The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves

如今节奏日益加快的生活解决的问题，远不及带来的麻烦。

老题库58 "The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves."

现代生活越来越快的节奏弊多利少。

Agree

1. The rapid pace of life has resulted in health problems in unprecedented large numbers.

2. Although people today have more leisure time, they are not in a better position than their ancestors to enjoy themselves.

3. More unfortunately, people seem to have become addicted to the rapid pace of modern life.

利多弊少题型

1． It is true that the rapid pace of life has resulted in an unprecedented high number of problems. (CarsàGreenhouse effect, pollution; Instant communication à 人与人亲情友情逐渐冷淡). In addition, an even worse situation is that the rapid pace has exerted high psychological stress and anxiety. 以上很多问题给人类造成的后果都是无法弥补的。

2． However, the increasingly rapid pace of life is inevitable; it is the natural result of the development of society.

3． 在不得不适应这种快节奏的同时, we should not neglect the fact that a lot benefits are produced by the increasing pace of life. 高效率的社会发展使得人民的生活水平不断提高。快节奏带来了竞争，使得人们不断挖掘自己的潜力，更好的提高自己。

范文：

Whether technology enhances or diminishes our overall quality of life depends largely on the type of technology one is considering. While mechanical automation may have diminished our quality of life on balance, digital automation is doing more to improve life than to undermine its quality.

First consider mechanical automation, particularly assembly-line manufacturing. With automation came a loss of pride in and alienation from one's work. In this sense, automation both diminished our quality of life and rendered us slaves to machines in our inability to reverse "progress." Admittedly, mechanical automation spawned entire industries, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and supplying a plethora of innovative conveniences. Nevertheless, the sociological and environmental price of progress may have outweighed its benefits.

Next consider digital technology. Admittedly, this newer form of technology has brought its own brand of alienation, and has adversely affected our quality of life in other ways as well. For example, computer automation, and especially the Internet, breeds information overload and steals our time and attention away from family, community, and coworkers. In these respects, digital technology tends to diminish our quality of life and create its own legion of human slaves.

On the other hand, by relegating repetitive tasks to computers, digital technology has spawned great advances in medicine and physics, helping us to better understand the world, to enhance our health, and to prolong our lives. Digital automation has also emancipated architects, artists, designers, and musicians, by expanding creative possibilities and by saving time. Perhaps most important, however, information technology makes possible universal access to information, thereby providing a democratizing influence on our culture.

In sum, while mechanical automation may have created a society of slaves to modern conveniences and unfulfRling work, digital automation holds more promise for improving our lives without enslaving us to the technology.

---

Orignal From: The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves

Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible

有人认为，公司有责任促进所在社会的福祉和环境。也有人认为，公司唯一的责任就是，在不违反法律的前提下多赚钱。

可供参考老题库152. "The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies."

公司的经营者们唯一的责任就是在法律规定范围之内为他们的公司赚尽可能多的钱。

In several respects this position has considerable merit; yet it ignores certain compelling arguments for imposing on businesses additional obligations to the society in which they operate.

1. On the one hand are convincing arguments that profit maximization within the bounds of the law should be a business executive's sole responsibility. First, imposing on businesses additional duties to society in which they operate can, paradoxically, harm that society.

2. Secondly, by affirming that profit maximization within legal bounds is the most ethical behavior possible for business, more private enterprises and individuals will be encouraged enter the marketplace in the quest of profits.

3. On the other hand are compelling arguments for holding business executives to certain responsibilities in addition to profit maximization and to compliance with the letter of law.

