đź“ť TASK 2: Some people think it is better for one single legal system throughout the world. Other say countries should have their own law. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The only
one
right structure would be the finest approach with reference to some individuals, Correct pronoun usage
apply
while
according to
other people
, it would be better to organize specific rules
for each country. Although
people
have already adapted to separate rights
for every state, there are also
plenty of beneficial sides to having one
single legal system all over the world.
In current times, it ought to be the best way to have their own laws
because of local needs. That is
to say, in countries
, there are zillions of diverse regions, origins, and environments which the government has to consider. These aspects of cities have to be considered when they are making new rules
for their own countries
. Due to
this
, people
's lives would be effortless by making flexible and adequate laws
for them. Nevertheless
, there is one
massive problem among international countries
. For instance
, sanctions on a considerable amount of products were declared to Russia by a lot of states. The main reason was that the Russian government's laws
were not suitable for all countries
' individuals. Therefore
, it is arduous to make rules
for each state despite the fact that there would be uncertainties and incompatibilities which could prevail in their own country.
On the other hand
, a solitary principle for all would be beneficial in different ways. First and foremost, obviously, travelling, working, and living could be easier. Subsequently
, protection of rights
can be elite in that system, since these laws
will be known throughout the world. For
this
reason, being aware of their own rights
, people
might not commit a crime as frequently as they have done. For example
, in Belgium and the Netherlands, there are too many principles which were made analogous rules
for citizens' convenience. It leads to a dramatic reduction of minor offences such
as shoplifting, littering, and disturbing the peace of residents as there are plenty of individuals who know about their fines and punishments. Thus
, this
is useful to organize only one
principle for all in order to maintain a city's peace.
In conclusion, as far as I am concerned, even though it is an effective way to make outstanding rights
for each country in order to improve the coincidence of local necessities, the general principles will be much more advantageous to avoid obstructions and to explore a peaceful world.Submitted by makemoneyizzy16 on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
coherence cohesion
While the essay addresses both sides of the argument effectively, it could benefit from clearer topic sentences for each paragraph to guide the reader more effortlessly.
task achievement
Some sentences could be simplified for better clarity. For instance, 'these laws will be known throughout the world' could be revised to 'these laws would be universally recognized'.
coherence cohesion
The introduction sets a good context for the discussion and clearly outlines both viewpoints.
supported main points
Both body paragraphs provide detailed supporting points for each side of the argument, making the essay well-balanced.
relevant specific examples
Relevance of examples is strong, particularly in the analogy made between Belgium and the Netherlands.
Your opinion
Don’t put your opinion unless you are asked to give it.
If the question asks what you think, you MUST give your opinion to get a good score.
Don’t leave your opinion until the conclusion.
Here are examples of instructions that require you to give your opinion:
...do you agree or disagree?...do you think...?...your opinion...?