[YB1]七月2日作业 by 644

liusisi644644UID: 2573256

Issue180: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because behavior cannot be legislated.
Cs1.肯定在某种程度上不能将道德准则立成法律（会阻碍人的自由，每个人的价值观不同,人民公社）:
Cs2.但是一些行为不能只依靠道德来规范，必须用法律（环境污染，禁烟）
Cs3.不同的地方区分道德与法律的范畴不一样，要根据实际情况（买假货）
Cs4.法律现在的不完善是造成道德意识不能完全体现的原因（见义勇为）。
总结：法律不能面面俱到，需要依靠道德来完善； 有些道德准则必须上升到有法律保障而有些触及到违反人类自由的道德准则则不必立法来解决。

The speaker claims that lost of laws are ineffective to many society problems because behavior cannot be legislated. I think it is appropriate to some extent as it related personal behavior. However, when it counts to the environment pollution, just like smoking, legislated morality is necessary for entire society.

Obviously, personal private behavior cannot be legislated because that will prevent our ordinary communicating and action. Everybody has different sense of worth, and it is difficult find a balance among the public, so legislate people’s personal private behavior is not advisable. A telling example of People’s Recreation Community in china involves all the countrymen hand in their food supplies and eat meals together every day during 1958-1984. All the countrymen were required changes their behavior on mode of production and life style. In fact, it didn’t obtain any significant achievement to the society, on the other contrary; china’s economic backed off for several years in that time.

Nevertheless, some moral action should be legislated because they can cause enormous
destroy to human being. One apt current illustration of this point is environmental conservation. In most places, smoking is not illegal because cigarette is a more important part of tax so that
it is impossible to legislate for forbidding smoking. Their government relies on common sense to reduce the number of smoking so that they abate the air pollution and greenhouse effect. However, it is not enough to protect our environment. Only rely on people’s moral action is weak apparently and, moreover, we need translate this kind of moral action to be legislated morality for defending the place we live by.

Admittedly, the watershed between laws and morality is fuzzy. For instance, to buy false corn is not irregular in some countries. The people in there to buy it or not depends on their principle of morality. While in other countries, the dummy is forbidden by law, letting alone to product it. People should pay for that to buy fakes according to local laws.


Additionally, current laws are not so perfect that make common moral sense are not incarnated well. Make a simple ensample, as we know, gallantly rising to the occasion is a distingue moral behavior on standard of conduct. But in most cases, we are not brave to lend a hand to a abject person who is suffered from very dangerous occasion because we are afraid that our vital interest would be come to harm considering there no guarantee of laws to ensure ourselves’ possession are very safe.

To sum up, the laws and legal system are not complete enough so that them need moral behavior to make up the unshaped points. What most important is that some moral behavior must be legislated as to status in quo. On the other side, legislating personal moral behavior is neither advisable nor practicable.







argument51:
开头：简单陈述原文
Cs1.最主要的就是第二次感染会不会发生 ？发生概率大不大？
CS2.就算发生概率大，作者引用的调查也不对。有三点
CS3.首先，两组人的身体状况没有证据证明是一样的
CS4.第二，医生各有所长，不能排除医生的水平问题（对症下药）
CS5.糖片可能是有害的，而抗生素根本没起作用，没证据提供证明。
总结：需要提供更具体的数据来说明第二次感染会高比例发生，要提供具体证据证明实验控制的变量只有一个，而其他条件要完全相似或相等。

This argument claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The arguer cites a study that antibiotics are good for patients’ recovers. Carefully examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals there is less credible support to the arguer’s claim.

The most obviously problem is that secondary infections will occur in most muscle strain patients? The arguer provides no evidence that a large percentage of patients who have muscle strain would be easily caught secondary infections. If the secondary infections are not happens at a high percentage, there would be no need that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

In the next place, the study cited by arguer is weak to support the claim. As we know, there are only variable when a experiment was going on, and other conditional elements should be keep the same so that we can rule out all the possible changes which involves by other elements. As to this claim, the arguer doesn’t afford any proof that the experiment’s conditional elements are controlled well. There are three primary unreasonable points.

Firstly, the patients arranged in first group may are young man who have good body whose physiological function is very robust while the patients arranged in second group may are senior citizen or children who have relatively infirm body whose physiological function is very weak. It is unfair to claim that antibiotics is the only diathesis that make patients’ recuperation time is much shorter than second group.

Secondly, the doctor in first group is a specialist in sports medicine whiles the doctor in second group is a general physician. Obviously, Dr. Newland has more specific skills and experience in muscle strain, and he can adopt more effective treatment throughout the recuperation time. Unless ruling out this possible explanation for the decrease recuperation time, the arguer cannot justify the antibiotics is impactful to patients’ recovery.

