In China, to restore lost property to its original owner is regarded as one of the most cherished virtues. However, the draft property rights law stipulates that property Owners should pay some money to the one who returns the property. Is it a deviation from traditional values? Write a composition of about 400 words to state your view.

In the first part of your essay you should state clearly your main argument, and in the second part you should support your argument with appropriate details. In the last part you should bring what you have written to a natural conclusion or make a summary.

You should supply an appropriate title for your essay.

Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.

Sample

In Favor of Rewards for Good Conduct

To restore lost property to its original owner describes one of the most cherished virtues embodied by the Chinese people. The draft law stipulates that property owners should give rewards to the people or organizations that return their property, such as storage. To some people, the new provision challenges the virtue that China has advocated for thousands of years by including economic compensation into law. Yet to me, it is a good thing to regulate a moral concept with law.

Since people spend time and energy in restoring lost property, it is reasonable for the actual owner to offer some material reward. There is no contradiction between kind deeds and material compensation. If those who help others by fighting off robbers can be rewarded, why not those who return lost property? More importantly, giving people tangible reward has significance in reality. According to a survey, most people who get back their lost items are willing to give a reward to the finder. Providing a compromise solution between returning and keeping lost items, this new provision encourages people to return lost property rather than hiding it. Although one may say it diminishes the nobility associated with it, it is better to have more lost property restored to original ownership.

Law should play a role only where moral principle fails, otherwise, there would be chaos in social relations. I think this is the basis for transformation of law, specifically the stipulation of restoring lost property in propert, rights law. The major goal of this legislation is to restore property owners’ right over lost property. It is true that restoring lost property to its owner is our traditional virtue. For a long time, we have been relying on this moral principle in dealing with lost property. But today, we have to admit that it falls behind the realities of current society if we rely solely on it in handling the issue of lost property, the result is a much slighter possibility of lost property being returned and increasing disputes about restoring lost property.

All in all, without modification, traditional virtues will be going farther away from the realities of modern life and become irrelevant. What’s more, the draft of the property rights law stipulates that a finder“can’’ receive reward, which means they can also refuse reward. Thus, this does not thwart virtuous people from practicing our traditional virtues

點(diǎn)擊免費(fèi)試聽>>>	點(diǎn)擊免費(fèi)試聽>>>