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 many fields, we see a limit on the number of years a person can be in a leadership position. While a few of them grant only a fews years, others are munificent in allowing people in staying in the leadership position for quite a long period. The claim in the prompt suggests that people in power should step down after five years as such practice ensures the success of an enterprise through revitalization by the new leadership. I diagree with the prompt and feel that experience longer than five years as a leader would immensely be helpful in success of a company.
Firstly, by making it mandatory for people in powerful positions to step down after five years would mean to discard the expertise, knowledge and experience gained over years. It would require a substantial amout of time for a leader to be most effective and steer the company towards success. The leadership qualities are not obtained by studying in a university or by observing a highly successful person. It is through experiencing and handling various situations as they are presented through passage of time would help form qualities of good leader. Having exposed to enough of real-world problems, they will be in a better position to take sound decisions. For instance, let us take the example of politics. People who stay in the field of politics for longer periods have definitely have higher chances of taking benevolent decisions than those people who came to powerful positions recently. Thus it is imperative that people are allowed to lead powerful roles longer than five years as the adeptness that can be gained only through passage of time will play a pivotal role in making an enterprise successful.
Secondly, qualities like maintaining equanimity in mired situatoins, displaying profound perception and forethought etc can be found only in people who are in power for quite some time. In contrast, if the leadership positions are changed every five years, the incoming people can be naive in their decision making process or take aribrary decision without much forethought that can prove to be deterimental for the success of an organisation. At this point, it is worth mentioning the case of scientific fields like medicine or space exploration. In these fields, the longer the people stay in power, the better they get in excelling in those fields. They tend to develop a profound understanding of subjects that can help them to solve a problem in the least expected ways.
However, in the realms of our discussion, we cannot ignore a few exceptions. In fields like technology, it is desirable to change the leadership at periodic intervals. Technology is fast chaning and if a person whose ideas are based on outdated technology, it is sure to cause impediment for the success of the company. Instead, if new leadership is consecrated who come with new ideas, it can be guaranteed to be beneficial for the success of a technology company.
To recapitulate, people should be allowed to serve in powerful positions for more than five years as they will have better experience, display foresight and take sound decisions they otherwise would not have.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 791, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...tics for longer periods have definitely have higher chances of taking benevolent dec...
^^^^
Line 4, column 901, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ho came to powerful positions recently. Thus it is imperative that people are allowe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for instance, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2632.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00380228137 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84635491936 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467680608365 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.9 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5481233643 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.636363636 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9090909091 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04545454545 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 10.2758426966 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207861347116 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0676810187893 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0716166148582 0.0758088955206 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131481482504 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609066121304 0.0667264976115 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.