拙作Issue 89 求拍！！

2010202461

issue89
　　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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
　　Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
=======================================================================================
字数 573
=======================================================================================

The speaker says that problems of modernsociety are less likely to be solved by laws and legal systems, because of thelaws' impossibility of changing people's hearts. From my perspective, I agreewith this claim but not with his reason for it. As we can see, problems are sotypical that many of them are difficult to solve and law suits always arousepeople's attention. And among all sizes of societies, this claim is alsosuitable to them. Furthermore, laws and legal systems are not fair and completeenough to solve all the problems in each country.

Problems existing in a society can bedistinguished in many ways and classified in some categories, environmentalissues and the conflicts between science and moral will express the claim easyto understand. As global warming becoming heat among people, most of peoplethink that we should to cut our carbon dioxide emissions to slow down the paceof global warming. Paradoxically, there few laws are put out to restrainpersonal carbon-reducing activity. Admittedly, some people are hedonists whothink that it is our enjoying ourselves rather than considering too much aboutour descendants that matters, which means that even laws may not change theirminds, but I think the most essential problem impeding this issue is the factthat we can hardly know or estimate a person's carbon emission in one year.Another example is the conflicts between science and moral cognition. To bemore specific, clone is such a hotspot that counts. Although some countryintroduced laws about clone, researches on clone aren't totally forbidden. Itis the immaturity of clone technology that makes people's unwilling to acceptit.

In each society, no matter big, likeAmerica and China, or small, such as Sweden are all troubled with thoseproblems cannot be solved only by laws. If everything can be solved by laws andlegal systems, there will be no heat discussions about one issue in a country.The likelihood of equal educations' being given to every child is a hard problemconfronting America. In the elementary education period, children cannot choosewhether they will go to a public school or a private school without theconsideration of financial affairs. Although presidents are active in solvingthis problem, which leads to the charter schools, things are less likely to besolved in a short term by laws. However, education issue isn't a problem inSweden as we know. And we also know that the method of solving this problem isnot just by laws. Conclusively, equality on education is the appeal whicharises from people's hearts, but it can't be solved in many countries by laws.

Laws' being not complete enough is also areason for problems' existing. In many ways, things are not considered sosimple that a clause in a code can solve a problem. Some people will argue thatthere always is a collision between people's thoughts and laws. It may be true,but many problems are tabled by many outside factors. If those factors areconsidered comprehensively, a majority of problems can be solved.

To sum up, it is true that a large numberof problems cannot be solved by laws and legal systems, but there are quite lotsof possibilities that can contribute to it except for just people's hearts ormind. Having a look at many issue cases and societies can easily make thisstatement sound and understandable.

普渡哥

这篇写法很特别，同意观点但反对理由，第一次看到，大家可以来讨论

竹林中人

we should to cut ？
there few laws are put out to？
thoseproblems cannot be solved only by laws.？
作者写的还是挺好的，不过我觉得有点不够深入，比如分析法律不能解决所有的问题的时候，你只是指出了这种事实，但没有深入，比如为什么不能，是什么限制了，或者什么？有什么更好的办法等等

2010202461

cut确实用的不太恰当，应该改成reduce
后面两个是笔误，第一个应该改成there are few laws，第二个应该在cannot前面加一个which
我一直也是觉得分析特别少，而且不知道怎么样才叫分析，作文课上老师是说提出新的内容叫分析，但是我不知道新的内容要写到多细才叫分析。。。。。。。

谢版主指点了~~~

竹林中人

cut确实用的不太恰当，应该改成reduce
后面两个是笔误，第一个应该改成there are few laws，第二个应该在cannot前面加一个which
我一直也是觉得分析特别少，而且不知道怎么样才叫分析，作文课上老师是说提出新的内容叫分析，但是我不知道新的内容要写到多细才叫分析。。。。。。。

谢版主指点了~~~

-- by 会员 2010202461 (2012/5/10 21:40:15)

嗯，很多时候我们其实可以想到新的东西的，但有时候觉得是显然的或者太不好表达了，就忽略了，而这恰恰是提升自己认识水平的机会

edisonjk

普渡哥 发表于 2012-5-9 20:44
这篇写法很特别，同意观点但反对理由，第一次看到，大家可以来讨论

普度哥，我打算也那么写，不知道有没有问题。理由比较牵强容易反驳，但是结论比较好支持。