Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The claim prompts that there should change in the people that are holding powers in a certain organization after five years as it results in success. Although, it is possible that a new management might bring a new outlook with them that may lead to success, but constantly changing the power holders after certain years involves risks like instability and inefficiency of the long term plan laid by the current management. I disagree with the claim above and believe that change of power should not be frequent and rather there should be a proper mechanism to judge the working of the people in power and thereby deciding whether they should stay or not.
First of all, for the management to be make their organization successful, they sometimes need to create down a long term plan. It is a roadmap which is devised after meticulous study and research and is created by keeping a certain vision of the future in mind. For instance, Arsene Wenger, a former manager of Arsenal Football Club(in England) was appointed in 1996 and he finally left Arsenal in 2017. He was a manager who completely revolutionized the way the sport is played and the structure of Arsenal. If he wasn't allowed to stay for this long, he might not have been able to accomplish is vision and therefore, bring success to the club. It is really important for the management to stay if they have a big vision for their organization and are providing that organization with frequent successes.
Also, consider a case where the management is really doing well and the organization is flourishing under their reign. Would it be prudent to remove them from power just because they have served a term of 5 years? Preferably, before changing the management, we should consider their efficacy rather than following a standard policy to remove the power holders after five years.
Stability is the 'mantra' to Success. Constantly changing the people with power might bring instability to the organization. New people at the helm require some time to get accustomed to the organization. Further, due to the constant changes, the people with power might not be able as efficient as possible. We can see that most of the big organizations have long standing CEOs that do not change that often, thus maintaining stability and allowing the management to follow the plan laid by them properly.
However, nothing comes without it's limitations. It can be agreed that new people often bring with them unorthodox thinking that might act like a breath of fresh air for the organization and therefore, increase the productivity of the organization. For instance, governments that periodically change helps to address views of different strata of the society and keep the people of the nation happy and also solve problems that weren't previously solved by looking at the problem with a different outlook.
In conclusion, there should be no "hard and fast rule" where the power holders should be replaced periodically. Rather a proper mechanism should be set up according to which it should be decided whether the power holders should remain in power or not.
- In order to help small businesses thrive, government should play a minimal role in private business matters. 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the owner of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States."For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, all of 69
- In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. I 50
- Schools should cut funding for extracurricular activities such as sports and the arts when school buildings are in need of repair.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this recommendation and explain your rea 66
- Government funding for purely scientific endeavors, such as space exploration, should be reduced in order to direct more funding toward humanitarian science projects.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 514, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...yed and the structure of Arsenal. If he wasnt allowed to stay for this long, he might...
Line 2, column 528, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO
Message: Did you mean 'staying'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
...ructure of Arsenal. If he wasnt allowed to stay for this long, he might not have been a...
Line 5, column 427, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...tion happy and also solve problems that werent previously solved by looking at the pro...
Line 6, column 122, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
...olders should be replaced periodically. Rather a proper mechanism should be set up acc...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, may, really, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2599.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 522.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97892720307 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77370887089 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463601532567 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 796.5 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8576997125 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.136363636 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7272727273 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More 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: 0.149804227976 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0495197145482 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0445519823854 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0839287655195 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0472439147017 0.0667264976115 71% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.8971910112 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
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.