Last but not the least, two group patients respectively take the antibiotics and sugar pills. It not means that the antibiotics is effectual while the sugar pills is ineffectual. We also can consider that the antibiotics is useless while the sugar pills is harmful or prevents the patients recovering. Because the arguer doesn’t lend any testimony to testify what the efficacies about two kinds of medicines in this treatment.

In sum, the arguer’s claim is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it he must provide clear evidence that the frondose percentage of secondary infections and a scientific study, especially the details about experiment’s conditional elements.

catheshaoUID: 2597624

The speaker claims that lost of laws are ineffective to many society problems because behavior cannot be legislated. I think it is appropriate to some extent as it related personal behavior. However, when it counts to the environment pollution, just like smoking, legislated morality is necessary for entire society.

Obviously, personal private behavior cannot be legislated because that will prevent our ordinary communicating and action. Everybody has different sense of worth(楼主想说价值观？), and it is difficult to find a balance among the public, so legislate（该用分词) people’s personal private behavior is not advisable. A telling example of People’s Recreation Community in china involves all the countrymen hand in their food supplies and eat meals together every day during 1958-1984?. All the countrymen were required changes their behavior on mode of production and life style. In fact, it didn’t obtain any significant achievement to the society, on the other contrary; china’s economic backed off for several years in that time.

Nevertheless, some moral action should be legislated because they can cause enormous
destroy to human being. One apt current illustration of this point is environmental conservation. In most places, smoking is not illegal because cigarette is a more(very) important part of tax so that
it is impossible to legislate for forbidding smoking. Their government relies on common sense to reduce the number of smoking so that they abate the air pollution and greenhouse effect. However, it is not enough to protect our environment. Only rely on people’s moral action is weak apparently and, moreover, we need translate this kind of moral action to be legislated morality for defending the place we live by.

Admittedly, the watershed between laws and morality is fuzzy. For instance, to buy false corn is not irregular in some countries. The people in there to buy it or not depends on their principle of morality. While in other countries, the dummy is forbidden by law, letting alone to product it. People should pay for that to buy fakes according to local laws.


Additionally, current laws are not so perfect that make common moral sense are not incarnated well. Make a simple ensample, as we know, gallantly rising to the occasion is a distingue moral behavior on standard of conduct. But in most cases, we are not brave to lend a hand to a abject person who is suffered from very dangerous occasion because we are afraid that our vital interest would be come to harm considering there no guarantee of laws to ensure ourselves’ possession are very safe.

To sum up, the laws and legal system are not complete enough so that themy need moral behavior to make up the unshaped points. What most important is that some moral behavior must be legislated as to status in quo. On the other side, legislating personal moral behavior is neither advisable nor practicable.

lz英语系的？ 好多词看不懂啊……

catheshaoUID: 2597624

This argument claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The arguer cites a study that antibiotics are good for patients’ recovers. Carefully examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals there is less credible support to the arguer’s claim.

The most obviously problem is that secondary infections will occur in most muscle strain patients? The arguer provides no evidence that a large percentage of patients who have muscle strain would be easily caught secondary infections. If the secondary infections are not happens at a high percentage, there would be no need that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

In the next place, the study cited by arguer is weak to support the claim. As we know, there are only variable when a experiment was going on, and other conditional elements should be keept the same so that we can rule out all the possible changes which involves by other elements. （这句直接说 cntrol Additional variables 就可以了吧，我们老师整天嚷嚷控制额外变量）As to this claim, the arguer doesn’t afford any proof that the experiment’s conditional elements are controlled well. There are three primary unreasonable points.

Firstly,（这样分好么……） the patients arranged in first group may are young man who have good body whose physiological function is very robust while the patients arranged in second group may are senior citizen or children who have relatively infirm body whose physiological function is very weak. It is unfair to claim that antibiotics is the only diathesis that make patients’ recuperation time is much shorter than second group.

Secondly, the doctor in first group is a specialist in sports medicine whiles the doctor in second group is a general physician. Obviously, Dr. Newland has more specific skills and experience in muscle strain, and he can adopt more effective treatment throughout the recuperation time. Unless ruling out this possible explanation for the decrease recuperation time, the arguer cannot justify the antibiotics is impactful to patients’ recovery.

Last but not the least, two group patients respectively take the antibiotics and sugar pills. It not means that the antibiotics is effectual while the sugar pills is ineffectual. We also can consider that the antibiotics is useless while the sugar pills is harmful or prevents the patients recovering. Because the arguer doesn’t lend any testimony to testify what the efficacies about two kinds of medicines in this treatment.

In sum, the arguer’s claim is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it he must provide clear evidence that the frondose percentage of secondary infections and a scientific study, especially the details about experiment’s conditional elements.

糖片有害这一点有点牵强啊，因为结果不是和正常期望的比较的么……

liusisi644644UID: 2573256

谢谢～感激不尽～～～～
3# catheshao