1． 为公司赚钱的确是corporate executives的responsibility之一，因为一个要发展下去是离不开钱的（给员工发工资需要钱，为公司作宣传打广告要钱，开发新产品新技术要钱，国家经济的发展也需要各个企业能够有盈利。比如WAL-MART的盈利带来了就业，也给国家带来了税收，这个税收可以是更多人获益。

2． 但是，有时会放弃眼前的利益，将大笔资金投入长期项目，for the long run。这是为了一个公司能够长久的发展下去。比如，很多大公司都会投入大量的人力和财力进行新产品的研发

3． 同时，赚钱不是唯一responsibility， 对企业自身来说，give employees motives, 给员工提供良好的工作环境，为员工塑造融洽的人际关系氛围，给予员工发展和成长的机会。【这里引用赫茨伯格的双因素激励理论】对与社会来说，一个公司属于社会的一部分，所以除了赚钱，corporate executives 还有责任回报社会，做一些慈善事业【charity undertaking】取之于民，用之于民。这样不仅可以树立公司良好的社会形象，还可以帮助需要帮助的人。而且也体现社会对弱势群体的关注。

企业使用了一部分社会资源，如：污染、有限的能源、人力资本，有责任为社会承担责任。如：帮助治理污染、开发先进的节能设备。

范文：

Should the only responsibility of a business executive be to maximize business profits, within the bounds of the law? In several respects this position has considerable merit; yet it ignores certain compelling arguments for imposing on businesses additional obligations to the society in which they operate.

On the one hand are two convincing arguments that profit maximization within the bounds of the law should be a business executive's sole responsibility. First, imposing on businesses additional duties to the society in which they operate can, paradoxically, harm that society. Compliance with higher ethical standards than the law requires--m such areas as environmental impact and workplace conditions--adds to business expenses and lowers immediate profits. In turn, lower profits can prevent the socially conscious business from creating more jobs, and from keeping its prices low and the quality of its products and services high. Thus ifbusinesses go further than their legal duties in serving their communities the end result might be a net disservice to those communities.

Secondly, by affirming that profit maximization within legal bounds is the most ethical behavior possible for business, we encourage private enterprise, and more individuals enter the marketplace in the quest of profits. The inevitable result of increased competition is lower prices and better products, both of which serve the interests of consumers. Moreover, since maximizing profits enhances the wealth of a company's stakeholders, broad participation in private enterprise raises the wealth of a nation, expands its economy, and raises its overall standard of living and quality of life.

On the other hand are three compelling arguments for holding business executives to certain responsibilities m addition to profit maximization and to compliance with the letter of the law. First, a growing percentage of businesses are related to technology, and haws often lag behind advances in technology. As a result, new technology-based products and services might pose potential harm to consumers even though they conform to current laws. For example, Intemet commerce is still largely unregulated because our lawmakers are slow to react to the paradigm shift from brick-and-mortar commerce to e-commerce. As a result, unethical marketing practices, privacy invasion, and violations of intellectual-property rights are going unchecked for lack of regulations that would clearly prohibit them.

Secondly, since a nation's laws do not extend beyond its borders, compliance with those laws does not prevent a business from doing harm elsewhere. Consider, for example, the trend among U.S. businesses in exploiting workers in countries where labor laws are virtuaUy non-existent in order to avoid the costs of complying with U.S. labor laws.

Thirdly, a philosophical argument can be made that every business enters into an implied social contract with the community that permits it to do business, and that this social contract, although not legally enforceable, places a moral duty on the business to refrain from acting in ways that will harm that community.

In sum, I agree with the statement insofar as in seeking to maximize profits a business serves not only itself but also its employees, customers, and the overall economy. Yet today's rapidly changing business environment and increasing globalization call for certain affirmative obligations beyond the pursuit of profit and mere compliance with enforceable rules and regulations. Moreover, in the final analysis any business is indebted to the society in which it operates for its very existence, and thus has a moral duty, regardless of any legal obligations, to pay that debt.

---

Orignal From: Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible

Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others

有些人认为，政府、工业或其他领域的成功领导者一定是具有极强的竞争精神的。也有人认为，为了成功，领导者必须情愿并且有能力和他人合作。

（老题库46）

Agree

1. The chief reason why we should stress cooperation in nurturing young people today is that, as tomorrow's leaders, they will face pressing societal problems that simply cannot be solved apart from cooperative international efforts.

