Issue 89求拍

elephantograph · 发表于 2013-3-16 18:38:37

Issue89
39:56

Thespeaker claims that many problems of modern society cannot be solved by lawsand the legal systems based on the threshold reason that laws cannot changewhat is in people’s hearts or minds. I completely agree with the speaker’sclaim that law is not a panacea, but I disagree with the reason on which thespeaker draws the correct claim. In my opinion, whether laws cannot change whatis in people’s hearts or minds depends largely on the time span involved.

Tobegin with, I agree with the speaker’s claim that laws are by no means a panaceato all social problems. After all, the ultimate goal of laws is to strike abalance among competing interests and therefore cannot offer a perfect solutionto various enduring issues calling for different wisdom to address them. Tojustify it one need look no further than the drug problems that have beenbothering the society for decades. So many laws were legislated and implemented,yet still there are so many people producing, trafficking, smuggling, and usingthem, which is really desperate to admit. This is because the inborn drawbacksof laws. First, a law is sometimes so stubborn and so relentless that cannotcultivate love and understanding and so many other ideals that are necessary toreduce malevolence. “By laws, humans do not turn to demons; morality glorifieshumans, turning them into angels.” this phrase aptly illustrates this reason. Secondly,some laws are actually unjust, exacerbating untoward situations. For example,the Compulsory Labor Education Law of China authorizes Chinese police force thecoercive power to arrest anyone without juridical trial, which ostensibly forthe concern of the greatest good, actually serves as a pernicious approach toimpede rightful civil freedom. Thirdly, laws are not perfect and replete withloopholes. Those who take advantage of the loophole earn great profits whilethe righteous citizens who abide by the laws suffer from unjust lost. Such lawswith deficient, together with those unjust laws, undermine the order andbalance of a society and therefore not only cannot help to solve the socialproblems but also, in some cases, worsen them.

However,when it comes to the speaker’s reason, he unfairly generalizes, ignoring many compellingevidence, and therefore I cannot agree. Actually, the ability of laws to changepeople in mind depends largely on the time span. Admittedly, there are manylaws that seem to fail changing people’s ideas, including the famous 13^thamendment of the U.S. constitution enacted by President Lincoln. Although the13^th amendment abolished slavery legally and making slavery illicit,there were still much racial segregation and other forms of discriminationexist in the America afterwards. It seems that a law cannot change people’sidea of prejudice and discrimination in a white-dominated society. But if we lengthenour time span to inspect the influence, we will find that after the victory ofcivil rights movement there have been much less racial discrimination inAmerica now, which owes largely to the gradual change in people’s mindthroughout the society ever since the amendment enacted. I bet that civilrights movement can never succeed without the 13^th amendment or happenedshortly after the amendment. Similarly, consider the process of eliminatinglynching. Lynching, the extrajudicial execution formerly frequently carried outby mobs, is today a felony is most nations of laws. It was the influence of thelaws that gradually change people’s mind about what is justifiable and what isillegal and against humanity. It is the same story with drunk driving. Peoplenow will refuse drunk driving for the purpose of not only their personal safetybut also the well-being of innocent pedestrians. Laws do change people’s mindin the long run, though slowly.

Finally,from my perspective, although there are so many drawbacks in both the lawsthemselves and their implications, we cannot simply deny their vital role. Likea judge in a soccer match, who try his best to present a relatively justenvironment for everyone to play inside, the role of laws is to maintain arelatively fair platform upon which everyone can live and compete with eachother, upon which people can discuss and debate about what measure are need tobe taken in order to ameliorate the social issues instead of being trapped in achaos. Without the laws, all the greatest achievements we human beings areproud of will not be possibly made.

Insum, although I agree with the speaker’s claim, the speaker’s reason is tooabsolute and unfairly generalized. In my opinion, despite the inability of lawsto solve social problems, laws can not only help to change people’s mind in thelong run but also, more importantly, offer a platform upon which agreements andplans to solve social problems can be made.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2013-3-16 21:25:08

The speaker claims that many problems ofmodern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal systems based on thethreshold reason that laws cannot changewhat are in people’s hearts or minds. Icompletely agree with the speaker’s claim that law is not a panacea, but Idisagree with the reason on which the speaker draws the correct claim. In myopinion, whether or not laws can change what isin people’s hearts or minds depend largely onthe time span involved.

