GRE Essay:- "Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible

Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views. Please give your valuable feedback on my essay. I would be really thankful to you for your comments and suggestion.

Topic: - "Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."

Response: -

According to the law of ecology- intraspecies competition is always fiercer than interspecies competition. And, as we human being are fighting for the same resources to use; so definitely, there will be contradiction and clash for using these resources. These fighting and clash should not go to the extent where we should kill each other or harm each-other, there should be some guiding principle by which we should compete against, not only each other, but, also against the other species of this planet. Here comes the word 'law'. Law can be defined as, "specific set of rules made by people for the proper functioning of the society, community, state, country, and as a whole whatever is in interaction of the human being." The question raised by the issue topic that law should be not rigid but flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places seems reasonable on long time scale but not for a short time scale.

What is the purpose of making any law? I think, its purpose is not to punish anybody but to deter others from doing same kind of mistakes again. Keeping the basic purpose of the law in mind the basic assumption made by abovementioned phrases seems to be true that law should be flexible enough to take into account various circumstances, times, and places. But, if we will consider few examples as per say issue of capital punishment in various circumstances, we have to reconsider the assumption made by the abovementioned phrase. Like, there was one case in Kolkata few years back in which watchman of a building has raped and killed a 10year girl. Later he was given death sentence for this crime. In another case a men has killed another person while saving his life. But, he was acquitted. In the light of above mentioned example two questions can be asked-

1. Why there is different punishment for the same type of crime?
2. Is it always possible to prove that man has killed another person while saving his life or just for some other reason and now he is trying to defend himself?

The answer to the second question is clear- No! So, law tries to be flexible and consider all the circumstances under which a crime has been committed but it's not always easy to take these circumstances into account. This is the reason why law can't be flexible on case-to-case basis because by doing so we will be taking more number of wrong decisions than right decisions.

But, now we need to consider flexibility of any law on long time scale. As I have mentioned in the first paragraph that law is nothing but specific set of rules made by human being for the proper functioning of the society. And, as we know that people requirement and need of the society use to change with time, law has to also change with time. We can take a very simple example of hunting the wild animals. In earlier days humans were dependent on these animals for their food. But, as now, our major requirements of food are meet by other sources there is absolutely no need to hunt these animals. So, in this situation definitely rules need to be changed, and as we can see in most of the countries, hunting has been banned. Another example of this kind of change, which is in progress at present, is change in the rule of same sex marriage, which is still not allowed in many countries. Law should also take into account places in which it should be implemented. I would like to present a very simple example to support this point. Sell of liquor is banned in many countries but we have to reconsider our this law in places where temperature use to go very low and you need to take liquor to keep yourself warm and alive.

In conclusion, we can say that law should try to consider various circumstances, times, and places while taking any decision but on the same time it should not vary from person to person. Same law should apply to all for the same type of mistake. It should not be person dependent. On other hand, if any law is becoming outdated with time and place than it should be changed with the consensus of the majority.

Hello Rajesh

I could not find out what your stance on this issue is, even after reading it twice.

First of all, I did not fully understand what you meant by "long time scale" and "short time scale". Laws are not like business plans, where you can make a projection of future. Businesses generally follow set mathematical rules, but laws don't.


That was a good example you gave, but then your next example is a contradictory one. Why?

Moreover, when you list the subsequent examples, you are taking them on a case-to-case basis, and thus contracting your original premise.


This is an assertion which has no basis. You shouldn't have introduced it in the concluding paragraph as you cannot substantiate it here.

Rajesh, I think your main problem is your grammar. Maybe, that's why your sentences are unclear. You have made some basic mistakes... Learn the usage of singular and plural nouns, and also articles (a, an, the).

I think you know a lot. You just need to express yourself properly. :)

Good luck!

Dear Hussain,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments. Now, I would like to make few points about the essay. As you have mentioned that I have given contradictory examples, I think, if you have got it in that way then it's right. I have not defended the issue raised by the topic fully, but only partially. Do you think it's necessary to argue against or in the favor of any issue? I have put my perspective on the issue, which is that, law can't be changed on case to case basis, so it has to be rigid; but if needed, it can be changed when it worn out with time.

Another point raised by you is that I have committed grammatical mistakes. Maybe! That's true I am not so good at grammar and trying my level best to rectify it, but you can understand that it will take some time. Please help me to find out those mistakes. I will really appreciate your help in this regard. I know it's too much help to ask for, but please help me with the proofreading of this essay.

Thanks and regard,
Rajesh

I agree that it's not necessary to always argue in favor or against the issue, but what I meant was that your stand should be clear from the beginning. The reader should know that you are sitting on the fence.


You're absolutely right. Learning proper grammar is a time consuming process. I pointed out that fact because most of your writing is fine. It's just that those mistakes sometimes distort the meaning.


Ok I'll point out a few.

And, as we human beings
there will be contradictions and clashes for using
Keeping the basic purpose of thea law in mind, the basic assumption made by abovementionedaforementioned phrases seems to be true that a law should be flexible enough to take into account various circumstances, times, and places.

Can you see where you are going wrong? You have got most of the complicated stuff sorted out; you just need to avoid those silly mistakes. It's like you've derived a formula to solve a really difficult mathematical problem, but finally made a mistake while performing an addition or subtraction.

Work on these. They won't take a lot of time.

Dear Hussain,

Thank you. I got what you want to point out. I will try to take care of these things from next time. Anymore suggestions?

Thanks and regard,
Rajesh

I like this way of introducing a term! That is quite poetic and clever.

I see what the stance it. The writer says laws should be enforced in a flexible way rather than a rigid way.

Sell The sale of liquor is banned in many countries, but we have to reconsider our this law in places where temperature use to go very low and you need to take liquor to keep yourself warm and alive. --- when you start talking about this, you are digressing. The question is about how law should be enforced rather than whether laws can change. No, no! I take it back. Actually, the question is not just about enforcement. This is a good observation...

So this essay can be about whether flexibility should be used in changing laws and whether flexibility should be used in enforcing laws.

I think you got a little arbitrary when you talked about killing in self defense. That is an example of someone involuntarily breaking a law, though, and it is a good example to support your point. This essay can be improved with the addition of a few clear topic sentences for the paragraphs. At the start of each paragraph write a sentence that clearly tells the point that will be made in it. That will help make this clearer.

I think you have some great ideas!!