Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
In the evolution of human society, laws are enacted as restrictions for the harmony and stability of society. With the modernization of human society, issues of all aspects emerging much more complex, the legislation occasionally incurred controversy among the general public. Nevertheless, as citizens in the country, no one should ever breach the laws in any case, even if the law is unjust for certain groups, such as LGBTQ.
The statement garbles the definition of responsibility, which has been defined as part of the legislation that every individual has to fulfill responsibility. Since the resistance to unjust laws generally originates from the sense of morality, then the question becomes whether we should against unjust laws as human beings with ethics and civilized recognitions. And the answer is obvious that opposing unjust laws is necessary but not in the way of violation. The outcome of breaching the laws would only be the turmoil of the whole society, as those protesting campaigns in the news report appearing much more frequently over the past few years.
The death penalty has always been the controversial one to be discussed. Deprivation of the right of living seems to be unjust, especially in China, where the death penalty is enacted to be the restriction of the most serious crime. Despite this, the Chinese legislature and the governors maintain the death penalty for reasons, including the deterrence of criminals and construction the of credence among citizens. Undoubtfully, China maintains stability and security in all aspects of society, partially resulting from the legislation of the penalty system. Compared to other countries, the rate of crime is much lower in China, thus assuring the security of the citizens. No one would disobey the laws that promise life safety and social stability, even though the injustice exists.
Nevertheless, unjust laws denting the rights of the minority in society still exist. People are struggling to eliminate those obstructs for the construction of a much brighter society. Members representing LGBTQ has aroused the consensus among the social media, denouncing the people who manifest discrimination. Under this circumstance, the legal priority of marriage relationships between other than females and males is strongly demanded among those minorities, who have endeavored for years in the battle of changing people’s stereotypes and policies enacted by the government. With proper and assiduous pleas, some countries compromised to formulate a more harmonious and democratic environment for LGBTQs, some of whom are still striving. Perseverance works out for those people faced with unjust laws, which also stimulate us to build a pathway for a more civilized and modernized society.
The statement, obfuscating the definition of morality and responsibility and the boundary between absolute and relative justice, misconstrue the essence of obeying laws. To construct a more civilized and harmonious society and satiate everyone’s sense of security, laws relatively unjust could be enacted judiciously for the whole situation. Even though the laws might be unjust for minorities, the approaches are plenitude for us to convey our appeals without disobeying any law. Hence, the world could be a better place with percipient restrictions and relative equality.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 262, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...sionally incurred controversy among the general public. Nevertheless, as citizens in the count...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, nevertheless, so, still, then, thus, as to, such as, in any case
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 33.0505617978 39% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2841.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 515.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51650485437 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.763781212 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04292104083 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 268.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520388349515 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 893.7 704.065955056 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 6.24550561798 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1305418718 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.52173913 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3913043478 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73913043478 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264772658333 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0737486599335 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832776834623 0.0758088955206 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153353465584 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0855746309702 0.0667264976115 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.