[9.30第二次作业]issue17

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that every individual should abide by just laws drafted in the country they live, without doubt, which is their responsibility and obligations whenever and wherever. However, the idea, disobeying and resisting unjust laws are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted distinction between just and unjust laws and the different conclusion can be got under different social formation. Sometimes, disobey unjust laws may be indeedly more crucial(为增加首尾的联系改为此句).

Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental yardstick against which the individual, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In term of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control). From of old until in now, almost none dynasty in the history can restfully exist without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens.

As we all know, in the class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result in an inclination when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate by the side of ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society,

the laws set that all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, finally litter could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not largely depend on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life to the oppressed people, most of them accepted it as the designed destiny by the god except minority. The slavery had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and bravely led his comrade-in-arms to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Fortunately, they made it! Oppositely thinking, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws like most of all the other people, perhaps now is still going through the old society. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws.

The conclusion can be substantiated as, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the citizens in the country without unjust laws, everyone has obligation to comply with the rules. To the contrast, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history.

Luise8891UID: 2906459

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Orange-建议
I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that every individual(all the individuals) should abide by just laws drafted in the country they live, without doubt,(应该是without any exception,并且与后面从句意思有重复，建议省去) which is their responsibility and obligations（用一个就行） whenever and wherever. However, the idea, (that)disobeying and resisting unjust laws
are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted distinction between just and unjust laws and different conclusion due to different social formation. What is the definition of unjust laws? Who is the object of bad-justice?
小结：第一段同意遵守just law的重要性，但是关于unjust law 的态度很令人费解，建议在最后一句点出。前面提出的问题后面没有解答。
Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental
yardstick against which the individuals, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In term of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee(guarantees) there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control).(过于中式化的翻译) From of old until in now, almost none dynasty（none of the dynasties） in the history can restfully exist(建议用survive for a certain length of time) without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens.
小结：指出遵从just law 的重要性。但论证不够充分，要么从国家，社会，团体个人角度来谈论它的重要性，要么从社会生活的各个方面，如政治，经济，文化教育等方面来谈，或者从其他的侧面，如各个社会阶段，或者其他，重点是要有一个完整系统，在每一个方面都重要，这样才有说服力，并且会让人觉得你思维很清晰。从对个人作用一下在跨到封建社会，会让人感觉很突兀。

As we all know, in the class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result(results) in an inclination(what inclination？应该用定语说明白) when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate by the side of（会产生歧义，by the side of 表示在附近；和什么一起比较。建议直接用ruling class） ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society,

the laws set that （是法律规定吧）all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, （because of the laws）finally litter（little） could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not(unfairness) largely depend(depends) on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life to the oppressed people, most of them accepted it as the designed destiny by the god except minority. The slavery (in the U.S.) had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and (歧义，建议改成so…that…句式)bravely led his comrade-in-arms to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Fortunately, they made it!
（很突兀，应该说明白）Oppositely thinking, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws ，like most of all the other people, perhaps now is still going through the old society. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws.
小结：论证充分，但应该更有条理一些。
The conclusion can be substantiated as（In conclusion 还有应该整段都是conclusion,而不是只有这一句）, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the citizens in the country without unjust laws, everyone has obligation to comply with the rules. To the contrast（In contrast）, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history.
小结：核心观点是在有阶级的社会，人们应该fight for just law,而在没有阶级的社会，人们有义务来遵从法律。暗含的意思是在没有阶级的社会里所有的法律都是just。
总结:句式富于变化，词汇用得很舒服。但有一些中式化的句子，你如果看一些英文原版报纸，你会发现其实句子用词都不是很复杂而是简单准确，但是翻译的中文就比较复杂。所以有时你硬按中文翻回去就会发现句子的意思不是那么清晰准确了。

但是文章的结构比较零散，虽然只有两层意思，开头结尾和正文没有紧密联系，开头提出的问题没有回答，怎样定义just law和unjustlaw还有很多地方留下让别人钻你的漏洞的地方。为了封住别人的嘴，你应该defend,像没有阶层的社会的所有法律都是just,完全遵从没有怀疑的余地，还有怎么定义just law，just law永远都是just law 吗？那些看似just law,但是很多人可以在里面钻空子，即法律出发点是保护大众，但还不完善的也称作just law?

