Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
In our contemporary society, law is considered to be the minimum standard for every citizen to follow and can be applied unanimously in all situations. Due to this characteristic, it is not an easy task to establish a flawless system by lawmakers. Consequently, there exist so-called unjust laws. To obey just laws and to disobey and even resist unjust laws may seem to be plausible and beneficial to the society, since the public opinions can put pressure on the government to adjust laws and enhance the administration of justice to some extent. However, the real controversy behind this claim is that how to differentiate justice and injustice. In other words, the law which is logical to one person may be unjust to the other. Personally speaking, I cannot agree with this claim since there is merely a one-size-fits-all criterium to judge a law by its justness.
Just imagine the circumstance that everyone has their own criteria to decide whether to obey a law or not by their subjective consideration on how impartial this law is. It is not difficult to foresee the disastrous consequences. Take one prevalent example of drunk driving. In China, government is putting increasing emphasis on driving regulations. Once a driver caught drunk driving, his/ her driving license will be suspended by the police officer, and the driver may even be imprisoned depending on how seriously drunk he/ she is. This new regulation was in force only recently, and I could still remember clearly how tumultuous it was the public opinion on this new law. Though the majority agreed with punishing drunk drivers, some people still thought the punishment was extremely harsh. If those drivers who disagrees with this law and regard it as their responsibility to rebel, there will be no peace on the road.
In our daily life, there will be even more conflicts if everyone has the right to resist the laws only because they think the laws are unfair or unjust. For example, in the business world, there are laws to restrict companies to have monopoly power. Due to the fact that monopoly power can give any company the capability to set the price as they want, monopolies are seen as the devils to consumers. If some companies argue that they only have this power because other business runners cannot satisfy customers' need, and consider this law is biased to their devotion and purpose, this will result in customers' suffering, companies' collapses and eventually the paralysation of the whole economy. The other example will be the law to protect the young generation from the tragedy of child labor. For those greedy and self-interest companies, they undoubtedly think this law as a barrier to maximize their profits. If they regard this law as unjust in terms of minimizing their cost, no children in developing countries could survive from being exploited.
Let's take this claim even further. Let's imagine ourselves living in an ideal world that every single one of us has the perfect logics to make the right judgement on what is just and what is unjust. The consequences for the unjust laws should not stop at being disobeyed or resisted but being discussed and changed. As our society evolving so quickly, we have already seen some outdated laws being changed due to the public's voice. As an advocator of cyber security and data privacy, I feel delighted to see new laws are published by the EU government on GDPR after the Facebook chaos, because public's voices are so clear in this situation for more righteous laws.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
... could survive from being exploited. Lets take this claim even futher. Lets imagi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 35, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...d. Lets take this claim even futher. Lets imagine ourselves living in an ideal wo...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, still, for example, i feel, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2890.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 592.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88175675676 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93265142912 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6623250739 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 293.0 215.323595506 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494932432432 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 914.4 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3624266074 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.037037037 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9259259259 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07407407407 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225023994045 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0623712790158 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537702270654 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144288993874 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506538778372 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 100.480337079 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.