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 some positions its terms are fixed and followes through a rigrous standard. As when terms of existing one end, a new one substitutes its predecessor. This can be usually be witnessed in governmental institution's leader position. The claim says that those in power, whether it is in business, policitcs, education, or government, should step down after 5 years because such revitailzes the group by new leadership. However, I mostly disagree with the claim for following two reasons.
There is a proverb saying "you can't be full in the first bite" in Korea. Eventually there are low chance that an individual who first begins his task or work is an expert on it. By ploddingly developing their skills through numerous experiences, such a verdant becomes a professional at the field. Waiting for the person to get used to his or her position is indeed, requisite for evaluating his or her leadership and powers. Perhaps, this might be the reason why the United States oftenly re-elects their president after the first 5 years. The consequence of this eventually shows that on their second regimacy, the government drives a more confident policy and decision making.
Although the claim suggests that in any field the leader should let go of their power, this can be very varied regarding to which field it is. For example, in the acadmic field, most subjects are studied very intensively and rigorously to the very deep, kernel aspects of the topic by a life-long studying or researching of professors. Indeed these professors devote most of their lives in studying and becoming a guru or savant of his or her academic field. Leadership changes for example, relegating a renown professor to become a prowess-less standard researcher can be a huge loss to that academic field's members.
Nevertheless, there can be a specific field where regular, periodic changes of power can be beneficial. As the prompt gives for the claim's reason, revitalizing power of an enterprise can be helpful. Because of everyday precipitously changing society we live on, new ideas from a new person can be a huge benefit to leading a big, heavy company.
Yet, the strengths of revitalizing leadership only seems to be justifiable to certain narrow areas. Overall, continous leadership for decent amount of time is required for its subjects to be better leaded, and there are many fields where changes of leaderships is not viable at all like scholarship. For these reasons I disagree that every field should utilize a leadership change to revitalize.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'institutions'' or 'institution's'?
Suggestion: institutions'; institution's
...be usually be witnessed in governmental institutions leader position. The claim says that th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 38, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
.... There is a proverb saying 'you cant be full in the first bite' in Kore...
^^^^
Line 2, column 262, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[2]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...ills through numerous experiences, such a verdant becomes a professional at the field. Wa...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 337, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
... studying or researching of professors. Indeed these professors devote most of their l...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 211, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...n enterprise can be helpful. Because of everyday precipitously changing society we live ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2125.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 418.0 442.535393258 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08373205742 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90983153661 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564593301435 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.2088781221 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.19047619 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9047619048 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2380952381 5.21951772744 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225676682863 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0670739011292 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625756558613 0.0758088955206 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12414825452 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294691341818 0.0667264976115 44% => 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: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.