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 claiming is that the secret to the success of any enterprise - even in business, education or politics - is that after five years, those in power should step down from their positions so that the leadership board could be refreshed. At a first glance, that sounds seemly plausible, since new leaders can bring new ideas, which can improve the results obtained by the enterprise. However, sometimes the characteristics of the business requires more stable and consistent decisions, what can be harmed by frequent commander changes.
In the government and political field, this revitalization of people on power can be very benefitial to a country. First because it helps precluding corruption, second because it provides room for new ideologies and approaches be tested. If the same group of people are in power for a long time, they have more influence over other politicians and companies, and, therefore, they can easily benefit from venal affairs. If the command is frequently changed after a period of time, the new people in charge will eed to spend some time growing their web of influence before starting any bribery activity. Moreover, changing political representants more often increases the probability that iconoclastic politicians may reach higher positions in government and may deploy varied approaches to deal with tipical problems.
In the business and educational areas, conversely, this continuous modification in the leadership board may not be as beneficial as in the political field. A company should provide to its employees opportunities to grow and become leaders one day, indeed. But, there should not exist an obligation to changing the bosses periodically, they should be dismissed when they are not able to achieve better results or if they do not feel comfortable in their position anymore. In addition, educational and business plans are frequently designed with a strategical point of view. Often, they aim to reach goals in a future longer than 5 years ahead. This requires strong stability and consistency in the decisions made by their leaders. If those step down every five years, such plans may become somewhat volatile.
The last question one could raise is why five is the number of years desired? Was any kind of study made and success cases analyzed to prove the validity of such cabalistic number? It is really strange to come up with a number that would fit perfectly for all fields and areas, considering they have different characteristics that may affect directly the best period to provide some kind of change in the leadership. For example, in an oil and gas company, where decisions are made now targeting what is likely to happen after ten years - considering the average time to getting licenses, explore and produce a petroleum field, it sounds unlikely that changing the chiefs every five years will be advantageous. On the other hand, for a presidential mandate, such dimension could fit very well for a country's purposes.
In conclusion, it is not likely that applying a general rule to every enterprise will work well for all of them. Some may benefit from a change in their command, others may not. Still, to the formers, the definition of the most suitable amount of time for that matter should not be a generic number. Otherwise, it should be a decision incumbent on the enterprises themselves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to preclude' or 'preclude'.
Suggestion: to preclude; preclude
...al to a country. First because it helps precluding corruption, second because it provides ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...e command is frequently changed after a period of time, the new people in charge will eed to s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 799, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ay deploy varied approaches to deal with tipical problems. In the business and...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, however, if, may, moreover, really, second, so, still, therefore, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2818.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 549.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13296903461 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85672495031 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513661202186 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 886.5 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.337168698 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.416666667 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.875 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.79166666667 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.211964619415 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0573652078913 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0693072438862 0.0758088955206 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122468249737 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570476775853 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.