GRE Issue 3 求拍砖

) B& D" W# S; y4 j/ D, q7 mhttps://www.dolc.de/forum/viewthr ... &extra=page%3D1
以上为原帖，我修改了下。 希望大家继续口诛笔伐





% K9 z9 V3 e$ _; wLaws and morality are symbiotic and interdependent. While laws are tangible and rigid, morality is intangible and flexible. They supplement each other. Once one of them does not functionate, the other counterpart could still be resorted.

Governing a country under a legal system is what most countries do nowadays. Black characters against white paper explicitly stipulate what the people’s rights and obligations are. Once a rigid and fixed law comes into force, the society can immediately reach a consensus, so that the societal administration is facilitated and the punishment to incompliance is much more convincing.

6 a7 @3 D8 Y/ eAnother system to rule the people is a moral system. It is a completely flexible system, in comparison with the above mentioned legal system. Conviction is based on subjective opinions, where sympathy and selfish motivation may play roles. The same incompliance might receive even contrary judgment, consequently it is impossible to maintain the justice and people would never advocate such unfair governance.

. B. C0 R9 H  `/ LIt is true that along with the gradually varying circumstances those obsolete rigid laws are highly likely shown to be unbecoming for the newly emerging situation, revisions or complements are inevasible at the legislature. But despite all this, one should also notice the circumstances are persistently altering. In case that laws became so flexible that they tend to perfectly adapt  to each emerging situation, then the problem should arise with executability. laws could be subsequently so fast reactive to the changing situation that people violated the law without consciousness and executors judged cases with out-of-date regulations. This is apparently not supposed. Therefore in other words, laws are indispensable to keep some certain rigidness, make full use of the societal tolerance and morality control, and change themselves if and only if unavoidable.



$ \9 Z& Q5 {% i- G# g$ k, s
consensus一词还没改，大家先拍其他的

吃花生的大灰狼

; o" x$ J  z, @( {$ d' o
9 z; W4 }7 ]% V( @+ y# uJust my two cents. Not necessarily correct since I have not a native speaker.
! |$ ~* B  B# }7 F% g# t
. U1 v) c4 C' X: o, g0 D' k$ d1. Once one of them does not functionate, the other counterpart could still be resorted.
One ... the other... Counterpart is not necessary.
+ l; i" s. @  E. B$ Hresort to sth
5 \' F9 F* h7 S; p. a3 h2. stipulate what the people’s rights and obligations are.
    "stipulate sth" is enough.
3. the above mentioned legal system.
I think "above mentioned" is redundant. By the way, sth mentioned above or the aforementioned ... sound better.
4. The same incompliance might receive even contrary judgment, consequently it is impossible to maintain the justice and people would never advocate such unfair governance.
4 G1 a# u0 J' s& u
. }  B; g. B3 W  JI would break it into two sentences.
/ ?7 u3 @4 ]: w3 dEven the same ...  Consequently,...
1 Z& V, H1 Z: g
5. Therefore in other words,
/ e# g- p1 k3 c' E8 N; m6 o. I
! f2 _9 H! H, n5 e# P9 T: \One of them is enough.

6. are highly likely shown to be unbecoming for the newly emerging situation,