issue17 [0710G +U Aug小组]第14次作业

571633UID: 2333480

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 490          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-7 9:06:24

As the speaker's connotation, every citizen should obey just laws because it is his responsibility to do so, while it is more vital to disobey and resist unjust laws. Further reflection tells me that the writer's opinion ignores many practical problems. As far as I am concerned, everybody should obey the rules of the society which is recognized by the majority while resist unjust laws which demolish the interests of the majority.

First of all, whether each individual in the society should obey just law while at the same time to disobey and resist unjust laws depends on the issue of how to make difference between the just and unjust laws. Such opinion exists in my mind that the laws always protect the interests of some group of people while it may demolish other's. For example, Roosevelt is charismatic president fraught with optimism. During his first presidency the nation and its people sunk into the worst depression of its history, however, it's Roosevelt's New Deal make the country gradually conquer the depression of economic crisis. Nevertheless, it is said in the New Deal that the capitalist should produce less goods than ever before so this law may demolish the profits of the company but on the other hand the peasant and unemployed workers can benefit from the law because the things sold in the shops was cheaper. Consequently we can hardly identify whether a law is just or unjust only viewing them at only one aspect.

What's more, we the citizen should obey the rules of the society otherwise some disturbtion will be rise. Frankly speaking, let us assume that when a law is progromated, but millions of people disobey the rule. In this circumstance there will be a disrurbtion in the society that it can hardly meet the majority's interests. Of course before the law was publish, the law should to investigate the opinion of the citizen in order to meet the interests of as many as people as possible. Based on that assumption, we the citizen should obey these rules and regulations.

However, if we are willing to obey all the rules, it is always dangerous because it is the source of the corruption and non-democracy. In the democratic society, most of the regulations and the rules can protect the profits of the majority, however, other countries may fails to achieve this. So if the laws are unjust which are identified by most individuals, we may not obey them in order to protect our interests through it is dangerous sometimes.

Simply put, without obey the just laws we may readily be anarchism which will be cause of disturbtion. Of course it can hardly meet the interested of the people. While at the same time without disobey the undemocratic laws because there will be corruption if we obey them. Therefore, it is our duty to identify the laws and obey the laws that is conformed by the majority.

多谢xiefen在工作之余还给我看文章，并提出很好的建议。继续努力。

he09081982UID: 2341433

好比

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 490          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-7 9:06:24

As the speaker's connotation, every citizen should obey just laws because it is his responsibility to do so, while it is more vital to disobey and resist unjust laws. Further reflection tells me that the writer's opinion ignores many practical problems. As far as I am concerned, everybody should obey the rules of the society which is recognized by the majority while resist unjust laws which demolish the interests of the majority. （我感觉你最后一句的观点和作者意思差不多呀，为什么还要用Further reflection tells me that the writer's opinion ignores many practical problems来反驳作者？？）

First of all, whether each individual in the society should obey just law while at the same time to disobey and resist unjust laws depends on the issue of how to make difference between the just and unjust laws. Such opinion exists in my mind that the laws always protect the interests of some group of people while it may demolish other's. For example, Roosevelt is charismatic president fraught with optimism. During his first presidency the nation and its people sunk into the worst depression of its history, however, it's Roosevelt's New Deal make the country gradually conquer the depression of economic crisis. Nevertheless, it is said in the New Deal that the capitalist should produce less goods than ever before so this law may demolish the profits of the company but on the other hand the peasant and unemployed workers can benefit from the law because the things sold in the shops was cheaper. Consequently we can hardly identify whether a law is just or unjust only viewing them at only one aspect.（例子挺详细的，呵呵，也和自己分论点挂上钩，值得鼓励）

What's more, we the citizen should obey the rules of the society otherwise some disturbtion（convulsion） will be rise. Frankly speaking, let us assume that when a law is progromated, （established）but millions of people disobey the rule. In this circumstance there will be a disrurbtion（convulsion）  in the society that it can hardly meet the majority's interests. Of course before the law was publish(published), the law should to investigate the opinion of the citizen in order to meet the interests of as many as people as possible.( the opinions of the citizen should be investigated in order to make the law meet the interests of as many as people as possible.) Based on that assumption, we the citizen should obey these rules and regulations.

However, if we are willing to obey all the rules, it is always dangerous because it is the source of the corruption and non-democracy. In the democratic society, most of the regulations and the rules can protect the profits of the majority,(；) however, other countries may fails（fail） to achieve this. So if the laws are unjust which are identified by most individuals, we may not obey them in order to protect our interests through it is dangerous sometimes.

Simply put, without obey the just laws we may readily be anarchism which will be cause of disturbtion（convulsion）. Of course it can hardly meet the interested (interests) of the people. While at the same time without disobey （disobeying） the undemocratic laws because there will be corruption if we obey them(用there will be corruption easily happening取代划线部分). Therefore, it is our duty to identify the laws and obey the laws that is conformed by the majority.

我感觉这篇文章你并没有反驳作者的意思，你和作者意见是差不多一致的呀。

我写的时候是反驳作者的，觉得人们不应该贸然违背法律，尽管它不公正，可也不要去break法律。我认为这种角度才是反驳。。你属于agree的意见。
给你改作文，会督促我自己写作业，大家互相帮助共同前进吧～！
加油～～

571633UID: 2333480

谢谢啦 改的那么详细

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

你的最新贴被关闭了，所以就贴到这里来。。：）

TOPIC: ARGUMENT65 - The following appeared in a memo from the president of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States.

"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses."


Citing a recent survey that the subscribers of Cheeses of the World prefer domestic cheeses, the writer of the memo said the cheese stores should discontinue stocking the imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses because all domestic chddar cheeses were the five best-selling cheeses in the newest stores(总结时没说全，作者提供的论据还有其他的。). Nevertheless, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.

First of all, the memo said that five best-selling cheeses at the newest store were all domestic cheeses, （;）however, it can hardly render any support to the problem. The fact that the domestic cheeses only sold best in the newest stores can't guarantee that all the stores of company can benefit if they begin to sell the domestic cheeses. Consequently I don't ascribe the perversity on my part but rather to the inconsequence of the fact which is deficient in common sense that I can hardly reconcile myself to the lesson, so in order to convince us the arguer should do more investigation about more stores（on）selling domestic cheeses.

What's more, according to the Cheeses of the World, among its subscribers there is an increasing preference for domestic cheeses. Lacking the evidence such as the total number of the subscribers, their genders(需要这种background??), their ages and so forth, we can hardly draw the conclusion that they are representative. So we need more information about the subscribers of the magazine so as to know more about the fact of the problem. （这里我认为反驳点在于world magazine可能代表的是全世界总体情况，并不一定适用于美国的情况。需要考虑他们的背景，但不是性别年龄问题吧？应该说饮食习惯之类的。。）
Quite apart from the logistic problem, the arguer fails to tell us why to discontinue stocking the imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses is the best way to improve profits.（这个反驳点是一定要谈的～！） Any decision aimed at solving the problem of the cheese selling should be based on more information about whether the imported cheese is profitable while the domestic cheeses is popular among the customers to gather sufficient data in order to identify the actual cause of the problem.（感觉没谈开来，其实句子不用太长，谈清楚就好了。）
Simply put, the arguer's recommendation is not well presented because it is based on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before we can accept it, the arguer should provide more information - through a local survey or study - that whether all the domestic cheeses are profitable while the imported cheeses are unpopular. What's more, the arguer should give more information about the subscribers of the Cheeses of the World rather than relying on this slim information.（最后的总结模板这里用得感觉还不错！）

继续加油！