has the freedom and right to make decisions about her own body, insist that abortion is just. On the other hand, anti-abortion advocates condemn abortion, since they deem that abortion is a subtle form of eugenics.
Moreover, with different financial interests, the conclusion may also be different, since laws mostly represents or emphasis the interests of a certain group. The laws absolutely just for everyone don’t exist. After all, in some sense, the chief function of laws is strike a balance among competing interests. For example, most people would view the laws forbidding emission from factories as just, since it is beneficial to long-term development and public heath and safety. But for the factories, preferring to act on behalf of their own financial interest, the laws are unjust, since they must make, at least, short-term sacrifices.
To sum up, individual ought to search proper way to amend or remove the flawed elements in the laws, far from simply obeying all laws. And even some costs should be paid, the endeavor is worth and the society will benefit ultimately. Nevertheless, before we make up our mind to take action, it is crucial to deliberate on the fairness of the law again, since it largely affected by individual value system and interests.


昨天宿舍网络断了，今天才发上来:)

hjjsherriffUID: 2459384

好的

hjjsherriffUID: 2459384

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."

     The speaker states that unjust laws exist and every individual has the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with this statement insofar as that resisting the unjust laws in an appropriate way is ultimately beneficial to the evolution of legal system. However, in some measure, the speaker begs the question, by neglecting the fact that the individual opinions of the fairness are not the same in most cases.
     In one important respect I agree with the speaker’s statement. A main goal of the law is fairness, which means that the law should sever to protect basic human rights, such as liberty and equal, and to treat everyone justly, howbeit the unfairness, even in the contemporary most democratic nations, inevitably undeniably exists. Accordingly, in order to guarantee the fairness of laws, every individual in a society should seek to protest the flawed laws rather, instead of only obeying the laws no matter whether just. Although resisting the unjust laws will cause short-term chaos sometimes, the unequal elements will be ultimately eliminated and in the end the stability of society comes back. History is filled with the examples to illustrate this point. Consider the common example of Civil Rights Act, which became known as the Montgomery bus boycott. In the movement, the black people were aroused to withstand any abuse they encountered. And ultimately the Jim Crow Laws was abolished.
     In addition, it is worth to notice that the approach to accomplish the goal. History lessons inform us violence is not the only way. As forgoing example, the movement did not carried about the violence or war.
Despite the merits of speaker’s claim, I find it problematic in one respect. Whether a law is just or unjust is not a straightforward issue. People often have different opinions to the same laws, because every people own his or her own standard and the judgment largely lies on the personal value system, which is relevant to social status, religious belief, and cultural background and so forth. The contrary attitude to the abortion aptly illustrates this point. On the one hand, abortion rights supporters, who believe that a woman has the freedom and right to make decisions about her own body, insist that abortion is just. On the other hand, anti-abortion advocates condemn abortion, since they deem that abortion is a subtle form of eugenics.
这一段说的好像跟中心句偏离了。
Moreover, with different financial interests, the conclusion may also be different, since laws mostly represents or emphasis the interests of a certain group. The laws absolutely just for everyone don’t exist. After all, in some sense, the chief function of laws is strike a balance among competing interests. For example, most people would view the laws forbidding emission from factories as just, since it is beneficial to long-term development and public heath and safety. But for the factories, preferring to act on behalf of their own financial interest, the laws are unjust, since they must make, at least, short-term sacrifices.
      To sum up, individual ought to search proper way to amend or remove the flawed elements in the laws, far from simply obeying all laws. And even some costs should be paid, the endeavor is worth and the society will benefit ultimately. Nevertheless, before we make up our mind to take action, it is crucial to deliberate on the fairness of the law again, since it largely affected by individual value system and interests.
觉得这个文章很好，很有逻辑性，语言很通顺，很高级，但是句式应该多一点，配有多种变化。