写了好久的GRE Issue,分享一篇求改

有找native speaker看，只是别人不知道GRE什么模式，也许语法错误比较容易纠正。希望大家帮忙看看逻辑结构什么的，提些意见。还有不到三周就要考了！

这篇文章因为给的statement有两个部分，我的观点为：同意第一个部分，但是觉得第二部分有待讨论。不知道这样写可不可以？

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.

Laws are essential to the society we are living in today. They are the pivots that maintain social order and stability. The given statement argues that each individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws, with which I agree with the first part. To ensure laws function in the way they are designed to, it is critical that individuals obey them so that wrongdoers can be punished while the innocent can be protected. However, with respect to the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws, I am not so sure.

It is vital that each individual obeys laws so that laws can serve the purposes they are supposed to serve. To protect original ideas of inventors, government enacts patent laws to punish piracy and plagiarism. To protect the life of citizens, severe penalties are in place to make sure murders are punished for their atrocious deeds. To protect the benefit of one’s own country, government may promulgate laws that protect its business profits in international trading. It is the existence of these laws that warrants the order and stability of a society. Without laws, a society will surely be a chaos, where coercion and physical power rule and lives of ordinary people can be taken with impunity. Such chaos will in term stymie the development of humans. For example, if property right is not well protected, there would be little motivation for ingenious people to invent. Therefore, the society will end up losing new and innovative inventions and technologies. Considering the importance of laws, it is understandable why individuals should obey laws, because without the cooperation of individuals, laws will become a futile means to keep social order and stability.

However, while it is important for individuals to obey laws, it is disputable to assert that they should disobey and resist unjust laws. First of all, whether a certain law is just or unjust is difficult to determine as different people may hold different opinions toward the same law. For instance, a country may find it just to enact laws that protect its domestic manufacturing by increasing tariff, which may be considered as unjust by another country who views such laws as protectionism. Second, if a law is already in place, its legitimacy must have passed the scrutiny of its makers. In a authoritarian government, it may be reasonable for citizens to disobey and resist a law that is solely based on the interests of the ruler. However, in a democracy, a completely unjust law would be promptly rescinded if it does promote social justice and equality. The point here is that the obscurity in the definition of if a law is just or unjust makes it difficult to vindicate the claim that individual has a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws.

To conclude, I do agree with the first part of the statement and I would like to reserve my opinion on the second part. To ensure social order and stability, individuals should obey laws. It is the way to make themselves protected as well as to ensure continuous development of human society. Regarding to the second part of the statement, it is disputable to argue that individuals should disobey and resist unjust laws because of the difficulty in defining the nature of a law in terms of being just or unjust.

Laws are essential to the society we are living in today. They are the pivots that maintain social order and stability. The given statement argues that each individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws, from which I agree with the first part. To ensure laws function in the way they are designed to, it is critical that individuals obey them so that wrongdoers can be punished while the innocent can be protected.(这句不太通顺) However, it is ambiguous of the statement to require the responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws.

It is vital that each individual obeys laws so that laws can serve the purposes they are supposed to serve. To protect original ideas of inventors, government enacts patent laws to punish piracy and plagiarism. To protect the life of citizens, severe penalties are in place to make sure murders are punished for their atrocious deeds. To protect the benefit of one’s own country, government may promulgate laws that protect its business profits in international trading. It is the existence of these laws that warrants the order and stability of a society. Without laws, a society will surely be a chaos, where coercion and physical power rule and lives of ordinary people can be taken with impunity (这句应该写错了，是什么意思). Such chaos will in term stymie the development of humans. For example, if property right is not well protected, there would be little motivation for ingenious people to invent. Therefore, the society will end up losing new and innovative inventions and technologies. Considering the importance of laws, it is understandable that individuals should obey laws, because without the compliance of individuals, laws will become a futile means to keep social order and stability.
例子还不错

However, while it is important for individuals to obey laws, it is disputable to assert that they should disobey and resist unjust laws. First of all, whether a certain law is just or unjust is difficult to determine as different people may hold different opinions toward the same law. For instance, a country may find it just to enact laws that protect its domestic manufacturing by increasing tariff, which may be considered as unjust by another country who views such laws as protectionism. Second, if a law is already in place, its legitimacy must have passed the scrutiny(passed the scrutiny有点怪) of its makers. In a authoritarian government, it may be reasonable for citizens to disobey and resist a law that is solely based on the interests of the ruler. However, in a democracy, a completely unjust law would be promptly rescinded if it does promote(这应该是unjust law的行为吧，改为impair) social justice and equality. The point here is that the obscurity in the definition of whether a law is just or not, which makes it difficult to vindicate the claim that individual has a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws.

To conclude, I do agree with the first part of the statement and I would like to reserve my opinion on the second part. To ensure social order and stability, individuals should obey laws, which help protect themselves as well as to ensure continuous development of human society. Regarding to the second part of the statement, it is disputable to assert that individuals should disobey and resist unjust laws because of the difficulty in defining the nature of a law in terms of being just or unjust.

serve表示删掉，总体来说句式欠多样化，以后构思的话可以往三段论去想
麻烦回批下我的文章，谢谢 http://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/thread-70792-1-1.html