2. The second compelling reason for instilling in young people a sense of cooperation over competition is that effective leadership depends less on the latter than the former.

3. A third reason why instilling a sense of cooperation is to be preferred over instilling a sense of competition is that the latter serves to narrow a leader's focus on thwarting the efforts of competitors.

Begin：承认竞争和合作各有各得优点，竞争可以充分激发人的积极性，合作可以发挥集体的优势，所以最好的培养年轻人的方式是让他们同时具备这两种素质。

1． 很多成功的取得离不开竞争。有竞争意识，才能从竞争中可以发现自己的不足，获得激励，从而有更多的积极性去进步。而不思竞争，不思进取，只会倒退。一个运动员，没有竞争意识，没有超越他人的勇气与信心，很快就会被对手赶上，而失败。同样，一个企业，如果安于现状，不开辟新的市场，不研发新的产品，很快就会被淘汰。一个国家也是如此，近代中国……

2． 同时当今世界的复杂多变，人们越来越发现合作的重要性。因为一个人的力量，越来越微不足道。小到一只球队，达到整个国家。比如再出色的个人球员，如果没有学会与其他队友合作，球队永远不会取得胜利，正像NBA广告说的那样"It takes five". 再如一个大型的公司，里面划分若干部分，销售，人力，生产，财务之类，如果部门之间不合作，那么这家公司就很难运行下去。随着全球化的发展，国与国之间的合作日益增多，欧盟的逐渐壮大就是最好的说明。可见学会合作对一个人来说也是很重要的。（培养学生合作精神能够让他们更容易接受不同的观点，而且乐于了解不同的文化和知识，有利于学生们在全球化趋势的今天成长城为未来的领导；此外，未来的领导人需要领导一个团队，而不是个人，因此合作精神能够让学生们更容易成长成为一个团队的领导；队员的互相帮助是使工作更有效率; 随着社会越来越复杂，不仅革新的细节需要来自于团队，实质的革新也不能单单依靠个人努力，比如：航空事业、生物研究等等。）

3． 但是我们也应该看到，很多情况下，竞争和合作是可以相互融合的。竞争可以充分发挥个人的主观能动性，合作充分利用各部分的优势。在合作中的竞争是良性竞争，可以让这个团队的每个人都得到提高。更常见的是两个竞争对手之间的合作，比如 Microsoft 和 IBM他们联合推出WS –INSPECTION ,但是在操作系统，软件开发上还是竞争关系。因为竞争永远不会结束，只有学会与对手合作，才会给自己提供更好的发展前景。

End：所以我们要重视这两者。

范文：

Which is a better way to prepare young people for leadership: developing in them a spirit of competitiveness or one of cooperation? The speaker favors the latter approach, even though some leaders attribute their success to their keenly developed competitive spirit. I tend to agree with the speaker, for reasons having to do with our increasingly global society, and with the true keys to effective leadership.

The chief reason why we should stress cooperation in nurturing young people today is that, as tomorrow's leaders, they will face pressing societal problems that simply cannot be solved apart from cooperative international efforts. For example, all nations will need to cooperate in an effort to disarm themselves of weapons of mass destruction; to reduce harmful emissions which destroy ozone and warm the Earth to dangerous levels; to reduce consumption of the Earth's finite natural resources; and to cure and prevent diseases before they become global epidemics. Otherwise, we all risk self-destruction. In short, global peace, economic stability, and survival of the species provide powerful reasons for developing educational paradigms that stress cooperation over competition.

A second compelling reason for instilling in young people a sense of cooperation over competition is that effective leadership depends less on the latter than the former. A leader should show that he or she values the input of subordinates--for example, by involving them in decisions about matters in which they have a direct stake. Otherwise, subordinates might grow to resent their leader, and become unwilling to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the leader's mission. In extreme cases they might even sabotage that mission, or even take their useful ideas to competitors. And after all, without other people worth leading a person cannot be a leader let alone an effective one.