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that every individual should abide by just laws drafted in the country they live, without doubt, which is their responsibility and obligations whenever and wherever. However, the idea, disobeying and resisting unjust laws are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted distinction between just and unjust laws and the different conclusion can be got under different social formation(不同的社会形态导致不同结论). Sometimes, disobey unjust laws may be indeedly more crucial

Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental yardstick against which the individual, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In term of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control). From of old until in now, almost none dynasty in the history can restfully exist without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens.

As we all know, in the class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result in an inclination when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate point against ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society,

the laws say that all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, finally litter could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not largely depend on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life to the oppressed people, most of them accepted it as the designed destiny by the god except minority. The slavery had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and bravely led his comrade-in-arms to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Fortunately, both of them succeeded! Oppositely thinking, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws like most of all the other people, perhaps now is still going through the old society. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws.

The conclusion can be substantiated as, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the citizens in the country without unjust laws, everyone has obligation to comply with the just laws and discovery unjust laws then fight against them. Moreover, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history.

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion broad是什么意思啊that every individual should abide by just laws drafted in the country they live 我觉得这个定于没有必要，为什么非要强调自己国家的？, without doubt, which is their responsibility and obligations whenever and wherever 这个用法很少见啊. However, the idea, disobeying and resisting unjust laws are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted distinction between just and unjust laws and the different conclusion can be got under different social formation(不同的社会形态导致不同结论). Sometimes, disobey unjust laws may be indeedly more crucial


逻辑有点问题，你先是同意了，然后说放抗更好，那只前就不要同意了，你可以说尽管作者说的有一定道理。还有句子表达有点问题。最后的sometimes这句话也有点不知所云，而且没有定语啊，对于什么crucial啊

Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental yardstick against which the individual, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In terms of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control). From of old until in now, almost none dynasty in the history can restfully exist without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens.

As we all know, in the
class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result in an inclination when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate point against ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society, the laws say （stipulate规定，用say太含糊了）that all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, finally litter could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not largely depend on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life to （of）the oppressed people, most of them accepted it as the designed destiny by the god except minority 建议放在most of them 后边. The slavery had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and bravely led his comrade-in-arms （这个词查过么？我查不到）to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Fortunately, both of them succeeded! 这句话显得很幼稚，换一种说法Oppositely thinking 说法不当, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws like most of all the other people 前边都most of，就不要用all了, perhaps now is still going through the old society 表达不好，可换成（perhaps the old society is still existing）. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws.
这段主题句不明显,可以在第一句话先提出来一下
The conclusion can be substantiated as, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the citizens in the country without unjust laws, everyone has obligation to comply with the just laws and discovery （discover）unjust laws then fight against them. Moreover, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history.

和上一次相比有了很大进步，逻辑比较强了，但是第一个问题是段落前边缺少主题句，可以找出一句做核心的句子或者高度概括一句。
第二，有的用词比较生僻晦涩，不能很好的和句子连在一起，句子之间的组合也略显生硬。

继续加油！

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion (大致同意) that every individual should abide by just laws drafted by country , without doubt, which is their responsibility and obligations no matter when and where. However, the idea, disobeying and resisting unjust laws are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted distinction between just and unjust laws and the different conclusion can be got under different social formation(这结论未免过于武断因为未给出公平与不公平法律的判断标准，而且结论会因不同的社会形态而不同，改为以下如何：may be an arbitraty decision prior to differentiating just and unjust laws, even so, different social formation can lead to different conclusion.). What's more, disobey and fighting agaist unjust laws may be indeed more crucial in a sense, for which push the change of community organization. 逻辑有点问题，你先是同意了，然后说放抗更好，那只前就不要同意了，你可以说尽管作者说的有一定道理。还有句子表达有点问题。最后的sometimes这句话也有点不知所云，而且没有定语啊，对于什么crucial啊 回答：我同意的只是要遵守公平的法律这一部分，however后面就提出了不同意的以及原因，最后提出自己认为某种意义上反抗unjust laws 更重要. Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental yardstick against which the individual, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In terms of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control). From of old until in now(从古至今), almost none dynasty in the history can restfully exist without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens. Just laws as we should comply with, how about unjust ones?(加主题句) As we all know, in the class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result in an inclination when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate to ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society, the laws stipulate that all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, finally litter could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not largely depend on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life  of the oppressed people, most of them except minority accepted it as the designed destiny by the god. The slavery had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and bravely led his comrade-in-arms （战友，能查到）to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Finally, both of them change most unjust  laws into just ones! Contrarily, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws like most of  the other people , perhaps the old society is still existing. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws. 这段主题句不明显,可以在第一句话先提出来一下 The conclusion can be substantiated as, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the whole citizens in the country so that there are inexistenct unjust laws, everyone has obligation to abide by the just laws and discover some imperfect rules then better them. Moreover, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history. 附：新的个人观点 首先提出讨论法律分为三种：公正/不公正/不能判断的三部分 承认just法律必须遵守；

