There is much discussion nowadays as to whether or not society should accept that children mature at a younger age these days by allowing them to make decisions about their lives with out the interference of their parents or teachers， and the law should be adjusted or modified accordingly. As law is brought into the matter， it certainly merits our close attention and prudent action. In my opinion， we should not go as far as that.
In the first place， for most teenagers， mental and social maturity has not been sufficiently achieved. It is true that improved living standards and the consequent dietetic excellence have brought about the physical prematurity of teenagers. Yet， most of them fail to be mentally or socially mature. All too often credulousness and thoughtlessness subject them to impetuous and wanton acts. The disparity between physical and mental maturity necessitate proper and timely guidance from their parents or teachers. And legal validation of their immature behavior will do harm to society as well as to themselves.
Second， decision making power granted at an earlier age involves the possibility of being held legally liable at an earlier age.It is a widely acknowledged rule that in a civilized and democratic society rights and obligations should be shaped equal or proportionate to each other. The right to decision making entails torresponding assumption of certain responsibility. That is to say，negative interests as well as positive ones resulting from their behavior should be shouldered. A case in point is capital punishment， whose application is otherwise confined to adults above 18 may now cover 16 year-olds. It is a well established rule that it is unfair to impose punishment on one who is mentally inade quate to understand his or her behavior because the punishment of law should only go to those who have knowledge of their behavior.
In addition， the withdrawal of parental interference will prove impracticable and negative in the present Chinese society，which has always been heavily family oriented. The traditional Chinese family pattern holds it that parental decision is to be observed and the freedom of children is to be limited. Today， a Chinese child's dependence on his parents remains strong. As lawmaking should take into account possible social effects of a certain adjustment， the legal stipulation at issue will not yield desirable results against above mentioned social background.
In fact， the question at issue is not whether children over 15 should be allowed to make decisions on their own but whether or not certain laws should be changed to cater for it. In view of all the foregoing factors， I firmly hold that the granting of exclusive decision making power to children over 15 through the adjustment of certain laws in China will prove undesirable， from which good results are not to be expected.
簡(jiǎn) 評(píng)
這篇文章的開(kāi)篇就極大地吸引了讀者的注意力。第一句就是極為復(fù)雜的長(zhǎng)句，長(zhǎng)達(dá)45個(gè)單詞，氣勢(shì)磅礴，咄咄逼人。從行文來(lái)看，很難相信它竟是出自一名大學(xué)女生的手筆。顯然張珍蓮?fù)瑢W(xué)非常熱愛(ài)自己的法律專(zhuān)業(yè)，并具有很強(qiáng)的律師天賦。文章語(yǔ)言流暢，思路嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，用法律的典型文體討論了嚴(yán)肅的社會(huì)和法律問(wèn)題，具有很強(qiáng)的時(shí)代感和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。
作者的英文功底極為出色，除了詞匯量引人注目以外，還具有相當(dāng)?shù)挠⒄Z(yǔ)思維能力，善于使用諸如merit、entail、subject等中國(guó)的英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者不容易留心到的詞匯。從句式上看，作者善于使用被動(dòng)語(yǔ)態(tài)來(lái)體現(xiàn)行文的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)性和客觀性，被動(dòng)句占全文的31％，平均每句的長(zhǎng)度是19.2個(gè)單詞，而單詞的平均長(zhǎng)度達(dá)5.2個(gè)字母，從文體和風(fēng)格上都充分體現(xiàn)出法律文體的特征。全文結(jié)構(gòu)清晰，每一段開(kāi)頭的主題句和銜接手段的使用都不錯(cuò)，觀點(diǎn)鮮明，具有一定的說(shuō)服力。作為一名大學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)，能夠?qū)懗鋈绱瞬环驳奈淖?，是非常難能可貴的。
當(dāng)然，作者的文字也并非白璧無(wú)瑕，有時(shí)也過(guò)于注重大詞難句的使用。其實(shí)句式若太長(zhǎng)太復(fù)雜，則駕馭的難度也倍增，稍不留神就可能犯錯(cuò)，其效果也不夠親切自然，好比一位小姑娘硬是板起了面孔開(kāi)始說(shuō)教大道理，過(guò)猶不及。
總的來(lái)說(shuō)，作為一名非英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)的大學(xué)生，作者無(wú)論是在英文功底還是語(yǔ)言思維方面都體現(xiàn)出了相當(dāng)高的水平，這是一篇難得的上乘佳作。
In the first place， for most teenagers， mental and social maturity has not been sufficiently achieved. It is true that improved living standards and the consequent dietetic excellence have brought about the physical prematurity of teenagers. Yet， most of them fail to be mentally or socially mature. All too often credulousness and thoughtlessness subject them to impetuous and wanton acts. The disparity between physical and mental maturity necessitate proper and timely guidance from their parents or teachers. And legal validation of their immature behavior will do harm to society as well as to themselves.
