【喜洋洋杀G大队】pinoku.7月3号作业

pinokuUID: 2435028

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."

According to this statement,the speaker asserts that every citizen in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws,and disobey unjust laws.It has merit from normative standpoint,and I agree insofar that we should obey just laws.However,the speaker begs question by overlooking the difficulty of judging just laws and unjust laws,and the negative effect to society aroused by resisting unjust laws.

Admittedly,most of the laws in our society are just for they stand on the behalf of the majority,.Every individual should obey them undoubtedly for they are engaging in protect our interests.Firstly,these just laws play a
vital role in maintaining the social orders and,accordingly the orders of
our daily life.For example,without traffic rules,there will be a number of death for the reason of accident;without revenue paid to the government,there will never be enough
public facilities which are convenient for our daily life.On the other hand,we are able to protect our rights and interests by the means of restricting other people's unjustify deeds such as murder,steal and so on.

However,the law is defined as a rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority according to customs and interests of a certain community or state.It is difficult to distinguish between the just laws and unjust ones.As we are different from each other,we tend to
regard the same things differently according to our own interests.Therefore,a perspective or deed,seems so correct for one person,indeed menances other people's interests if he or she views the things in the light of other people's benefits.There is nowhere more true than on the issue of abortion.For people who have religious belief and deem the embryo as a life,abortion is as cruel as murder and of course should be prohibited by laws.However,providing that the mother has not prepared for the baby's coming,or she is too poor to bring up a child,thus the baby has to suffer poverty and other hardships if he or she is born,abortion,in this sense,seems to be understandable.Who is right between the both sides? Whether there is a just law for both sides?The answer is definitely no.

What is more,the formulating laws itself is actually a process requiring revision.Some laws are truely a little unjust,especially in some developing countries where the law syetem is waiting to be modified.Does that mean we can violate those seemingly
unfair laws?If we all began to reject the unjust laws,our society will undoubtedly finds it bogged down in the chaos.Furthermore,while laws seem unjust for a group of people,we should not lose the sight of the fact that legislation aims at restricting people's deeds,mainteining social rules.Abiding laws to some extent are one of the obligations that every conscious citizen should be well-aware.However,disobey laws will result in the social instability as well as the distrust of government,which undermines the social development.For example,unjust laws really exist in China nowdays,especially in the aspects of protecting peasant's rights.If it distracts us from the economic construction,it is do harm to our society.

Finally,when faced with the unjust laws which impede our interest,the wise choice is to dissuss with related departments rather than resist them publicly.The social security system in China,for instance,always focuses on the interests of city residents which menances peasant's interests,reduces theire passion for agriculture.Fortunately,their complaints,by the means of the people's congress,began to be recognized by Chinese government.Now the government enacts a series of laws to maintain the peasant's interests.Moreover,it is government's responsibility to modify the unjust laws. For example,in the earlier stage of reform and openning in China,the government formulated preferential laws for coastal cities such as Guangzhou,Shenzheng.It tends to sponsor other areas like western areas.

In sum,I concede that we should obey the just laws.Nonetheless,when we faced unjust laws,we should tend to discuss them with the government,and try to modify them rather than resist them blindly.Furthermore,government owns the responsibility to improve laws according to social changes.
   




A38
In this argument,the arguer recommends that the daily use of Lchthaid derived from fish oil can prevent colds and reduce absenteeism.To justify this claim,the arguer provides the evidence that people in nearby East Meria consume a large number of fish and seldom visit the doctor.Moreover,considering colds are the reason most frequently given for absences,thus,West Meria should follow the recommendation in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

To begin with,the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the high comsumption of fish and the small number of people catching a cold.It is quite possible that other factors contribute to prevent colds.For example,maybe air in East Meria is so fresh that people there seldom catch a cold.In addition,the arguer fails to take into account the frequency people take exercise.Do people living in East Meria like doing exercise such as running,walking?If so,it is understandable that they visit the doctor only once or twice per year.Though people go to hospital rarely,it does not mean that people do not got sick.Maybe people are reluctant to go to hospital.Maybe visiting a doctor is expensive for them,and they would rather stay at home when they catch a cold.

What is more,even if eating lots of fish could prevent colds,the arguer draws a hasty conclusion that eating Lchthaid is equal to eating fish.In fact,no evidence is shown to demonstrate that Lchthaid contains all the components beneficial to prevent colds.Therefore,we must assume that Lchthaid is ineffective.Moreover,without data of scientific study,it is doubtful that lchthaid may has side effect which do harm for our health.

