Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Many would assert that laws should be adaptable to varying situations. In some senses, it is undeniable that laws need to evolve to suit different times and places. However, by focusing solely on the adaptability of laws, this perspective overlooks the drawbacks of changing laws too frequently, especially concerning public trust and fundamental rights that should remain consistent.
Admittedly, few would disagree that laws should sometimes be updated to maintain societal harmony. When faced with a rapidly evolving society where economic, political, and technological landscapes are constantly shifting, laws that are amendable can better serve the needs of both individuals and corporations. For instance, with the advent of blockchain technology, laws had to be flexibly adjusted to address this new financial environment, ensuring that people and businesses could operate within a legal framework. The point here is that laws that evolve in response to societal needs can foster a more harmonious environment.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that laws should always be malleable. Considering the public's reliance on laws, constant modifications can undermine societal stability. For example, when laws regarding new technology like smartphones were frequently altered, especially policies related to telecommunication fees, many people were left perplexed and uncertain, leading to a decline in trust towards the legal system. This indicates that excessive amendments can be detrimental to societal trust.
Moreover, the stability of certain laws needs to be considered, especially those that uphold basic rights. For instance, laws concerning personal freedoms, which are fundamental rights, should remain steadfast, ensuring that citizens are protected from potential government overreach. This also implies that a balanced approach, rather than incessant changes, is often more beneficial for societal well-being.
To sum up, while there are advantages to having adaptable laws, considerations like public trust and the preservation of basic rights highlight that constant legal shifts are not always beneficial for society. Only if we were to ignore the importance of these factors could we conclude that laws should invariably be flexible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-21 | Celestina Asantewaa | 50 | view |
| 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 |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 58
- 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 83
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 70
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 98, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...ld always be malleable. Considering the publics reliance on laws, constant modification...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, well, while, for example, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1949.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 330.0 442.535393258 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.90606060606 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07173045812 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.590909090909 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => 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: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3102893472 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.8125 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0625 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.204444911515 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0780793799833 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0583428605095 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120005145588 0.150359130593 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0367528160322 0.0667264976115 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 48.8420337079 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 12.1639044944 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.27 8.38706741573 122% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => 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.