The ideal leader is difficult to define. Depending on who you ask you may get different characterisitcs highlighted, such as being tough on crime or being magnanimous. For whatever characteristic is lauded, it is important for a society to begin to teach these traits to their youth and prepare them to become their version of the best leader possible. Two seemingly oppostites traits that a society must choose to push teach is cooperation or competition. After careful concideration it can be understood that cooperation should be prioritized but not taught alone.
If we look back at history many of our heros are lauded for competitive nature that pushed them to the top of the field. Take for example recent leaders such as President Clinton, Bill Gates, or even Tom Brady. All three of these men had such a competitive spirt, that they forcefully made their way to the top overcoming econmical, technical, and atheletic challenges. At first glance all their success and fame can be attributed to competition, but these men were seen as ideal leaders not because they were at the top, but because they remained at the top as effective leaders practicing cooperation.
The most obvious example of cooperation in the three is Tom Brady. As the quaterback of the Patriots, Tom Brady headed numerous versions of the most powerful offences the NFL had seen. He always maintained a never give up competative edge, but underneath it all was a great sense of cooperation. Brady himself could not lift the Patriots to multiple Super Bowl victories but needed the help of his surrounding teammates. If Brady primarily posseed only a competitve edge, then he would prioritize his own stats and apperance over actually winning the games. Like many great team sports athletes, Brady needed to have great trust in other players to repeatedly win, which only could come through a greater sense of cooperation than competition.
Similar to sports, government is another area where cooperation in the underlying factor that makes effective leaders. Initially it may make sense that voters would want a representative that is competitive and prioritizes what his district or country feels is best. However if every representative acted in this way, there would be no progress in government harming all parties involved. For example if Bill Clinton continually only put America first and was unwilling to cooperate with foreign nations or opposing members of congress, then his presidency would have nothing to show for it. Fortunatly this was not the case and Clinton was able to demonstate continual cooperation in cases such as NAFTA that helped increase trade in North America.
In conclusion it is understandable to first believe competition would foster the best leaders. However a primarily competitive edge would not be condusive towards longevity and could continually hurt the followers as long as that leader is in power. In order to have an effective leader that remains effective it is important for a society to instill a sense of cooperation into their youth while also not dimishing their competitive spirt. It is competitiveness that makes leaders but it is cooperation that engenders continual success and benefits the most members of the society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('never') instead an adjective, or a noun ('give') instead of another adjective.
... the NFL had seen. He always maintained a never give up competative edge, but underneath it ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 268, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... his district or country feels is best. However if every representative acted in this w...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 96, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...petition would foster the best leaders. However a primarily competitive edge would not ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, still, then, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2734.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 530.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15849056604 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94518329881 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518867924528 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 861.3 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1602311805 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.916666667 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.625 5.21951772744 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.193633118322 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0491800656887 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0583188057435 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102819155505 0.150359130593 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340878041599 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.