Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
In modern world, efficacy of laws have always been a central topic in our society. Nevertheless, some people keep a pessimistic attitude to actual effect of laws. There even exists a claim that problems in today's world are unable to be settled down by laws and legislative system, because laws lack powers to change human's internal wills. From my perspective of view, it is undeniably true that morality laws can't cast a decisive influence on people's personal life. Following this logic, we can't expect morality laws to realize a better society by restricting personal freedom. However, when turning to business fields, morality laws could play a more fundamental and irreplaceable role.
To start off, I have to express my appreciation for the reason part of this issue. To be specific, morality laws can't reshape human's personal life, since people can always be able to circumvent harsh laws and ultimately give way to more lenient laws consistent with their favorable life. The failure of American teetotalism and legislation is a case in point. Initially U.S. government had enforced a harsh regulation for forbidding alcohol abuse for men, but it finally turned in vain as proliferation of surreptitious bargains. Furthermore, similar cases also apply for recognition of same-sex partnership and acceptance of physician-assisted suicides. In short, all of the past experience inform us that putting personal desire into the cage of morality laws simply doesn't work.
Furthermore, so far as the idea that construction of greater society can be achieved by restriction of personal freedom is concerned, the claim of the issue is of no doubt untenable, because the ensuing costs will certainly outweigh its benefits. For example, those who advocate criminalization of drugs use might cites various detrimental for their stance: increasing citizen violence, endangering people's health status and diminishing addicts for medical usage. However, those defenders neglect the truth that such restriction doesn't prevent substance abuse at all. Inversely, it compels the addictive to undertake surreptitious sales via illegal channels, or even steal from medicine providers. In this sense, anticipated risks definitely overshadow benefits that we can gain from.
However, when it comes to business world, I have to concede that morality laws is necessary to avoid detrimental influences of enterprises casting on every citizen. It is determined by avaricious nature of business that enterprise tend to take precedent of profits over any other goal, such as public interests. Consequently, businessmen surely dare to risk public benefits, if their decisions could help them grasp with huge profit return. Such example abounds in our surrounding world. For instance, even if modern technologies well serve to tackle with pollutants and turn them innocuous to the environment, business owners of factories, which generated deleterious wastes, still refuse to invest in equipment which lead to such positive change. Because it could undertake additional expenditures and inevitably diminish their ultimate revenue. Therefore, without mandatory regulations devised by the government, we can't imagine that they would involuntarily sacrifice their profits and cater to public interest. From this perspective, only morality laws, which impose restrictions on business behaviors, could avoid those mercenaries to deteriorate our society unfetteredly.
In summary, while I accept with the reason part of this issue and the claim part of this issue is also applicable for personal domain, extending such practice to business world could further avert negative results for public duty. That is to say, morality laws pale its significance in term of more personal domain, but they are still capable to preclude potential risks caused by business world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 410, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...t is undeniably true that morality laws cant cast a decisive influence on peoples pe...
^^^^
Line 1, column 492, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...personal life. Following this logic, we cant expect morality laws to realize a bette...
^^^^
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...is issue. To be specific, morality laws cant reshape humans personal life, since peo...
^^^^
Line 3, column 666, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... physician-assisted suicides. In short, all of the past experience inform us that putting ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 677, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
...assisted suicides. In short, all of the past experience inform us that putting personal desire ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 770, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e into the cage of morality laws simply doesnt work. Furthermore, so far as the ide...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 530, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...neglect the truth that such restriction doesnt prevent substance abuse at all. Inverse...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 920, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...gulations devised by the government, we cant imagine that they would involuntarily s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, well, while, for example, for instance, in short, in summary, no doubt, such as, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3262.0 2235.4752809 146% => OK
No of words: 587.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55706984668 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9222030514 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9861522294 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 341.0 215.323595506 158% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580919931857 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 1043.1 704.065955056 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.7427203571 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.814814815 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7407407407 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07407407407 5.21951772744 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162749607113 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0397329561204 0.0831039109588 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457381168586 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0936844610171 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482865739971 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.1639044944 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 188.0 100.480337079 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.