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion (大致同意)
这个有这么说的么？你可以说I agree with … to some extent that every individual should abide by just laws drafted by country , without doubt, which is their responsibility and obligations no matter when and where. However, the idea, disobeying and resisting unjust laws are even more significant than observance of just ones, may be an arbitrary decision for the uncharted 这个词是不是太大了distinction between just and unjust laws and the different conclusion can be got under different social formation(这结论未免过于武断因为未给出公平与不公平法律的判断标准，而且结论会因不同的社会形态而不同，改为以下如何：may be an arbitraty decision prior to differentiating？这个我还是不能理解may be 这个是什么用法？ just and unjust laws, even so, different social formation can lead to different conclusion.). What's more, disobey and fighting agaist unjust laws may be indeed more crucial in a sense, for which push the change of community organization.


逻辑有点问题，你先是同意了，然后说放抗更好，那只前就不要同意了，你可以说尽管作者说的有一定道理。还有句子表达有点问题。最后的sometimes这句话也有点不知所云，而且没有定语啊，对于什么crucial啊
回答：我同意的只是要遵守公平的法律这一部分，however后面就提出了不同意的以及原因，最后提出自己认为某种意义上反抗unjust laws 更重要.
你的逻辑我终于看明白了，但是是不是语言表达有些问题啊。


Just laws, drawn up by the state, are the most fundamental yardstick against which the individual, regardless of the president or a plain citizen, can measure their daily performance. In terms of the laws, the citizens establish a lowest permissible level of actions, which guarantee there are judgment criteria when someone commits a crime. Otherwise, the whole of the world would be a loose-sand state (out of control). From of old until in now(从古至今), 有of old 的用法么？almost none dynasty in the history can restfully exist without laws, indicating the importance of observance laws, but we can’t infer all of the laws are fair to the citizens.

Just laws as as用法明显不对啊we should comply with, how about unjust ones?(加主题句) As we all know, in the class society, the state power only stands for the interest of governing class, which result in an inclination when they draft the constitution and some other legislation. Obviously, unjust laws generate to ruled class. For instance, in the feudal society, the laws stipulate that all of the peasants must turn in enough grains, without any pay from the feudal barons, finally litter could be left for them to live on. In spite of the existing truth, the judgment of different person on laws about fairness or not largely depend on their own values. In every society, though cruel exploit caused impoverished life
of the oppressed people, most of them except minority accepted it as the designed destiny by the god. The slavery had lasted for so long until Lincoln deeply realized that the current rules were so unjust and bravely led his comrade-in-arms
（战友，能查到）to resist the dominating regime. The similar example can be set such as Chairman Mao in China. Finally, both of them change most unjust  laws into just ones! Contrarily, if the pioneers had not stood out to resist but kept silence before the unjust laws like most of  the other people
, perhaps the old society is still existing. From this sense, resisting unjust laws is really more important than obeying the just laws.
这段主题句不明显,可以在第一句话先提出来一下

The conclusion can be substantiated as, in non-class society where the laws represent the interest of the whole citizens in the country so that there are inexistenct unjust laws, everyone has obligation to abide by the just laws and discover some imperfect rules then better them. Moreover, in class society where the unjust laws exist, citizen should fight for just laws, the process of which is a progress of history.
附：新的个人观点
首先提出讨论法律分为三种：公正/不公正/不能判断的三部分
承认just法律必须遵守；

可能是我理解有一些不对吧，不过确实语言表达有一些问题，还有一些词，感觉太大了，或者是和句子的感觉很不相符，希望你能在斟酌一下，如果自己觉得没问题的话也可以保留意见，呵呵。