Accordingto this statement, it is our responsibility to not only obey just laws, butmore important, to disobey the unjust one. Although it is too extreme bycategorizing laws in just and unjust laws, and even harmful by potentialmisleading us to resist laws, on balance I concede that we should obey the lawswhich precondition is fair and just to every; otherwise, the world around uswould be on a slippery slope toward disorder.

Tobegin with, the judgment of whether laws are just or unjust is a sophisticatedjob. The fairness of any a law depends largely on individual ideology-therebyany a political system has their justifiable requirement on laws which could beviewed unjust by communities with other stands. Consider, for example, the controversialargument of execution, some anyone with their particular system tend to viewdeath penalty only the mechanical compliance of old proverb “ return like forlike ”, and it is inhuman, even unjust. While individuals with the other standsview it is a necessary part in inhibition egregious criminal conduct. Generalspeaking, the fairness of judgment is subjective, depending largely on theaffection of political system.

Inaddition, since laws are built up which represents the majority interest, it isquit possible to ignore the interest of a few people-thus the means of unjustborn. For instance, in the year of 2005, our local government regulated thepoisonous gas a huge chemistry plant emitted into air for the nearby residents’health. Whereas over 1,400 employees lost their jobs due to obey this regulation,and the price of its production had increased from 85 Yuan per kilogram to 156per kilogram that might be costly a lot for its relative company. Yet the endresult of disobedience on the “unjust decree” by strike, for maintaining thecompanies’ interest, is to perpetuate this regulation. General speaking, lawsare subjective which presents the public interest, so it is unavoidable to hurtthe interest of some individuals by no means of “unjust”.




Admittedly,it should be confessed that we should obey the just laws. Confucius, the greatideologist, educationist and philosopher of ancient China, always saying (and Iparaphrase): “laws abiding spirit is a foundation stone to maintain thedevelopment of country. It is only because of observation of laws canfacilitate social unification, harmony, and stability that provide necessaryimpetus for the prosperity of a nation.” This illustrates the point that thespirit of laws abiding can lend great credence to the progress of our society,whereas without this spirit by justifying disobedience one sort of law we willfind ourselves on the edge to abandon observation all kinds of laws that isinevitable to facilitate the trend toward anarchism, and its byproduct of socialturbulence, monetary inflation, as well as production wreck.



Inconclusion, as the offspring of individual ideology, it is impossible to establishan immovable standard for the laws that suit to any political system andindividual interest. Actually, the security of individual and community areboth calling for the protection of law-thereby abiding laws is our inextricablyresponsibility.

17. There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.
According to this statement, it is our responsibility to （to应该放在not only 后吧）not only obey just laws, but more important, to disobey the unjust one.（应该用自己的话转述吧，你的好像基本和题目差不多耶！） Although it is too extreme by categorizing laws in just and unjust laws, and even harmful by potential misleading us to resist laws, on balance， I concede that we should obey the laws which precondition is fair and just to everyone（这个句子不能这么写吧，既然你前面的限定词是laws，咋个后面句子完整主语变成了precondition?直接有关介词短语不就行了么--under the precondition of...再者偶觉得你的论断有点武断，法律不可能做到绝对的人人平等吧！）; otherwise, the world around us would be on a slippery slope toward disorder. 你的观点到什么，好像不是很清楚，你只是表示了要在人人平等的情况下才要遵守法律，即不平等就不遵守对吧？但是能做到么？

1. According to, 在正式的英文写作中（Academic writing）用于引用文献。在这里，你说According to this statement, 表明你把题目的论点当成了你文章的论据，虽然我知道你是要重复题目凑字数，哈哈。第一句的语法错误：our是谁？你，我，ETS阅卷官？用people似乎更好些。此外：people should not only obey just laws, but they also need to disobey the unjust laws; 或people is responsible to obey just laws. More importantly, they should disobey the unjust laws.
2.extreme的用法。很多学生误用了这个单词，总以为是汉语中的“过于极端”，其实英文中它表达“超过了某种限度”，请具体参考webster。我们想表达的“极端化”在英文中常用solely,only.要不你可以说人家太arbitrary, 或based on discretion.“potential mislead”?“潜在误导”？第二句看起来想是个fragment sentence.concede是“不情愿地承认” 。形容词和组（collocation,combination）都不对.包括这一段后面的，看起来好像在乱搭配单词。
3. 从第二句，because of different social norms in different economic, political, and cultural contexts, neither just nor unjust laws cannot be predefined. However, when more and more people in a given society obey just laws, the whole social system will from people's actions. （尽量把你要表达的简洁，明了地表达，主题句尽量短小精悍，这是给EST写作的关键。你好像在打太极，说了人家很极端，自己又来了个precondition的Laws）.
4. 你第二段开始跑题了。首先用词，一般to begin with后面follow的不是writer的第一个理由，而是对开篇的铺垫信息和加强性论述。ETS考官往下看，根本不会认为你在陈述理由。果然，你开篇结尾承认人们应该遵守公正的法律。但第二段开始又开始讲如何定义公正与不公正。把这个ISSUE题搞成了挑ISSUE命题的错误。简化题目，试想一下如何“消极不做坏事和积极地做好事”是不是和这题一样“消极地遵守公正的法律，但是否要积极反抗不公正的法律”一样？

给你自己找好好的三条理由或者事例吧，再写写吧！祝你成功！