A third reason why instilling a sense of cooperation is to be preferred over instilling a sense of competition is that the latter serves to narrow a leader's focus on thwarting the efforts of competitors. With such tunnel vision it is difficult to develop other, more creative means of attaining organizational objectives. Moreover, such means often involve synergistic solutions that call for alliances, partnerships, and other cooperative efforts with would-be competitors.

Those who would oppose the speaker might point out that a thriving economy depends on a freely competitive business environment, which ensures that consumers obtain high-quality goods and services at low prices. Thus key leadership positions, especially in business, inherently call for a certain tenacity and competitive spirit. And, a competitive spirit seems especially critical in today's hyper-competitive technology-driven economy, where any leader f~iling to keep pace with ever-changing business and technological paradigms soon fails by the wayside. However, a leader's effectiveness as a competitor is not necessarily inconsistent with his or her ability to cooperate with subordinates or with competitors, as noted above.

In sum, ifwe were to take the speaker's advice too far we would risk becoming a world without leaders, who are bred of a competitive spirit. We would also risk the key benefits of a free-market economy. Nevertheless, on balance I agree that it is more important to instill in young people a sense of cooperation than one of competition. The speaker's preference properly reflects the growing role of cooperative alliances and efforts in solving the world's most pressing problems. After all, in a world in which our very survival as a species depends on cooperation, the spirit of even healthy competition, no matter how healthy, is of little value to any of us.

---

Orignal From: Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others

People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making

人们的行为多是被外界力量所左右，难以被自己控制。

可供参考老题库93The concept of 'individual responsibility' is a necessary fiction. Although societies must hold individuals accountable for their own actions, people's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making.

个人责任的概念是一种很必要的虚构。尽管社会必须让个人对他们自己的行为负责，但是人们的行为很大程度上不是自己能够左右的。

1. The claim that individual responsibility is a necessary fictions has some merit in that a society where individuals are not held accountable for their actions and choices is a lawless one, devoid of any order whatsoever.

2. A correlative argument for individual responsibility involves the fact that lawless, or anarchist, states give way to despotic rule by strong individuals who seize power.

3. As for the speaker's second claim, it flies in the face of our everyday experiences in making choices and decisions.

[BEGIN:] The speaker asserts that the individual responsibility in the modern world is just a necessarily fictional concept because it is always determined by the outside factors not human beings own behaviors. I agree that ensuring all the individuals to account for their own actions is very important, while it is unwarranted and ridiculous to regard the concept of 'individual responsibility' as a fiction. Besides, unduly emphasizing the role of environments in the performing of human actions may eventually threaten the stability and interest of the society.

1、 个人责任源自于人类文明的发展和理性选择
First of all, individual responsibility is an item that essentially stems from a rational choice through people's intellectual selection and deliberate consideration in the evolution of human civilization. Some of the detractors may argue that before the technology have become advanced enough to defend other savage beasts, it is the environment not our ancestors' efforts to determine the human behaviors. I concede that in the early stage of human evolution, struggling against other animals served as the primary actions in the people's daily lives. However, even under this circumstance, human beings, unlike the other beasts, have progressively introduced a set of values and principles into the human community for the sake of maintaining and developing the early form of society and also restricting some kinds of human behavior. Therefore, people's behaviors, even in the ancient time, are formed by their own experience and reflection rather than the forces from outside. With the evolution of human world, much more progress has been achieved and many of the wildernesses have been rendered with the human colors and edifice. The concept of 'individual responsibility' appeared much more manifest in the human world.

