8月15号 考试

复习了一个星期，第一篇习作

这个水平大概能得几分？

希望大家多多提出意见，表达错误也希望能指出

题目：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."

提纲：

论点一：法律的公正性常常是主管的判断，取决于个人的价值观和利益。

论点二：法律具有强制力，不能违背，否则会引起社会混乱

但是，公民具有申诉法律的不公的权力

The speaker asserts that we have the responsibility to not only obey the laws which are just but disobey and resist the unjust laws. In my view, whether the law is just or not is depending on the individual’s personal value and interest, that is to say, the justness of the law is subjective. On the other hand, even the law is unjust people should not disobey it to express their unsatisfactory.

First, the justness of law depends on individual’s personal value and interest.  The law's chief function is to protect the citizen's right, but rarely a law can meet every citizen's interest without any exception. The individual income tax, for instance, benefits the citizens who have the normal amount of income, they only need to pay a small amount of tax, or even, do not need to pay any, but can get unemployment compensation if they lose their jobs for some reason. Yet for the rich, their individual income tax rate is very high, and they tend to have no need of any unemployment compensation. Isn’t it unjust for the rich to some extends? The legislature needs to define the law's justness at a high level: whether it benefits the whole society? Does it conduce to our society's future? It's so hard for even the legislature or the specialist to evaluate whether a law is just or not, how can a normal citizen do? For most of the time, a citizen claims a law’s unjustness is because it destroys his or a group of individuals’ advantage. In short, the fairness of law is subjective, depending largely on how the personal interests are affected by it.

Even a citizen is sure the law is unjust, he can't disobey it. Except the reason mentioned above that the justness, for most of the time, is a subjective judgment, Citizens can't choose whether to obey the law according to the individual's subjective wishes. One of the important characters of law is that the law has coercive power, every citizen must obey it, and otherwise the law is of no effect. Just think that if when Bill Clinton enact the law to limit the use of firearms, the citizens who think the law encroach their privilege(this situation is very likely to occur) refused to obey the law, how can he solve the problem of the increasingly firearm abuse. The behavior of disobey the law, as the speaker encouraged, can easily goes to the side of disturb public order, which will encroach more citizen’s privilege. Any citizen can’t express their dissatisfaction by disobey the law.

Yet, citizens have the right to fight against the unfair law. They can petition for the protection of their advantage destroyed by a specific law, and they can use /demon/stration to resist the unjust law's enactor. Anyway, disobey the law is not a sage choice.

In the final analysis, law's inherent function is to benefit the whole society at the maximum extent. The individuals with varies priorities will disagree the justness of a specific law. At any situation, disobedience is never justifiable when the law benefit the whole society.


[ 本帖最后由 angilyu 于 2008-7-13 13:32 编辑 ]

希望与两三个G有组成一个互改小组，我8月15号考

没人拍呀。。。

咱们组个队吧，我8月11号考！
QQ：576010772
邮箱：yuqianphoenix@163.com

楼主将就看吧。。[attach]554540[/attach

上海汽车租赁网

谢谢啦

自己顶一下

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: 469          TIME: 01:20:19          DATE: 2008-7-12 17:19:11
The speaker asserts that we have the responsibility to not only obey the laws which (I prefer that) are just but disobey and resist the unjust laws. In my view, whether the law is just or not is depending (depends, try not to use be style wich will make your issue lifeless) on the individual’s personal value and interest, that is to say, the justness of the law is subjective. On the other hand, even the law is unjust people should not disobey it to express their unsatisfactory (unsatisfaction).

First, the justness of law is in terms of the personal value and interest.  The law's inherent function is to protect the citizen's right, but rarely a law can (Does it sound confortable? We often reverse the sequence like this: but rarely can a law) meet every citizen's interest without any exception. The individual income tax, for instance, benefits the ( too many 'the') citizens who have the normal amount of income, they (who) only need to pay a small a mount of tax, or even, do not need to pay any, but can get unemployment compensation if they loss their jobs for some reason. Yet for the rich, their individual income tax rate is very high, and they tend to have no need of any unemployment compensation. Isn’t it unjust for the rich to some extends? The legislature needs to define the law's justness at a high level: whether it benefits the whole society? Does it conduce to our society's future? It's so hard for even the legislature or the specialist to evaluate whether a law is just or not, how can a normal citizen do (do what? or do how?) ? For most of the time, a citizen claims a law’s unjustness is because it destroys his or a group of individuals’ advantage. In short, the fairness of law is subjective, depending largely on how the personal interests are affected by it.

Even a citizen is sure the law is unjust, he can't disobey it. Except the reason mentioned above, the justness, for most of the time, is a subjective judgment. Citizens can't choose whether to obey the law according to the individual's subjective wishes. One of the important characters of law is that the law(it) has coercive power, every citizen must obey it, and otherwise the law is of no effect. Just think that if when Bill Clinton enact the law to limit the use of firearms, the citizens who think the law encroach their privilege(this situation is very likely to occur) refused to obey the law, how can he solve the problem of the increasingly firearm abuse. The behavior of disobey the law, as the speaker encouraged, can easily goes to the side of disturb public order, which will encroach more citizen’s privilege. Any citizen can’t express their dissatisfaction by disobey the law.

Yet, citizens have the right to fight against the unfair law. They can petition for the protection of their advantage, and they can use /demon/stration to resist the unjust law's enactor. Anyway, disobey the law is not a sage choice.

In the final analysis, law's inherent function is to benefit the whole society at the maximum extent. The individuals with varies priorities will disagree the justness of a specific law. At any situation, disobedience is never justifiable when the law benefit the whole society.

First, the structure is well arranged  and you have a unique specific statement, which means you start at the right direction. However, the following items should be allertly paid attention.
Second, too many grammar mistakes, too many 'the', too many commas instead of full stops,
Thirld, your expressing way is very different from native English people's.
Four, neither the words or sentences in this Issue task sound confortable. I think you just purposely try to enlarge your sentence length, and as a result it lost its real contents. Try to use them specifically. Once you have mastered one, go to the next.
Five, time is everything, 45 minutes remember!
And plus, I have finished my AWA task today. But I am still happy to study with you. Good luck!

[ 本帖最后由 eadscarmen 于 2008-7-14 19:58 编辑 ]

引用:

原帖由 eadscarmen 于 2008-7-14 19:27 发表
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."
W ...

Thank you very much. It's very instructive.