Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Many would assert that flexibly changed laws have several helpful ways to adapt diverse environments. In some senses, it is undeniable that the transformation of laws is required to meet people’s needs at different times and places. Only by exaggerating the virtues of flexibility of laws, however, does the view overlook the vices of unstable rules for the reasons of reliance from the public and basic right laws our society should keep.
Admittedly, the opportune changes of law seems to be beneficial for maintaining societal integrity. When it comes to a fast-paced society in which the economical and political environments are changing all the time along with the rapid development of technologies, it might be less rigid laws which are hardly changed than frequently amended laws that fit the societal needs of the citizens and companies. Blockchain laws, which is a law to meet newly changed financial environments, can enhance integrity without making people out of law by modifying the related laws flexibly. The point here is that amending laws following people’s needs can improve the social environment.
Nevertheless, it is not always necessary that flexibility of law is the most important priority. Considering reliance on laws from people, frequent changes on laws do not help social stability. In fact, a series of new laws related to new technology like smartphones made people confused since the law frequently changed the policies of their telecommunication fee, leading to people losing their reliance on laws. This indicates that frequent changes of laws are harmful for social integrity.
Moreover, maintaining laws can be encouraged in terms of basic right laws. Rather than changing the essential laws, basic laws about liberty, one of the essential rights among people, could be kept by conservative approach to the laws, helping people defend their right against the authoritative government. This also shows that laws without changes can enhance societal heath.
To sum up, despite the advantage of the flexible transformation of laws, reliance on laws and basic right laws tell us that flexibility is not always beneficial for the integrity of society. Were it not for a hasty ignorance of reliance from people and essential right of people, we could not conclude that the frequent changes in laws is the most helpful for social integrity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- In any profession business politics education government those in power should step down after five years 16
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 58
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, so, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2003.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 378.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29894179894 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92179090113 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484126984127 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.6934438757 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.1875 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.625 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4375 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More 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: 0.193309443583 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845388007654 0.0831039109588 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0301421497181 0.0758088955206 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12785948127 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255812707791 0.0667264976115 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.