Second， decision making power granted at an earlier age involves the possibility of being held legally liable at an earlier age.It is a widely acknowledged rule that in a civilized and democratic society rights and obligations should be shaped equal or proportionate to each other. The right to decision making entails torresponding assumption of certain responsibility. That is to say，negative interests as well as positive ones resulting from their behavior should be shouldered. A case in point is capital punishment， whose application is otherwise confined to adults above 18 may now cover 16 year-olds. It is a well established rule that it is unfair to impose punishment on one who is mentally inade quate to understand his or her behavior because the punishment of law should only go to those who have knowledge of their behavior.
In addition， the withdrawal of parental interference will prove impracticable and negative in the present Chinese society，which has always been heavily family oriented. The traditional Chinese family pattern holds it that parental decision is to be observed and the freedom of children is to be limited. Today， a Chinese child's dependence on his parents remains strong. As lawmaking should take into account possible social effects of a certain adjustment， the legal stipulation at issue will not yield desirable results against above mentioned social background.
In fact， the question at issue is not whether children over 15 should be allowed to make decisions on their own but whether or not certain laws should be changed to cater for it. In view of all the foregoing factors， I firmly hold that the granting of exclusive decision making power to children over 15 through the adjustment of certain laws in China will prove undesirable， from which good results are not to be expected.
簡(jiǎn) 評(píng)
這篇文章的開(kāi)篇就極大地吸引了讀者的注意力。第一句就是極為復(fù)雜的長(zhǎng)句，長(zhǎng)達(dá)45個(gè)單詞，氣勢(shì)磅礴，咄咄逼人。從行文來(lái)看，很難相信它竟是出自一名大學(xué)女生的手筆。顯然張珍蓮?fù)瑢W(xué)非常熱愛(ài)自己的法律專(zhuān)業(yè)，并具有很強(qiáng)的律師天賦。文章語(yǔ)言流暢，思路嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，用法律的典型文體討論了嚴(yán)肅的社會(huì)和法律問(wèn)題，具有很強(qiáng)的時(shí)代感和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。
作者的英文功底極為出色，除了詞匯量引人注目以外，還具有相當(dāng)?shù)挠⒄Z(yǔ)思維能力，善于使用諸如merit、entail、subject等中國(guó)的英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者不容易留心到的詞匯。從句式上看，作者善于使用被動(dòng)語(yǔ)態(tài)來(lái)體現(xiàn)行文的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)性和客觀性，被動(dòng)句占全文的31％，平均每句的長(zhǎng)度是19.2個(gè)單詞，而單詞的平均長(zhǎng)度達(dá)5.2個(gè)字母，從文體和風(fēng)格上都充分體現(xiàn)出法律文體的特征。全文結(jié)構(gòu)清晰，每一段開(kāi)頭的主題句和銜接手段的使用都不錯(cuò)，觀點(diǎn)鮮明，具有一定的說(shuō)服力。作為一名大學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)，能夠?qū)懗鋈绱瞬环驳奈淖?，是非常難能可貴的。
當(dāng)然，作者的文字也并非白璧無(wú)瑕，有時(shí)也過(guò)于注重大詞難句的使用。其實(shí)句式若太長(zhǎng)太復(fù)雜，則駕馭的難度也倍增，稍不留神就可能犯錯(cuò)，其效果也不夠親切自然，好比一位小姑娘硬是板起了面孔開(kāi)始說(shuō)教大道理，過(guò)猶不及。
總的來(lái)說(shuō)，作為一名非英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)的大學(xué)生，作者無(wú)論是在英文功底還是語(yǔ)言思維方面都體現(xiàn)出了相當(dāng)高的水平，這是一篇難得的上乘佳作。