Some professionals are said to be required to step down after a while because their positions may be overly powerful. The prompt argues that they should quit their position, which has some powers, after five years. I tend to agree with this prompt for two reasons; however, there is a possible challenge in my reasons.
To begin, The period of five years is not too short or too long for a president, for example, to complete a project before becoming tired. These fields of occupation, for instance, for chiefs of organizations, politicians, or government officials, may require some time to accomplish the huge projects they promise to their employees or citizens. An example of this is that when the president makes a promise to citizens to get rid of corruption in the country, he or she should make a serious plan for it and take responsibility for it. Nevertheless, corruption is not something that is easy to handle, and there may be many groups of people who are corrupt. The president could take some time, and five years seems to be appropriate to eliminate all these groups and free the country of corruption. After this time, I suppose that the president has done his or her best to succeed and may get tired because of the huge responsibility and many tasks at hand. Therefore, stepping down after this period should have happened, and the retirement could refresh them to be ready for the next position.
Another reason to support this prompt is that, after five years, we should have a new one who is more ready, smarter, and more innovative to take the powerful position. In my opinion, in a period of five years, there are new developments and technologies in a country that the person in the position could not catch up with. To be more specific, college students who just finish the modern curriculum may have more ideas than the positioned government, and they may have more ability to govern the city better. Thus, the old government should step down and let the new generation be in this position.
On the other hand, my argument may be challenged because not all projects could have been completed in five years. I partly agree with this because if any government could not finish its project in a half decade, it could be said that the government has no ability to improve our country. Thus, we should not let these people be in this position anymore, and we should let the new groups, who are more ready and more creative, as I said previously, work for our country. Moreover, even if the project is too big to finish in five years, the new person may be willing to continue what the old people have done. So they can step down to take a break without worrying about a pause in improvement.
In conclusion, some people may think that people could stay in a powerful position for a longer time to do something for organizations or countries rather than stepping down after five years. This could be okay if people in that position have never felt tired or have developed themselves for new challenges that seem impossible. I, therefore, conclude that people who are in a powerful positions should retire after five years and let the new team continue what those previous teams have made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 388, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'position'?
Suggestion: position
...clude that people who are in a powerful positions should retire after five years and let ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, i suppose, in conclusion, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 28.8173652695 184% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2661.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 563.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72646536412 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62812627025 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426287744227 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 833.4 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.6523465867 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 120.954545455 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5909090909 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04545454545 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186837721263 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0662052431631 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399074289985 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122665512731 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0323928060855 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.45 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.