修改范例

One type of law that requires civil disobedience is any law that breaks our basic moral code. Laws that are unjust to one segment of society, that discriminate, repress, disenfranchise, and take the lives of one group in society are worthy of civil disobedience. Such laws are, in themselves, morally unbearable. The person who bends to such an unjust law must break his own moral code. During World War II, when Hitler’s fanaticism required his countrymen to take the lives of innocent people, many quietly resisted and lost their lives as well. Although unable to change the immediate course of events, those who rescued and hid Jews during the holocaust are regarded as honorable in a time of shame.

原稿（第三段）
 语言修改
 
Secondly, as an organic integrity, that has its own play rules here we call it laws. If the laws themselves are unjust, it is inconceivable that they can preserve fair play? Moreover, unjust laws poison our society and they penalize innocent people rather than guilty ones. So we should resist unjust laws.
 Often normal and natural rules and behaviors are turned into laws. However, when laws become outdated and unjust how can they benefit society? Unjust laws are a detriment to society and end up penalizing innocent, rather than guilty people. If we want to preserve our society we should resist unjust laws.
 

内容点评及修改

第一句话不太合乎逻辑。作为一个有机体，它有自己的游戏规则，即法律。这里没有说明谁是有机体，它的规则如何就成为了法律。接下来说的内容既空洞，又跑题。如果这些法律本身是非正义的，它怎么能够维护公平呢？而且，非正义的法律毒害我们的社会，惩罚了无罪的人，所以我们必须反抗不公正的法律。这段中的几句话没有给读者呈现合理的逻辑论证关系。

第二段只提出了一种需要抵抗的不公正法律，内容还不够充实，在第三段还应该提出另外需要抵抗的法律。例如，抵制它能让社会得益的法律，这样的法律需要抵制。诸如那些没有必要的限制自由，让人们受苦的法律需要人们和平的抗议。这里可以举出马丁路德金领导民权运动的例子。任何人都不能怀疑马丁路德金领导黑人反抗不公正的暴政以及争取平等权利的做法使得那一代人和整个国家都得到了益处。马丁路德金号召大家的进行抵抗开启了美国的民权运动，并使得黑人的文化得到了复兴，使得美国印第安人文化的得到了复兴。

修改范例

It is also a duty to disobey a law that is unjust when we know our resistance will benefit society. Laws that unnecessarily restrict freedom and produce suffering often can only be changed through civil disobedience because those in power are afraid to make changes. Society has recognized the bravery of people who have disobeyed such unjust laws. Few would contest that Martin Luther King, Jr., in leading his race and to stand against the tyranny of injustice and seek equal treatment, was doing a great service for his generation and his country. Even though the Jim Crow laws did not threaten lives, Martin Luther King Jr.’s call for resistance marked the birth of civil rights in his country, sparking the American Indian Movement and the Harlem Renaissance.

原稿（第四段）
 语言修改
 
Finally, as I have mentioned above, laws are the fundamental of our society and unjust laws will do much harm to our society and every one of us, we should not merely resist unjust laws. I think we should obey just laws and make our efforts to amend unjust laws and make more and more just laws out of unjust laws.
 Laws are the backbone of our society, with just laws preserving and unjust laws endangering our way of life. In order to maintain a healthy society we must not only obey the just laws and resist the unjust ones, we must also work to reform unjust laws.
 

内容点评及修改

这段与前面几段存在着同样的问题，只是重复了观点，没有进一步论证。其实，这三段话基本上没有中心思想，也没有对任何一个观点进行有效的组织和分析论证。而且，给读者反复说一样的话的感觉，这种重复可以通过调整句式避免。其实，最后一段话应该总结全文，但是不要重复前面的语句，完全可以换一种说法。例如，抵制不公正法律古已有之，它还将会改变我们的未来。虽然我们不能够太广泛的、太绝对的说我们有抵制所有不正义法律的责任，但是当必须抵制不正义法律的时刻到来的时候，我们应该这样做。

修改范例

Civil disobedience has its place in history and will probably shape our future. It may be dangerous to assert too broadly that we have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws, but there are times when events require us to do so.

习作总评

造成这篇作文失败的原因是这个作者不知道GRE作文的要求。GRE的作文首先要求作者对题目的复杂性加以了解分析。如果不去探讨题目的复杂性，仅仅看字面的意思，或者让这种宽泛的表达左右你的思想的话，那么你写作时就几乎无话可说了，因为原来的题目看起来像是真理一样。看到这个题目时应当清楚地知道这道题目的重点在于是否要反抗那些非正义的法律。要遵守正义的法律是不需要证实的，不需要去论证的。知道了题目的重点之后还得想到一个问题，就是我们抵抗非正义的法律并不是要无法无天，并不是要反对政府。必须论证反对非正义的法律对社会是有好处的，而不是去制造混乱。要举出例子证明我们反抗非正义的法律怎样使社会进步，使社会受益。所以在第一段就要对原来的题目进行qualify，即把原来的题目的涉及面缩窄。

[1] In almost everyone’s opinions表示一种不确定的语气，其实这个地方没有什么不确定的，不应该用这个词组。而且很多考生在作文时喜欢用不确定的语气说话，是个通病，应予以注意。在开篇点明观点时应体现出作者的自信，将“almost everyone”改为“most”增加开头的力度。

[2]第一句抄了原题中的话，浪费了有限的篇幅。

[3]第二句故意用了个问句并不生动，完全好像是在凑字数。

[4]法律是社会的基础。基础可以说groundwork或是backbone。如果只说fundamental指的是基本知识，基本常识。