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.
Over the years the mankind has been recognizing the need of the hand above for controlling, supporting and directing the path of developing. Apparently, this method had been working for thousands of years and so had the practice of lifelong power in one person’s hands. However, over the last century people started arguing a lot whether this approach is viable and worthwhile or not. While one might be absolutely convinced that this practice is one possible and fruitful, a number of recently published researches confirm au that this is not in fact a case.
Indeed, in the recorded history of the humanity there has been a blizzard of instances when those in power had been in their position too long. As in any field (it doesn’t matter whether you pursue good aims or not) as the time passes you start losing your objectivity and attention. Inevitably there should a significant need of new blood in any direction. To illustrate the point, let’s take a closer look at the education system in the USSR. Despite of the excellent outcomes for decades, it reached it’s limits up to certain extent in some fields since there had not been connection with other countries and interactions with other views. Looking at the introduction and this example, it must seem that the answer is plain as the nose on the face, however, there is the other side of this medal.
Undoubtedly, the briefest reflection on the state of things at the end of the 20th century, which were happening in the education system of the USSR, reveals that notwithstanding already created a strong bone of knowledge and practice, it can be easily subverted by illogical, purposeless actions, modifications and a chain of changes as in authorities’ positions and as well in longstanding approaches. So, someone might ask whether there is solution for it or not, and if so, how it looks like? Presumably, having analyzed all the above-mentioned points it is deemed that there should be a golden midpoint - common awareness among all process’s participants and the whole society not just transferring the comprehensive responsibility to someone in power. So, there must be the common path and involvement (inevitably with some fluctuations in it), that is supported not by the authorities, but as well by people. In this case it would not play a considerable role whether one person has been in power for 5 or 7 years, since each one would have a vote and right to introduce innovations.
In conclusion, it can be easily summed up that there is no one side of anything and there is no need to retreat to Luddite attitude to either conservative way of developing or innovations. While a strong path in any field is powerful, so are fresh views on it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 32, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
Over the years the mankind has been recognizing the need of the hand above for controll...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 503, Rule ID: IT_IS[10]
Message: Did you mean 'its' (possessive pronoun) instead of 'it's' (=it is)?
Suggestion: its
...ellent outcomes for decades, it reached it’s limits up to certain extent in some fie...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, however, if, look, so, well, while, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2263.0 2235.4752809 101% => OK
No of words: 464.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87715517241 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95538959664 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530172413793 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 707.4 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.6848838351 60.3974514979 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.117647059 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2941176471 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41176470588 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131504266627 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046019631636 0.0831039109588 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.045014526337 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0791716982238 0.150359130593 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248713916558 0.0667264976115 37% => 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: 52.53 48.8420337079 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.1743820225 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => 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: 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.