2、 个人责任作为一个实实在在的概念，是人类社会维系其根本价值观念和持续发展的根本原因之一
In the modern world, the individual responsibility is serving as a substantial and necessary concept that used to constrain the human behaviors and assure the interest of others. For one thing, modern people began to realize that only making all the individuals naturally thinks they must accountable for their own actions can their have private interest preserved and the whole society takes its steps towards the thriving future. That is why people today seems more willing to collecting and investigating all sorts of information before they take any actions, and the outside force also become much less of a crucial element in making any decisions. Conversely, the practical experiences also make many people realize that the neglecting of the individual responsibility may ultimately plunge the human world into a state of chaos. Some detractors might states that people nowadays have to obey the law and in many cases, the force of legislation in some sense conduct the human behavior and human beings can not determine their own actions. In this circumstance, ostensibly, common people have no rights to determine their actions or other behaviors. While, underneath the surface, human beings also are the dominators of their own actions. On the one hand, most of the ethical and moral values are formed by our ancestors' experience and rational reflection as the results of accumulation, so, it also rooted in the spheres of the human decision. On the other hand, the laws are after all limited a relatively narrow range of human behaviors, and outside these forbidden regions, the elements of human race also serve as the dominant role.

3、 个人责任的范畴是随着时代发展的，而不是一成不变的
As discussed above, the individual responsibility is established in the evolution of human world, and in some sense is a continuing process. In other words, the concept of the individual responsibility is not a constant item but to be verified and advanced in the development of human society. For example, in the ancient age, the dominators have nothing worry about to responsible for most of their illegal behaviors, such as killing the civilians. While this is not the case in the modern world, every one knows that such kind of behavior may throw them into the prisons. This trend will continue in the future development of human society.

[END:] In sum, from the long time evolution of human civilization, the concept of individual responsibility has been formed and served as the important foundation for the entire society on which it is rest. Therefore, the basic regulation that all the individuals must accountable for their own actions is not a fictional action but a fundamental principle of human world.

范文：

I fundamentally agree with the speaker's first contention, for unless we embrace the concept of "individual responsibility" our notions of moral accountability and human equality, both crucial to the survival of any democratic society, will whither. However, I strongly disagree with the second contention--that our individual actions are determined largely by external forces. Although this claim is not entirely without support, it runs contrary to common sense and everyday human experience.

The primary reason that individual responsibility is a necessary fiction is that a society where individuals are not held accountable for their actions and choices is a lawless one, devoid of any order whatsoever. Admittedly, under some circumstances a society of laws should carve out exceptions to the rule of individual responsibility--for example, for the hopeless psychotic who has no control over his or her thoughts or actions. Yet to extend forgiveness much further would be to endanger the social order upon which any civil and democratic society depends.

A correlative argument for individual responsibility involves the fact that lawless, or anarchist, states give way to despotic rule by strong individuals who seize power. History informs us that monarchs and dictators often justify their authority by claiming that they are preordained to assume it--and that as a result they are not morally responsible for their oppressive actions. Thus, any person abhorring despotism must embrace the concept of individual responsibility.

As for the speaker's second claim, it flies in the face of our everyday experiences in making choices and decisions. Although people often claim that life's circumstances have "forced" them to take certain actions, we all have an infinite number of choices; it's just that many of our choices are unappealing, even self-defeating. Thus, the complete absence of free WIU would seem to be possible only in the case of severe psychosis, coma, or death.

Admittedly, the speaker's second contention finds support from "strict determinist" philosophers, who maintain that every event, including human actions and choices, is physically necessary, given the laws of nature. Recent advances in molecular biology and genetics lend some credence to this position, by suggesting that these determining physical forces include our own individual genetic makeup. But, the notion of scientific determinism opens the door for genetic engineering, which might threaten equality in socioeconomic opportunity, and even precipitate the development of a "master race." Besides, since neither free will nor determinism has been proven to be the correct position, the former is to be preferred by any humanist and in any democratic society.

