[分享] 每日一评！4.25！增加对该不该用gre难词的看法！

tomatoeggsUID: 82073

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."


According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.

开篇运用的是直截了当地指出原文的逻辑错误。然后进行分析，最后总结。这种用法类似与arguments，比较少见。不过对于我们中国学生来说则是驾轻就熟了，因为大家也许会感觉这比较容易入手吧，但依本人之见，我不太鼓励这种写法。因为请大家记住，这是issue，不是argument.
但是，还是有它的精华的：First, it wrongly…, and secondly, it recommends…
                        categorize…as either… or …


First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.


The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest（要解作“利益”的话，就应该为“interests”）, or stake（标准）, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.

在这我插一句：我觉得可以再补充一点，就是，laws本来就有很大的主观性存在，为什么？因为法律也是人定出来的呀。对于这一点，我们还可以有所发挥。


The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget.


Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious（极坏的） criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.关于这一段的说理和例子，我并不觉得很恰当。显然，作者想阐明原题第二句话观点的局限性，但这个例子不够persuasive.因为，他没有很好地指出究竟有无必要has the responsibility to disobey unjust laws.


In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

这篇issue不嫌我太丧尽天良的话，最多5分。因为，说理不太清楚兼逻辑性不太强。但有一点要肯定的是，他的转折句还有句法结构都值得我们借鉴。
归根结底，我们常以为gre作文就要狠命地进行难词堆砌，我以前发觉的一些上船的帖子里常常像炫耀自己是韦氏字典一样陈列很多很多的难词难句，不是不行而是需酌量，过了头让ets都看不懂你在说什么就死菜啦！综观全篇，最多发觉3个gre难词：jeopardize, precarious, egregious.所以，个人认为，还是“实质重于形式”要强好多。

SMMUID: 106624

I have read a web giving lots of statistic data on GRE AW. In essays deserving 6 score, about ?%　(sorry, I forgot the exact value) of words are words composed of more than two vowels（元音）. The statistician use such standard to judge the level of words you used. This may give you some hits on how to choose words in your GRE AW.

According to  my expirence, you must be very familiar with a word if you want to use it correctly under a test condition,

angeikimUID: 4857

关于难词使用问题请参照难词使用的帖子。