issue 89求指导，求批改~

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-12-5 15:06:51

Issue: 89. Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds

Law is the foundation of contemporary democratic authority, which guarantees the social justice and enhances the general welfare of the public. However, the speaker claims that a remarkable number of problems in modern society are not able to be resolved by the approach of laws and the current legal system, for it's ineptness in influencing human's opinions. Although seemingly plausible, I found the statement unsound and problematic in underestimating the significance of law.

Admittedly, laws and the legal system possess irreversible and undeniable defeats in forestalling citizens' misbehaviors and promoting commendable morality, as the speaker speculates. Laws still cannot eradicate the dark side ingrained in humanism, such as immeasurable greed to power and the fanaticalness about money. Retrospecting the history of human civilization, none of ever-existed countries have successfully eliminated the cases of corruption and robbery, even in where the governments executed extremely stringent even relentless laws to combat with these malefactors. Many people cannot decline the temptations and innately embrace such doctrine that the deity of fortunate will blessed their wrongdoings not to be discovered. Under the presumption, they take risks to jeopardize the well-being of the whole society for personal immediate interests. Encountering these people, the solely function of laws is to punish them after the mis-fortunate outcomes.

However, the speaker erroneously repudiated the impacts of legal system on other facets of people notions. One of the negligences consists in failing to recognize the influence of laws in conventionalization, which will nurture invisible but powerful alterations. After being established as law, several regulations will be converted into the social norms, which are able to root in the citizens mind and consequently direct their behaviors. The law of red light is a relative persuasive evidence to substantiate this argument. Nowadays, when you notice that the right light is on, the nerve impulses will immediately admonish you not to cross the road. However, before the legitimation of red light, the populace didn't possess such cognition. It is the during the process of dissemination that the law are gradually accepted. Grounded on the demonstration above, it's prudent prudent postulate that the law and the legal system produce influence in the formation of public opinions.

Furthermore, laws and legal system play an indispensable role in promoting more democratic and judicial thoughts against banal orthodoxies. In the early 20th century of America, the public universally endorse that the society should be relative conscientious even scathing attitude to the freedom of speech so that the malicious discoursed will not violate the social stability and jeopardize the overall welfare. Whereas, as the later half of the 20th century progressed, more prejudications and published opinions of the Supreme Court defensed the right of First Amendment, including the freedom of jarring opinions. These prejudications gradually shaped more tolerant attitude concerning the freedom of speech in public as a sequel. Consequently, it's the prejudications indeed change an former well-accepted belief, which strongly justify the contention.

Conclusively, even though the author's provoking statement displays several merits, the reason he recited is comparatively fragile. We are not supposed to slight the function in shaping people's mind. Complete legal system will promote the justice of a country, on the other hand, we should be wary the potential detriments of the incompleteness of laws.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-12-5 21:23:58

Issue:89. Claim: Many problems of modernsociety cannot be solved by laws and the legal system
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people'shearts or minds

Law is the foundation of contemporary democraticauthority, which guarantees the social justice and enhances the general welfareof the public. However, the speaker claims that aremarkable number of problems in modern society are not able to be resolved bythe approach of laws and the current legal system, for it's ineptness ininfluencing human's opinions. Althoughseemingly plausible, I found the statement unsound and problematic inunderestimating the significance of law.

Admittedly, laws and the legal system possessirreversible and undeniable defeats in forestalling citizens' misbehaviors andpromoting commendable morality, as the speaker speculates. Laws still cannot eradicate the darkside ingrained in humanism, such as immeasurable greed to power and thefanaticalness about money. Retrospectingthe history of human civilization, none of ever-existed countries havesuccessfully eliminated the cases of corruption and robbery, even in where thegovernments executed extremely stringent even relentless laws to combat withthese malefactors. Many people cannot decline thetemptations and innately embrace such doctrine that the deity of fortunate willblessed their wrongdoings not to be discovered. Under the presumption, they takerisks to jeopardize the well-being of the whole society for personal immediateinterests. Encountering these people, the solelyfunction of laws is to punish them after the mis-fortunate outcomes.这一段能有具体的例子就好。

However, the speaker erroneously repudiated theimpacts of legal system on other facets of people notions. One of the negligences consists infailing to recognize the influence of laws in conventionalization, which willnurture invisible but powerful alterations. After being established as law,several regulations will be converted into the social norms, which are able toroot in the citizens mind and consequently direct their behaviors. The law of red light is a relativepersuasive evidence to substantiate this argument. Nowadays, when you notice that theright light is on, the nerve impulses will immediately admonish you not tocross the road. However, before the legitimation ofred light, the populace didn't possess such cognition. It is the during the process ofdissemination that the law are gradually accepted. Grounded on the demonstration above,it's prudent prudent postulate that the law and the legal system produceinfluence in the formation of public opinions.

Furthermore, laws and legal system play anindispensable role in promoting more democratic and judicial thoughts againstbanal orthodoxies. In the early 20th century of America, thepublic universally endorse that the society should be relative conscientiouseven scathing attitude to the freedom of speech so that the maliciousdiscoursed will not violate the social stability and jeopardize the overallwelfare
. Whereas, as the later half of the20th century progressed, more prejudications and published opinions of theSupreme Court defensed the right of First Amendment, including the freedom ofjarring opinions. These prejudications gradually shapedmore tolerant attitude concerning the freedom of speech in public as a sequel. Consequently, it's the prejudicationsindeed change an former well-accepted belief, which strongly justify thecontention.

Conclusively, even though the author's provokingstatement displays several merits, the reason he recited is comparativelyfragile. We are not supposed to slight thefunction in shaping people's mind. Completelegal system will promote the justice of a country, on the other hand, we shouldbe wary the potential detriments of the incompleteness of laws.这篇作文最好是分别对reason和claim进行阐述，而非作为一个整体。

[作文互改] issue 89求指导，求批改~

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()