The claim stated that it is believed that leadership should be resettled for every five years in any field. At first glimpse, it seems reasonable as it may help to revitalize that field by changing leadership. However, it is not always the case. In my view, simply by changing the people in power does not necessarily help the development of chosen field. Therefore, I tend to disagree with the speaker.
Admittedly, people, especially the public, have reason to suspect an everlasting dictatorship in filed like politics, government, even business. In fact, we have been tired of hearing the old story about monarchy in history, those in power in governing the people have always liked to maintain their power, not to mention five years. It is actually not even obsolete that dictator like Putin is still in charge of a nation. So, it is definitely reasonable to question the maximum serving years for government positions, considering the thirst of power grabbing of the people who are in charge.
Another important fact for promoting this five year termination is that it could bring in new blood for the given field. Because the talented young who cannot be heard as a result of a dictatorship in the institution. Or as the claim put it, the pave the way for continuing success for any enterprise, it is crucial to add in new thoughts, or new leadership.
However, this idea to replace the powerful simply because they have been served for a certain period of time is relatively superficial. Indeed, the author didn’t take the complexity of real life case into consideration. A perfect example would be the disaster of dwindling execution of government policy due to the fact that politicians are replaced so rapidly that any propounding policy which need years of dedication could never last long enough. In United States, basically every 8 years, the party that are in charge switch from The Democratic Party to The Republican Party. One remarkable difference of the two parties is their attitude about environment protecting policy. In fact, it is widely known that the democrats set up a series of strict policies to regulate the behavior of corporate like oil companies. However, the recent triumph of the republican party, who took not only the majority seats of senate, but also the presidential seat, makes it impossible to continue these kind of polices, as a result, oil companies may jeopardize the local environment in order to maximum their profits. By the time a next left-wing environment protecting chief in charge, it would be already too late to restore the polluted ecosystem.
In the case above, the point I want to address is that, some projects which could probably last for decades could be hindered by changing leadership. It is oversimplified to assume that just because the replacement of leadership, everything about the enterprise would automatically become better. Thus, I tend to disagree with the speaker.
To recapitulate, I do agree that in some cases a dictatorship would be disastrous to the development of an enterprise. But the reality is simply be switching leadership over a fixed amount of time while ignore the specific case would not be a wise choice either. Thus, in disagree with the author in general.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 350, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to field'
Suggestion: to field
...essarily help the development of chosen field. Therefore, I tend to disagree with the...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 243, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he institution. Or as the claim put it, the pave the way for continuing success for any ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 95, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...use they have been served for a certain period of time is relatively superficial. Indeed, the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 991, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
...l seat, makes it impossible to continue these kind of polices, as a result, oil companies ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 146, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...n enterprise. But the reality is simply be switching leadership over a fixed amoun...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, while, in fact, in general, kind of, as a result, in my view, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2729.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 542.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03505535055 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89005105835 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522140221402 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 874.8 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6988122282 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.961538462 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8461538462 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73076923077 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
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: 0.231602801428 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0534813404448 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733059981691 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120270004679 0.150359130593 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0837700329436 0.0667264976115 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.