Additionally, even colds are the reason most frequently given for absence,the arguer cannot persuade me to believe it is true.In fact,colds,as we all know,may be the excuse most frequently used for absence.Without a detailed analysis of the reasons for absence in West Meria,it would be sheer folly to attribute the absence to colds.

In summary,this argument has several patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands.To make it logically acceptable,the arguer would have to demonstrate that high consumption of fish can really prevent colds.Furthermore,we need more information regarding the reason for absence in West Meria.

ncnysUID: 2347325

1# pinoku

According to this statement,the speaker asserts that every citizen in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws,and disobey unjust laws.It has merit from normative standpoint,and I agree insofar that we should obey just laws.However,the speaker begs question by overlooking the difficulty of judging just laws and unjust laws,and the negative effect to society aroused by resisting unjust laws. 开门见山，我喜欢

Admittedly,most of the laws in our society are just for they stand on the behalf of the majority,.Every individual should obey them undoubtedly for they are engaging in protect our interests.Firstly,second在哪里？these just laws play a
vital role in maintaining the social orders and,accordingly the orders of
our daily life.For example,without traffic rules,there will be a number of death for the reason of accident;without revenue paid to the government,there will never be enough
public facilities which are convenient for our daily life.On the other hand,we are able to protect our rights and interests by the means of restricting other people's unjustify deeds such as murder,steal and so on.

However,the law is defined as a rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority according to customs and interests of a certain community or state.It is difficult to distinguish between the just laws and unjust ones.As we are different from each other,we tend to
regard the same things differently according to our own interests.Therefore,a perspective or deed,seems so correct for one person,indeed menances other people's interests if he or she views the things in the light of other people's benefits.There is nowhere more true than on the issue of abortion.For people who have religious belief and deem the embryo as a life,abortion is as cruel as murder and of course should be prohibited by laws.However,providing that the mother has not prepared for the baby's coming,or she is too poor to bring up a child,thus the baby has to suffer poverty and other hardships if he or she is born,abortion,in this sense,seems to be understandable.Who is right between the both sides? Whether there is a just law for both sides?The answer is definitely no.这个例子尤其好！

What is more,the formulating laws itself is actually a process requiring revision.Some laws are truely a little unjust,especially in some developing countries where the law syetem is waiting to be modified.Does that mean we can violate those seemingly
unfair laws?If we all began to reject the unjust laws,our society will undoubtedly finds it bogged down in the chaos.Furthermore,while laws seem unjust for a group of people,we should not lose the sight of the fact that legislation aims at restricting people's deeds,mainteining social rules.Abiding laws to some extent are one of the obligations that every conscious citizen should be well-aware.However,disobey laws will result in the social instability as well as the distrust of government,which undermines the social development.For example,unjust laws really exist in China nowdays,especially in the aspects of protecting peasant's rights.If it distracts us from the economic construction,it is do harm to our society.最好举两个实例

Finally,when faced with the unjust laws which impede our interest,the wise choice is to dissuss with related departments rather than resist them publicly.The social security system in China,for instance,always focuses on the interests of city residents which menances peasant's interests,reduces theire passion for agriculture.Fortunately,their complaints,by the means of the people's congress,began to be recognized by Chinese government.Now the government enacts a series of laws to maintain the peasant's interests.Moreover,it is government's responsibility to modify the unjust laws. For example,in the earlier stage of reform and openning in China,the government formulated preferential laws for coastal cities such as Guangzhou,Shenzheng.It tends to sponsor other areas like western areas.

In sum,I concede that we should obey the just laws.Nonetheless,when we faced unjust laws,we should tend to discuss them with the government,and try to modify them rather than resist them blindly.Furthermore,government owns the responsibility to improve laws according to social changes.

写的很不错！基本没啥缺点说的啦．加油！

jahsonUID: 2628322

According to this statement,the speaker asserts that every citizen in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws,and disobey unjust laws.It has merit from normative standpoint,and I agree insofar （第一次见 好词）that we should obey just laws.However,the speaker begs question by overlooking the difficulty of judging just laws and unjust laws,and the negative effect to society aroused（不太了解 arouse是否可以这样用 建议 impose） by resisting unjust laws.

Admittedly,most of the laws in our society are just for they stand on the behalf of the majority,.Every individual should obey them undoubtedly for they are engaging in protect our interests.Firstly,these just laws play a
vital role in maintaining the social orders and,accordingly the orders of
our daily life.For example,without traffic rules,there will be a number of death for the reason of accident;without revenue paid to the government,there will never be enough
public facilities which are convenient for our daily life.On the other hand,we are able to protect our rights and interests by the means of restricting other people's unjustify （unjust？）deeds such as murder,steal（应用动名词形式） and so on.

