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.
In the modern dynamic world, which is full of advanced technologies and cutting-edge innovations, yet being successful is still a monumental task to achieve. The prompt suggests that in order to achieve sustainable development in any field those who in power must resign every five years. For the reason, that rejuvenation of the enterprise through superseding the leaders will definitely lead to success. In my not so humble opinion, I mostly agree with the statement and reason for the following arguments.
To begin with, contemporary life is constantly moving and being flexible is imperative, if the enterprise is targeting for the long term development. This flexibility can be achieved through the new chief officers' staff. As new leadership brings about new ideas, that are relevant to the issues of the enterprise or government section. For instance, is the resurgence of the AMD big technology company in the 2014 AMD was accounting only for twelve percent of sales in the micro-chip market, however, by 2018 it becomes the top-selling company rivaling with such corporations such as Intel and Nvidia. AMD's success story could be explained by the new CEO that stepped up to power in 2014. Her diligence and efficacious strategies led the company to success. From examples, it can be inferred that the introducing new leadership has foremost importance in achieving sustainable and successful development in any field of endeavor.
Furthermore, it’s known fact that inevitably employers will eventually be replaced with younger working force and with new generations comes new vision and moral code. The harmony between employee and employer is a crucial part in the development of the any company. This harmony could be achieved by substituiting the chief officers to the new ones, those who will share company’s future vision with the working personnel. As an example, the case of Microsoft big-tech enterprise, it’s undeniable that under the supervision of Bill Gates company achieved monumental task and flourished. Nevertheless, in the beginning of the 2005 companies share price started to decline and continued to decrease steadily until 2009. The reason for such decline was that most of the staff members did not like that the company closely worked with authorities, and was allegedly divulging sensitive data to intelligence branches. Since, the new CEO Satia Nadel was introduced in 2009 and subsequent reforms that was implemented by new CEO, company stopped any sort information exchange with the officials, and it strengthed market indicators of the company and increased share prize. From the given example, one can infer that the company’s leading managers should share the same moral code and vision with their employees, for it conducive to the overall well-being of the company, enterprise even the government.
On the contrary, constant change of the leading officers may harm the overall productivity of the company or government branch. Especially in the case of the government branches, it’s relevant issue. For example, take the National American Space Agency(NASA), NASA strictly depends on the federal funding in the development of their space programmes. Every time that the federal government changes funding capacity, NASA has to constantly re-evalute their programmes, thus it makes hindrance to overall progress of the agency. Often, when the new presidential office inaugurates, they immediately change the amount of budget pertinent to NASA programmes, because of such volatility in the presidential office, it’s rare to see that NASA develops more space programmes that they did in previous presidents reigns. Given example, shows that in some cases excessive motility in leading staff members can cause harm and inefficiency to the work of the government structure or the enterprise.
To conclude up, changes in the corporate management of any field are conducive to the overall performance of the given structure. Nonetheless,in some cases those changes have to be deliberately considered wheter they’re needed or not.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'generations'' or 'generation's'?
Suggestion: generations'; generation's
...with younger working force and with new generations comes new vision and moral code. The ha...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 316, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rmony could be achieved by substituiting the chief officers to the new ones, thos...
^^
Line 5, column 527, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...’s undeniable that under the supervision of Bill Gates company achieved monumenta...
^^
Line 5, column 689, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e price started to decline and continued to decrease steadily until 2009. The rea...
^^
Line 7, column 213, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nches, it’s relevant issue. For example, take the National American Space AgencyN...
^^
Line 7, column 438, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...funding capacity, NASA has to constantly re-evalute their programmes, thus it mak...
^^
Line 9, column 142, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , in
...ance of the given structure. Nonetheless,in some cases those changes have to be del...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, still, thus, well, as for, as to, for example, for instance, such as, in some cases, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 90.0 58.6224719101 154% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3456.0 2235.4752809 155% => OK
No of words: 635.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44251968504 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01988110783 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98871168646 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 325.0 215.323595506 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511811023622 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 1080.9 704.065955056 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0837471073 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.0 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5185185185 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 5.21951772744 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.182743999806 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0549560261373 0.0831039109588 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0444221362819 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112162881593 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0618245647569 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 182.0 100.480337079 181% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.