It is commonly accepted that leaders should step down after serving a certain duration of time in order to prevent the rigidity of an organization caused by prolonged reign by one person. Fueling organizations with new insights with novel leaders have been considered virtuous in many field. Nevertheless, there may also be potential side effects of frequently transitioning the leadership, as it may cause confusion among the followers when a group needs stout and sustained leadership to guide a group to a achieve a desired goal.
Of course, especially in fields of politics, we have seen leaders, voracious for power, eventually ending up as vicious dictators who would not step down from their positions. Even though a political leader had good intentions to serve for his people in the first place when he held the power, once they believe that the power they hold is everlasting, they have nothing to fear for. In such cases, they flagrantly seek to embetter themselves, receiving bribes, and ignoring the sacrifices of their people. Korea also faced various dictatorship in its initial stage of democracy during the mid 20th century. The commonality among these presidents were that once they hold of power, they attempted to lengthen their terms by all kinds of means even revising the constitution or assassinating the opposing group's leader when necessary. It took countless student demonstrations and years of protests to eventually erect the foundation of democracy in Korea, limiting the presidency to 5 years.
However, there are major benefits which can be yielded from firm leadership. Often times when leadership oscilates, it may deter the efficacy of a leadership and joint effort. In order to achieve long term goals, it may be necessary for a group of perspicacious leadership branch push forward the plan. After World War II, Japanese LDP, a conservative political group, took hold of power for more 20 years. Throughout these years, the LDP effectively invested on industries and businesses which have the highest potential to revive the devastated Japanese economy. Without such strong leadership and clear focus, Japan might not have been able to escape the poverty and become the top economies of the world.
Moreover, in businesses, it is quite common that a perspicacious CEO leads a firm for quite a time, leading it to the road of success and profitability. Take for example Steve Jobs, who was a leader of Apple, without his unique minds and burgeoning ideas, Apple would not be enjoying the current success. Steve Jobs often pushed forward the ideas he believed in, despite some discords, which turned out to receive avid support of the consumers. Showing his unwavering commitment to propel his company, he held the CEO position for a relatively long duration of time, which granted Apple with lucid direction throughout the times.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 281, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun field seems to be countable; consider using: 'many fields'.
Suggestion: many fields
...eaders have been considered virtuous in many field. Nevertheless, there may also be potent...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 508, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ustained leadership to guide a group to a achieve a desired goal. Of course, esp...
^
Line 1, column 508, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ustained leadership to guide a group to a achieve a desired goal. Of course, especially ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 804, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
...stitution or assassinating the opposing groups leader when necessary. It took countles...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, then, for example, of course, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2408.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 465.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17849462366 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83356980099 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591397849462 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 741.6 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0335429938 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.736842105 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4736842105 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132633039263 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0391558814399 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0346262559347 0.0758088955206 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.075702388165 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0104564254408 0.0667264976115 16% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 100.480337079 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.