You mean like:
Law A would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law A creates a very easy repayment program that allows the loan holder to pay $25/month for the first year, $50/month for the second year, and then $100/month for every year there-after at 2% interest, regardless of prime. Law A is justified by its writer in the following way: "We must protect graduating students from the suffocating debt that school creates."
Law B would accept that GroupA is coming out of school with overwhelmingly large financial aid debt (larger, in fact, than the average cost of attending most state universities for the same program). In response to this fact, Law B creates rules that would limit the amount of money one can borrow for school, adjusted yearly to compensate for reasonable increases in tuition/book/lodging costs. Additionally, Law B would create rules for how universities are allowed to spend tuition receipts, there by providing safe guards for students with new loan limits. Law B is justified by its writer in the following way: "We realize that college costs are rising at drastic rates, but the problem is two fold. Students must borrow responsibly, and universities must spend responsibly."
First law assumes all other factors stay the same or cannot be changed. Second law assumes that all factors can be manipulated and that the involved parties should be held responsible for their decisions.
I'd support Law A over Law B.