In sum, without the notion of individual responsibility a civilized, democratic society would soon devolve into an anarchist state, vulnerable to despotic rule. Yet, this notion is more than a mere fiction. The idea that our actions spring primarily from our free will accords with common sense and everyday experience. I concede that science might eventually vindicate the speaker and show that our actions are largely determined by forces beyond our conscious control. Until that time, however, I'll trust my intuition that we humans should be, and in fact are, responsible for our own choices and actions.

---

Orignal From: People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making

Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places

（老题库174）

法律应该根据不同的环境、时期和地点而足够灵活。

1. On the one hand, a certain measure of consistency, stability and predictability in our laws is required in order for us to understand our legal obligations and rights as we go about our day-to-day business as a society.

2. On the other hand, rigid laws can result in unfairness if applied inflexibly in all places at all times.

法律的灵活性

观点：基本同意，应该灵活；但有些不能变

1． 随着科技发展和社会进步，法律也在不断发展和完善，以保护人民的利益。As the development of the society, people may find urgent demand to modify laws for the society to well function. 例：With the appearance of Internet crime，it is imperative必要的 to amend the criminal law to include this case so that this kind of criminals should be punished；antitrust law 反垄断法

2． 对于不同的风俗和习惯，法律条例在不同的地方应该是不同的。例如，中国实行"一夫一妻制monogamy"，一夫多妻polygamy是犯法illegal的，而在阿拉伯国家Arab countries却是合法的；同性恋homosex婚姻在某些国家是合法的，而在其他国家却是不合法的

3． 然而，法律的基本精神和原则是不能变的，公平equity公正justness，保护合法权益rights and interests。否则会破快社会秩序，降低法律威信，公民丧失安全感。

结尾：社会多样化、不断发展，法律也应该发展、多样化；但法律的基本原则不变

范文：

Does "originality" mean putting together old ideas in new ways, as the speaker contends, rather than conjuring up truly new ideas? Although I agree that in various realms of human endeavor, such as linguistics, law, and even the arts, so-called "new" or "original" ideas rarely are. However, when it comes to the physical sciences originality more often entails chartering completely new intellectual territory.

The notion that so-called "originality" is actually variation or synthesis of existing ideas finds its greatest support in linguistics and in law. Regarding the former, in spite of the many words in the modern English language that are unique to Western culture, modern English is derived from, and builds upon, a variety of linguistic traditions--and ultimately from the ancient Greek and Latin languages. Were we to insist on rejecting tradition in favor of purely modern language we would have essentially nothing to say. The same holds true for all other modern languages. As for law, consider the legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in traditional English common-law principles of equity and justice. The system in the U.S. requires that new, so-called "modern" laws be consistent with and indeed build upon--those traditional principles.

Even in the arts--where one might think that true originality must surely reside--so-called "new" ideas almost always embrace, apply, or synthesize what came earlier. For example, most "modern" visual designs, forms, and elements are based on certain well-established aesthetic ideals--such as symmetry, balance, and harmony. Admittedly, modern art works often eschew these principles in favor of true originality. Yet, in my view the appeal of such works lies primarily in their novelty and brashness. Once the ephemeral novelty or shock dissipates, these works quickly lose their appeal because they violate fn:rnly established artistic ideals. An even better example from the arts is modern rock-and-roll music, which upon first listening might seem to bear no resemblance to dassical music traditions. Yet, both genres rely on the same 12-note scale, the same notions of what harmonies are pleasing to the ear, the same forms, the same rhythmic meters, and even many of the same melodies.

When it comes to the natural sciences, however, some new ideas are truly original while others put established ideas together in new ways. One striking example of truly original scientific advances involves what we know about the age and evolution of the Earth. In e~rlier centuries the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the Earth's age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had simply put these established ideas together in new ways the fields of structural and historical geology might never have advanced further. A more recent example involves Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein theorized, and scientists have since proven empirically, that the pace of time, and possibly the direction of time as well, is relative to the observer's motion through space. This truth ran so contrary to our subjective, linear experience, and to previous notions about time and space, that I think Einstein's theory can properly be characterized as truly original.

