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.
The survival and revival of any institutes rely heavily on their leading force, who is at the helm to drive a company or a nation uphill or down drain. The concession cycle of a governmental party is akin to the decision required to make by a business entity, thus, we could somehow consider this paradigm to be consensus. However, the complexity of running a country is of much higher pedestal. Based on the scrutiny of preceding evident, I underpin the ideology of having an authority to be in rule for no more than 5 years as it has been demonstrated to thrive growth and positive competition while avoiding societal upheaval due to dictatorship.
Each fields could be considered a congruent parts constituting a functional system driving the national development. From a positive viewpoint, changing power periodically means parties would be motivated to deliver better performance due to the competitive pressure. Similar to structure being accustomed by Democracy and Socialism countries, such as the U.S, Malaysia, France, etc., leaders are nominated every 3 to 5 years based on the election votes from all citizen, which grants fairness and equality to all citizen with legal rights to appoint whoever deem fit to lead their society instead of sticking with one. However, the chaos and conspiracy derived from election during the transitory stage are inevitable as well. It’s not hard to delineate the rivals between different parties, such as those occurred among the BH and DAP parties in Malaysia, where the issue of leadership goes beyond political measure, but also ingrained in cultural and racism respects.
Also, the foundation of ensuring success in an organization or in a country is the constant gear towards innovation, which somehow in demand of cross-fertilization of ideas from the new blood. In professional environment, the biggest obstruct for growth is the disability to adopt to ever-changing environment. The finger could be directly pointing at workforce who has been working in their comfort zone for way too long, most severely, a reluctant leader who is intimated to take the company to the next level. To submerge the latent and orthodox behaviors from senior leadership, take Facebook as an example, its founder Mark Maczeburg was coerced to step down after 8 years of administrating the company so that it could be continue to surge in a hand of more sophisticated power. On a company level, this could also prevent conflict of personal interest or corruption arising when an individual has the ability to direct all resources eternally. Referencing the commandership occurring in North Korea and Middle East countries, we could easily conclude that a sole autocracy could only do harm to our society rather than goodwill.
In conclusion, the claim and reason provided are colliding in various context. However, neither a government nor a company should take the transitional stage lightly as it could directly influence the continuance of former endeavor, integration of new policies, and employee fidelity towards the new leadership.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 45, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'part'?
Suggestion: part
... fields could be considered a congruent parts constituting a functional system drivin...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 360, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
... and Socialism countries, such as the U.S, Malaysia, France, etc., leaders are no...
^
Line 5, column 276, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...bstruct for growth is the disability to adopt to ever-changing environment. The finger c...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, thus, well, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2593.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 493.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25963488844 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03351993055 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 215.323595506 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.608519269777 0.4932671777 123% => OK
syllable_count: 820.8 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => 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: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.0181637988 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.529411765 118.986275619 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05882352941 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10724927696 0.243740707755 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310530536092 0.0831039109588 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0309157383175 0.0758088955206 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0677617045231 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0319442046588 0.0667264976115 48% => 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: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.8420337079 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.82 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.38706741573 124% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 100.480337079 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.