To begin with, I agree with the speaker’sclaim that laws are by no means a panacea to all social problems. After all,the ultimate goal of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests andtherefore cannot offer a perfect solution to various enduring issues callingfor different wisdom to address them. To justify it one need look no furtherthan the drug problems that have been bothering the society for decades. Somany laws were legislated and implemented, yet still there are so many peopleproducing, trafficking, smuggling, and using them, which is really desperate toadmit. This is because the inborn drawbacks of laws. First,a law is sometimes so stubborn and so relentless that cannot cultivate love andunderstanding and so many other ideals that are necessary to reducemalevolence. “By laws, humans do not turn to demons; morality glorifies humans,turning them into angels.” this phrase aptly illustrates this reason. 这个理由跟使用drugs有什么必然联系吗？Secondly, some laws areactually unjust, exacerbating untoward situations. For example, the CompulsoryLabor Education Law of China authorizes Chinese police force the coercive powerto arrest anyone without juridical trial, which ostensibly for the concern ofthe greatest good, actually serves as a pernicious approach to impede rightfulcivil freedom. Thirdly, laws are not perfect and replete with loopholes. Thosewho take advantage of the loophole earn great profits while the righteouscitizens who abide by the laws suffer from unjust lost. Such laws withdeficient, together with those unjust laws, undermine the order and balance ofa society and therefore not only cannot help to solve the socialproblems butalso, in some cases, worsen them.
我觉得这里不能以法律的不完善来说法律的局限性，法律不完善可以去完善，而问题的关键是法律本身即使再完善也有没法顾及到的地方，这才它真正的局限，比如同性恋、代孕等等，更多是伦理道德上的问题

However, when it comes to the speaker’sreason, he unfairly generalizes, ignoring many compelling evidence, and thereforeI cannot agree. Actually, the ability of laws to change people in mind dependslargely on the time span. Admittedly, there are many laws that seem to failchanging people’s ideas, including the famous 13^th amendment of the U.S.
constitution enacted by President Lincoln. Although the13th amendment abolishedslavery legally and making slavery illicit, there were still much racialsegregation and other forms of discrimination exist in the Americaafterwards. It seems that a law cannot change people’s idea of prejudice anddiscrimination in a white-dominated society. But if we lengthen our time spanto inspect the influence, we will find that after the victory of civil rightsmovement there have been much less racial discrimination in America now,which owes largely to the gradual change in people’s mind throughout thesociety ever since the amendment enacted. I bet that civil rights movement cannever succeed without the 13th amendment or happened shortly after theamendment. Similarly, consider the process of eliminating lynching. Lynching,the extrajudicial execution formerly frequently carried out by mobs, is today afelony is most nations of laws. It was the influence of the laws that graduallychange people’s mind about what is justifiable and what is illegal and againsthumanity. It is the same story with drunk driving. People now will refuse drunkdriving for the purpose of not only their personal safety but also thewell-being of innocent pedestrians. Laws do change people’s mind in the longrun, though slowly.能否把例子压缩点，毕竟不能像讲故事那么长
Finally, from my perspective, althoughthere are so many drawbacks in both the laws themselves and their implications,we cannot simply deny their vital role. Like a judge in a soccer match, who tryhis best to present a relatively just environment for everyone to play inside,the role of laws is to maintain a relatively fair platform upon which everyonecan live and compete with each other, upon which people can discuss and debateabout what measure are need to be taken in order to ameliorate the socialissues instead of being trapped in a chaos. Without the laws, all the greatestachievements we human beings are proud of will not be possibly made.这段貌似是想说法律还是很重要的，只是跟话题本身关系大不大，值得商榷

