In business, education, and government, it is always appropriate to remain skeptical of new leaders until those leaders show that they are worthy of trust.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Wherever their working fields are, leaders take important roles strongly influencing those workers and making important decisions for a company, a school, or even a nation. While there is no doubt to those who have demonstrated their competence as a leader, there are contradicting views on whether trust unproven leaders. Although there might be reasons to trust them, being skeptical of them until verifying that they are a good leader seems more plausible.
Firstly, although new leaders might have long working experience in the fields, working as a general worker and working as a leader are not the same at all. While working below someone, they have relatively lower responsibility to a project; what they need to do is finishing a small part of the project. However, leaders are those who take full responsibility for the entire process and result of the project, which means they need to understand broader fields and reconcile those different parts. It indicates that when a competent worker becomes a leader, it does not necessarily indicate that he or she will be a good leader. Thus, staying dubious about unproven new leaders seems beneficial minimizing the possible risk from their lack of experience as a leader.
Secondly, proving their competence as a leader does not take a long time. There are many feasible factors to use whether a new leader is a good leader. For example, communicating skills are the most important part for leaders as they have to understand each part’s states and integrate them. Whether a new leader has proper communicating skills can be easily examined through team meetings or weekly executive meetings. In a similar way, other aspects that are required of leaders will be able to be evaluated. After this short, simple, and easy evaluation as a leader, the new leader will obtain more credibility from others. Then, the reverence for the leader will be higher, and others are willing to follow the new leader. Thus, as evaluating new leaders does not require a long period, there is no reason to hastily trust unproven leaders.
Whether trusting new leaders or not is an important problem strongly related to business, education, and business. Some might insist that many leaders are those who have long professions in related fields and have a deep insight regarding fields, so trusting them is worthy. However, since a leader is a distinct role from others and there are feasible simple methods to evaluate new leaders, it will be persuasive to keep skeptical to new leaders before proving them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 208, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'lowed', 'lowered'.
Suggestion: lowed; lowered
...ing below someone, they have relatively lower responsibility to a project; what they ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "In a similar way" with adverb for "similar"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... meetings or weekly executive meetings. In a similar way, other aspects that are required of lea...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, for example, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 58.6224719101 60% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2135.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 421.0 442.535393258 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07125890736 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67797846427 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477434679335 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 663.3 704.065955056 94% => 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: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.3985419424 60.3974514979 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 112.368421053 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1578947368 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24719027207 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0959591828517 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0323491361123 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174149072102 0.150359130593 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.018297644999 0.0667264976115 27% => 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: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => 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: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.