However, in other instances great advances in science are made by putting together current theories or other ideas in new ways. For example, only by building on certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semiconductor technology. And, only by struggling to reconcile the quantum and relativity theories have physicists now posited a new so-called "string" theory, which puts together the two preexisting theories in a completely new way.

To sum up, for the most part originality does not reject existing ideas but rather embraces, applies, or synthesizes what came before. In fact, in our modern languages, our new laws, and even our new art, existing ideas are reflected, not shunned. But, when it comes to science, whether the speaker's claim is true must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with each new theory or innovation.

---

Orignal From: Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places

It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves

(老题库113)

我们主要通过认同社会群体来定位自己。

I strongly agree that we define ourselves primarily through our identification with social groups, as the speaker asserts.

1. Any developmental psychologist would agree that socialization with other children plays a critical role in any child's understanding and psychological development of self.

2. As children progress to the social world of the playground and other after-school venues, their earlier recognition that they relate more closely to some people than to others evolves into a desire to form well-defined social groups, and to set these groups apart from others.

3. However, as young adults take on the responsibilities of partnering, parenting, and working, they appear to define themselves less by their social affiliations and more by their marital status, parental status, and occupation.

Begin：As is so often pointed out, human society is a mass of concrete individuals who shares some characteristics with the others and also possess its unique features as well. For one single person, the groups that he attend can only represent several aspects of the overall characteristics, however, it is unwarranted and ridiculous to expand this broad assertion to embrace all the characteristics and to be used to define a person, while neglecting some of the unique personality. （from重点）

1． 通过群体来定义是十分重要的。人的社会化的过程就是与不同的群体打交道并且找到适合自己的群体的过程。在这一群体中，大家都有相同的特征或爱好。

2． 通过群体来定义是有危险的，有时人们会为了某种特殊的目的而呆在某个群体。如：政治家为了选举、社会学家为了获得第一手资料、间谍为了得到特定信息。他们与这个群体中的人并不相同，但却混在一起。

3． 还有其他的方式来定义。若只通过群体来定义，等于认为一个群体中的人都有相同的特征。实际上，每个人都是独立的。通过个人的personality, 职业，年龄等人口学特征，还有行为方式等等。

End：From what has been discussed above, striking a balanced stress on the diversity of one individual and community should be the rational solution in the evolution of human civilization, and is the only way to maintain the initiative of the

范文：

I strongly agree that we define ourselves primarily through our identification with social groups, as the speaker asserts. Admittedly, at certain stages of life people often appear to define themselves in other terms. Yet, in my view, during these stages the fundamental need to define one's self through association with social groups is merely masked or suspended.

Any developmental psychologist would agree that socialization with other children plays a critical role in any child's understanding and psychological development of self. At the day-care center or in the kindergarten class young children quickly learn that they want to play with the same toys at the same time or in the same way as some other children. They come to understand generally what they share in common with certain of their peers---m terms of appearance, behavior, likes and dislikes--and what they do not share in common with other peers or with older students and adults. In other words, these children begin to recognize that their identity inextricably involves their kinship with certain peers and alienation from other people.

As children progress to the social world of the playground and other after-school venues, their earlier recognition that they relate more closely to some people than to others evolves into a desire to form well-defined social groups, and to set these groups apart from others. Girls begin to congregate apart from boys; clubs and cliques are quickly formed--often with exclusive rituals, codes, and rules to further distinguish the group's members from other children. This apparent need to be a part of an exclusive group continues through high school, where students identify themselves in their yearbooks by the clubs to which they belonged. Even in college, students eagerly join clubs, fraternities, and sororities to establish their identity as members of social groups. In my observation children are not taught by adults to behave in these ways; thus this desire to identify oneself with an exclusive social group seems to spring from some innate psychological need to define one's self through one's personal associations.