In sum, although I agree with the speaker’sclaim, the speaker’s reason is too absolute and unfairly generalized. In myopinion, despite the inability of laws to solve social problems, laws can notonly help to change people’s mind in the long run but also, more importantly,offer a platform upon which agreements and plans to solve social problems canbe made.

elephantograph · 发表于 2013-3-16 22:29:19

Finally, from my perspective, althoughthere are so many drawbacks in both the laws themselves and their implications,we cannot simply deny their vital role. Like a judge in a soccer match, who tryhis best to present a relatively just environment for everyone to play inside,the role of laws is to maintain a relatively fair platform upon which everyonecan live and compete with each other, upon which people can discuss and debateabout what measure are need to be taken in order to ameliorate the socialissues instead of being trapped in a chaos. Without the laws, all the greatestachievements we human beings are proud of will not be possibly made.这段貌似是想说法律还是很重要的，只是跟话题本身关系大不大，值得商榷

这段我是考虑作者说法律不能解决社会问题我反对之一的一个理由是法律是以提供解决问题平台这种方式来帮助解决社会问题的如果强调这点之后是不是就有说服力了
Finally, from my perspective, although there are so many drawbacks in both the laws themselves and their implications that weaken law's ability to address social issues, we cannot simply deny their vital role the process of handling of social problems.

elephantograph · 发表于 2013-3-16 22:36:00

Thirdly, laws are not perfect and replete with loopholes. Thosewho take advantage of the loophole earn great profits while the righteouscitizens who abide by the laws suffer from unjust lost. Such laws withdeficient, together with those unjust laws, undermine the order and balance ofa society and therefore not only cannot help to solve the socialproblems butalso, in some cases, worsen them.
我觉得这里不能以法律的不完善来说法律的局限性，法律不完善可以去完善，而问题的关键是法律本身即使再完善也有没法顾及到的地方，这才它真正的局限，比如同性恋、代孕等等，更多是伦理道德上的问题

同意确实不够伦理道德问题有说服力可是我觉得很多法律问题最早也是伦理道德的问题比如禁止婚前性行为禁止异族通婚（黑人白人等涉及种族歧视）后来通过法律规定消除了这种限制和歧视的合法性所以法律的完善到底能到哪一步？是否也能解决同性恋和代孕问题？

elephantograph · 发表于 2013-3-16 22:41:16

例子压缩
Similarly, consider the process of eliminating lynching,the extrajudicial execution formerly frequently carried out by mobs, regarded today as a felony.Such laws gradually change people’s mind about what is justifiable and what is illicit. It is the same story with drunk driving. Relevent laws raise the awareness of not only their personal safety but also the rightful well-being of pedestrians. Laws do change people’s mind in the long run, though slowly. 请问还有好的句式推荐码

竹林中人 · 发表于 2013-3-17 08:37:44

Finally, from my perspective, althoughthere are so many drawbacks in both the laws themselves and their implications,we cannot simply deny their vital role. Like a judge in a soccer match, who tryhis best to present a relatively just environment for everyone to play inside,the role of laws is to maintain a relatively fair platform upon which everyonecan live and compete with each other, upon which people can discuss and debateabout what measure are need to be taken in order to ameliorate the socialissues instead of being trapped in a chaos. Without the laws, all the greatestachievements we human beings are proud of will not be possibly made.这段貌似是想说法律还是很重要的，只是跟话题本身关系大不大，值得商榷

这段我是考虑作者说法律不能解决社会问题我反对之一的一个理由是法律是以提供解决问题平台这种方式来帮助解决社会问题的如果强调这点之后是不是就有说服力了
Finally, from my perspective, although there are so many drawbacks in both the laws themselves and their implications that weaken law's ability to address social issues, we cannot simply deny their vital role the process of handling of social problems.

-- by 会员 elephantograph (2013/3/16 22:29:19)

我觉得没必要想得太深，深了就不好把握度，按照题目instruction，我觉得你只需要说明什么情况下法律发挥不了作用，并举出一个具体的例子，什么情况可以

Issue 89求拍

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()