Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
The statement above recommends that some people believe that competitiveness is more important than cooperation for leaders to succeed, while the others recommend that cooperation is the most important trait for a successful leader, especially in today’s world. In my opinion, competitiveness is an innate human characteristic and it is a basic condition for someone to become a leader, but only when it is understood as a support for positive ambitions. However, history has shown that competitive leaders often did not use it for good achievements and progress of their nations, but rather competitiveness often has resulted in tragedy. Therefore, my belief is in line with modern leadership believes that the pivotal trait of today’s leaders is to be cooperative.
The fact that it is innate is the reason why I think that it is not needed to work on the development of this feature, but on its control. There are many examples of imperatores and nations’ leaders who were highly competitive, which resulted in great tragedies for their countries and for the whole world. For example, Adolf Hitler who was a great supported of Pan-Germanism, anti-Semitism, anti-communism was so competitive that could not reason with a clear mind. This resulted in the Second World War which was a total catastrophe for Germany and for the whole world. Another example of unreasonable competitiveness is Napoleon. From here comes the scientific term ‘Napoleon complex’. He was very frustrated due to the fact that he was short. Consequently, his frustration resulted in great aggression. He was the emperor of France and conquered a great part of Europe for one decade. Finally, as his ambition was to concord the whole world, he started towards Russia where his kingdom ended. These examples show that when there is uncontrolled competitiveness without including cooperation and reaching common ground, there is also a warranty that the tragedy will happen.
On the other hand, there are examples of very cooperative leaders. Their success truly helped their countries and people. For instance, Gandhi was the leader of Indians, firstly in South Africa, and then in India. Gandhi was fighting all his life for human rights by non-violent civil disobedience. This model of protest and fight became an inspiration for the whole world. Gandhi achievement was the end of British rule in India. Following his model, Nelson Mandela, the first democratically elected president of South Africa fought against apartheid. Finally, in 1993, with the help from the previous president De Klerk, Mandela succeeded. The third example of non-violent civil disobedience was the example of Martin Luther King who fought against discrimination of African Americans in the USA. These leaders are proof that cooperation is a warranty for the world’s salvation. They are the inspiration for the majority of leaders also today.
In conclusion, there are many examples of competitiveness in the world that soon or later resulted in complete failure, literally tragedies. Hitler is responsible for 11 million victims of the II World War, among which for 6 million Jews. While on the other side, the leaders who practiced collaboration and cooperation were always successful in improving the well-being of their people.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, while, as to, for example, for instance, i think, in conclusion, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.4196629213 16% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.3162921348 203% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2807.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 522.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37739463602 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16741756331 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507662835249 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 872.1 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.7256321623 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7931034483 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.96551724138 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137407503961 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382169641036 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537975557812 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10376747427 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505909395661 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 100.480337079 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.8971910112 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.