However, as young adults take on the responsibilities of partnering, parenting, and working, they appear to define themselves less by their social affiliations and more by their marital status, parental status, and occupation. The last of these criteria seems particularly important for many adults today. When two adults meet for the first time, beyond initial pleasantries the initial question almost invariably is "What do you do for a living?" Yet in my opinion this shift in focus from one's belonging to a social group to one's occupation is not a shift in how we prefer to define ourselves. Rather, it is born of economic necessity--we don't have the leisure time or financial independence to concern ourselves with purely social activities. I find quite telling the fact that when older people retire from the world of work an interest in identifying with social groups--whether they be bridge clubs, investment clubs, or country clubs--seems to reemerge. In short, humans seem possessed by an enduring need to be part of a distinct social group--a need that continues throughout life's journey.

In sum, I agree that people gain and maintain their sense of self primarily through their belonging to distinct social groups. Admittedly, there will always be loners who prefer not to belong, for whatever reasons; yet loners are the exception. Also, while many working adults might temporarily define themselves in terms of their work for practicality's sake, at bottom we humans are nothing if not social animals.

---

Orignal From: It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves

Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws

（老题库17）

每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，违抗不公平的法律。

1. First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system.

2. The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand.

3. Disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite effect of what was intended or hoped for.

4. By justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct.

1-法律的正义不正义没有绝对的定义 is rarely a straight forward issue

0） 很多法律没什么正义不正义

法律的一项功能：keep everything in order

比如：未满十六岁喝酒，吸烟

未满十八岁进网吧

未满二十二岁不能结婚 法定年龄legal age: The age at which a person may by law assume the rights and responsibilities of an adult.

1）在不同观念和文化中不同

法律的功能：to govern a society , control the behavior of its members

比如：该不该判死刑death penalty

口香糖chewing gum

安乐死 euthanasia

2）在不同利益者中不同

法律的一项功能是和平解决纠纷 resolve disputes peacefully

This is especially true when it comes to personal affairs.

Even in a well-ordered society, people have disagreements and conflicts arise. The law must provide a way to resolve these disputes peacefully. If two people claim to own the same piece of property, we do not want the matter settled by a duel: we turn to the law and to institutions like the courts to decide who is the real owner and to make sure that the real owner's rights are respected.

有争议就有利益纠纷，而争议永远存在。有审判就有满意不满意，just unjust 在两方定义不同。

2-法律不遵守，disobedience 会带来危害 poses certain risks , jeopardize to

比如：交通左右

Driving would be dangerous and chaotic.

法律和风俗思想情感不同：

Laws resemble morality because they are designed to control or alter our behavior. But unlike rules of morality, laws are enforced by the courts; if you break a law—whether you like that law or not—you may be forced to pay a fine, pay damages, or go to prison.

观点：法律的公平与不公平难以定义；既然是法律就应该遵守；即使有认为不公平的法律，也不该不遵守或违抗

1． Firstly，每个人对法律的公正与否都有自己的想法Everyone has his/her own opinion to comprehend justness and unjustness of laws，任何一条法律都有可能对一部分人公正而对另一部分人不公正。

2． Secondly, we are living in societies that need regulations and laws to maintain their stability and prosperity. 既然是法律，就应该遵守。法律的作用。 即使对于那些我们自己认为不公平的法律，也不能不遵守或者违抗。Otherwise,如果法律得不到很好的贯彻，有人执行，有人不执行，那么法律将形同虚设，社会秩序就乱了

3． Finally，虽然可能有不合理的地方，但法律不是一成不变的，而是随着社会的发展和进步在不断改进的Although has unjustness in some respects, the laws do not keep constant, as many people think, on the contrary, they are challenged and mended with the progress of social development.如果认为不公平，应该采取其他方法而不是违抗。比如向立法机关提出并建议修改。

结尾：很难为公平与不公平定一个同一的标准，当面临我们认为不公平的法律是，不应该违抗，而是采取更好的方法。

范文：

According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.

First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.

The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.

The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget.

Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

---

Orignal From: Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws