In every field those who are in power need to have the right capabilities to be a good leader in that field. Time is an important question, since it might demonstrate that a leader could continue to do a good job or should be changed in order to improve things. Even considering the importance of time, it’s not the best option to fix a certain quantity of years to make these changes. In this sense, a 5 years limit doesn’t mean that we will see quality or improvement in that field with changes of those in power in this fixed amount of time.
It’s possible that people might agree with the possibility of changes in every five years of those that has great responsibilities running a country or a company, for instance. In general, people that supports this possibility has a narrative based in the idea that changes in leadership are crucial to maintain a healthy environment in any field. Governments that has election every five years and that don’t allow the actual elected politicians to run for the office again is viewed by many as an example of good democracies where there is small chances to have an oligarchy stablished in the government since there is a renew in every five years. The same aspect could be used in the example of many companies that could change its CEOS with regularity, since this rotation might signify a maintenance in the creativity and willing to do a good work for the company.
However, this perspective doesn’t sustain itself compared with some evidences that demonstrates that a fixed amount of time to do this transition is not positive to the healthy of any field. Sometimes a leader is too good to remain just five years managing that field, sometimes that leader might be very bad in order to remain five years coordinating that field. Using the example of governments, one can see that some of the most well stablished democracies in the world has a parliamentary system where prime-ministers could stay for many years or only for many months. United Kingdom has many examples of prime-ministers that remained more than five years in power because they were doing a good job in the office. In the other hand, if a politician in this kind of system is not able to deal with the pressures while in office he could be changed by his peers. Now take the example of a democratic regime that has a fixed amount of time like Brazil. When a crisis arrived in the country, it was not possible to change the president in power since the elected one just got elected again. This generate a series of confusions in Brazil culminating in a dubious process that resulted in the elected president leaving office trough a fraudulent process. Had the country the possibility to change it leader without have to amount of years fixed to do the change, probably the country would be in a more stable political scenario than nowadays.
In conclusion, one can be sanguine about changes in the leadership of a certain field with five years regularity. However, we demonstrated that to fix an amount of time could result in negatives outcomes, since it might break a good environment within that field or might keep a bad environment. In this sense, its better to not state a fix amount of time for leadership.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ssibility of changes in every five years of those that has great responsibilities...
^^
Line 3, column 545, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are small chances'?
Suggestion: there are small chances
...as an example of good democracies where there is small chances to have an oligarchy stablished in the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 633, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...lished in the government since there is a renew in every five years. The same aspect co...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in general, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 26.0 11.3162921348 230% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 94.0 58.6224719101 160% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2702.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 568.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75704225352 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88187981987 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77416525437 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.422535211268 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 873.0 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.8149325002 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.1 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4 23.4991977007 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9 5.21951772744 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112091941298 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0413963911837 0.0831039109588 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341955556869 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0826014005566 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0216201784987 0.0667264976115 32% => 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: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => 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: 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.