自2006年ACT接手GMAT出題以來，一直都很低調(diào)，延續(xù)ETS出題風(fēng)格，沿用原來的可用題庫和出題方式，直到自己有實(shí)力去全面控制局面。2年過去了，其他部分目前毫無動(dòng)靜，唯獨(dú)作文部分，出現(xiàn)了小小的嘗試。2007年初ACT在北美花錢請(qǐng)人測試作文題目，暗下決心要啃下這塊骨頭，本人也參與了那次測試。之后在2007年末，ACT悄悄地在所有考生中隨機(jī)加入這幾道題目（以目前情況來看，100個(gè)考生中大約只有5-8個(gè)人會(huì)遇到新題）以磨練自己的評(píng)分人員和評(píng)分程序。
既然如此，GMAT作文有題庫而且必須按照題庫出題的思路（ETS時(shí)代任何新題都必須先公布一段時(shí)間才能真正進(jìn)入考試）已經(jīng)被ACT赤**地打破，所以所有考生都應(yīng)該對(duì)考(試大這些新題有很好的了解。
在這里，我們對(duì)其中一道令大家頗為頭痛的Issue題給出一篇非常適合模仿的北美范文。
NT2. "People have a duty to disobey laws that they consider unjust."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
人們有義務(wù)不遵守那些他們認(rèn)為不公正的法律。
由于此題考的話題是法律，恰恰是中國同學(xué)（即使是法律系的學(xué)生）都不太能應(yīng)對(duì)的抽象話題，所以在考場上頗為費(fèi)力，以下給出一篇分析深刻（把事物本身和人們對(duì)事物的perception分開），思路嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)（論證有論據(jù)有解釋有例外有保留），內(nèi)容充實(shí)（兩個(gè)主層次，之下才是論證），語言自然（善用長句和正式詞匯，但稍有一點(diǎn)晦澀味道）的考(試大范文。
范文：
According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.
First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.
The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.
The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget.
Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result. (536 words)
既然如此，GMAT作文有題庫而且必須按照題庫出題的思路（ETS時(shí)代任何新題都必須先公布一段時(shí)間才能真正進(jìn)入考試）已經(jīng)被ACT赤**地打破，所以所有考生都應(yīng)該對(duì)考(試大這些新題有很好的了解。
在這里，我們對(duì)其中一道令大家頗為頭痛的Issue題給出一篇非常適合模仿的北美范文。
NT2. "People have a duty to disobey laws that they consider unjust."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
人們有義務(wù)不遵守那些他們認(rèn)為不公正的法律。
由于此題考的話題是法律，恰恰是中國同學(xué)（即使是法律系的學(xué)生）都不太能應(yīng)對(duì)的抽象話題，所以在考場上頗為費(fèi)力，以下給出一篇分析深刻（把事物本身和人們對(duì)事物的perception分開），思路嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)（論證有論據(jù)有解釋有例外有保留），內(nèi)容充實(shí)（兩個(gè)主層次，之下才是論證），語言自然（善用長句和正式詞匯，但稍有一點(diǎn)晦澀味道）的考(試大范文。
范文：
According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.
First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.
The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.
The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget.
Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result. (536 words)