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.
The issue suggests that leaders of various organizations should relinquish their power after 5 years. And backs it by claiming that new leadership is vital to success of any organization. Although this reason is valid for the argument but in my opinion the argument is indefensible.
When a new leader is elected in government or any other organization his employs a policy and has some objective for the organization. For example the manifesto of a presedential candidate. These objective takes time to be fullfilled. Imposing a limit on time a leader can work can end up in incomplete development tasks. It can also make haphazard implementation which are not sustainable. For example, a leader who promised reduce air pollution in a region by certain amount may actually not be able to fullfill this objective in five years.
Second reason is that frequent switching of government may actually harm progress of an organization due to conflicting policies of leaders. One leadership follows certain policy and works upon it for five years but then a new leadership comes and discards that policy and employs a completely new policy. Even new leadership may put efforts and resources to remove the old one. This is clearly squandering of resources. Instead some other measures should be taken that may allow existing leadership to continue if its work is effective or leave it it is not, such as election.
Employing such policy may harm the zeal with which the leadership works. If a leader knows that he has to give up after five years he may not put strong efforts for the betterment of the orgnization. It can also happen that less people come forward for the leadership. A policy which allows a leadership to continue after five years if it can prove it has done good work can force it to work so that it can serve the next term. Such policy revitalizes the enterprise when needed and avoids unneccessery switch in leadership.
In conclusion, new leadership can correct mistakes and revitalize the organization. However, requiring them to give up after five years may have adverse effects and completely forfiet its very purpose and devitalize the organization.
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.50
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.50
- 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.58
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.50
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
The issue suggests that leaders of vario...
Line 3, column 422, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
...is is clearly squandering of resources. Instead some other measures should be taken tha...
Line 3, column 547, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
...tinue if its work is effective or leave it it is not, such as election. Employing s...
Line 4, column 225, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
...he orgnization. It can also happen that less people come forward for the leadership....
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, second, so, then, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 58.6224719101 63% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1814.0 2235.4752809 81% => OK
No of words: 362.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01104972376 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96472036844 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505524861878 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1316169703 60.3974514979 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.380952381 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2380952381 23.4991977007 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42857142857 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230751658662 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711287014058 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0603491262276 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142656602037 0.150359130593 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0608174828087 0.0667264976115 91% => OK
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.1392134831 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 100.480337079 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.