However,the law is defined as a rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority according to customs and interests （可不可以用values替代customs）of a certain community or state.It is difficult to distinguish between the just laws and unjust ones.As we are different from each other,we tend to
regard the same things differently according to our own interests.Therefore,a perspective or deed,seems so correct for one person,indeed menances other people's interests if he or she views the things in the light of other people's benefits.There is nowhere more true than on the issue of abortion.For people who have religious belief and deem the embryo as a life,abortion is as cruel as murder and of course should be prohibited by laws.（好例子）However,providing that the mother has not prepared for the baby's coming,or she is too poor to bring up a child,thus the baby has to suffer poverty and other hardships if he or she is born,abortion,in this sense,seems to be understandable.Who is right between the both sides? Whether there is a just law for both sides?The answer is definitely no.（只给出了第二个问题的答案，总体不协调)

What is more,the(去掉） formulating laws itself is actually a process requiring revision.Some laws are truely a little unjust,especially in some developing countries where the law syetem is waiting to be modified.Does that mean we can violate those seemingly
unfair laws?If we all began to reject the unjust laws,our society will undoubtedly finds it（itself） bogged down in the chaos.Furthermore,while laws seem unjust for a group of people,we should not lose the sight of the fact that legislation aims at restricting people's deeds,mainteining social rules.Abiding laws to some extent are one of the obligations that every conscious citizen should be well-aware（是不是少了个of）.However,disobey laws will result in the social instability as well as the distrust of government,which undermines the social development.For example,unjust laws really exist in China nowdays,especially in the aspects of protecting peasant's rights.If it distracts us from the economic construction,it is do harm to our society.

Finally,when faced with the unjust laws which impede our interest,the wise choice is to dissuss with related departments rather than resist them publicly.The social security system in China,for instance,always focuses on the interests of city residents which menances peasant's interests,reduces theire passion for agriculture.Fortunately,their complaints,by the means of the people's congress,began to be recognized by Chinese government.Now the government enacts a series of laws to maintain the peasant's interests.Moreover,it is government's responsibility to modify the unjust laws. For example,in the earlier stage of reform and openning in China,the government formulated preferential laws for coastal cities such as Guangzhou,Shenzheng.It tends to sponsor other areas like western areas.

In sum,I concede that we should obey the just laws.Nonetheless,when we faced unjust laws,we should tend to discuss them with the government,and try to modify them rather than resist them blindly.Furthermore,government owns the responsibility to improve laws according to social changes.

A38
In this argument,the arguer recommends that the daily use of Lchthaid derived from fish oil can prevent colds and reduce absenteeism.To justify this claim,the arguer provides the evidence that people in nearby East Meria consume a large number of fish and seldom visit the doctor.Moreover,considering colds are the reason most frequently given for absences,thus,West Meria should follow the recommendation in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

To begin with,the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the high comsumption of fish and the small number of people catching a cold.It is quite possible that other factors contribute to prevent（preventing） colds.For example,maybe air in East Meria is so fresh that people there seldom catch a cold.In addition,the arguer fails to take into account the frequency people take exercise.Do people living in East Meria like doing exercise such as running,walking?If so,it is understandable that they visit the doctor only once or twice per year.Though people go to hospital rarely,it does not mean that people do not got sick.Maybe people are reluctant to go to hospital.Maybe visiting a doctor is expensive for them,and they would rather stay at home when they catch a cold.

What is more,even if eating lots of fish could prevent colds,the arguer draws a hasty conclusion that eating Lchthaid is equal to eating fish.In fact,no evidence is shown to demonstrate that Lchthaid contains all the components beneficial to prevent colds.Therefore,we must assume that Lchthaid is ineffective.Moreover,without data of scientific study,it is doubtful that lchthaid may has side effect which do （觉得改成of doing合适）harm for our health.

Additionally, even colds are the reason most frequently given for absence,the arguer cannot persuade me to believe it is true.In fact,colds,as we all know,may be the excuse most frequently used for absence.Without a detailed analysis of the reasons for absence in West Meria,it would be sheer folly（是不是有点严重了。。。） to attribute the absence to colds.

In summary,this argument has several patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands.To make it logically acceptable,the arguer would have to demonstrate that high consumption of fish can really prevent colds.Furthermore,we need more information regarding the reason for absence in West Meria.

无论是issue还是argument作者的思路都已经很成熟了。赞。
1# pinoku