The author of this claim asserts that once in five years, those in power in fields like business, politics, education and government should step down. The reason states that to be successful in any enterprise, new leadership is beneficial because it helps in revitalization. I disagree with the claim and believe that to be successful in any endeavor, new leadership doesn't play a cardinal role as suggested by the claim. Although, new leadership is salutary, it isn't a necessity.
Admittedly, the role a leader plays is of crucial importance. However, this doesn't imply that a new leader is necessary to ensure success. For instance, quoting an example of Barack Obama, he served as the President of the United States for two terms. Despite the fact that he didn't step down after five years, there were no incidents of failure. Indeed, America has progressed and has witnessed it's heyday too during his presidential term. This example contradicts the claim that leadership doesn't have to keep changing roles to witness success in any field.
Secondly, there are a plethora of factors contributing to the success of an enterprise. Leadership skills of the leader, his approach to solve problems or to deal with crisis, his goals and missions during his term are a few factors which contribute to success. Rather than assuming that new leadership assures success, one must assess other criteria which could be helpful to determine if the new leader in position would perform better than his predecessor or would perform terrible. For example, the Prime Minister of India, Modi enforced the demonetization in India which was helpful to reduce the number of corruption cases in India. The question stands if a new leader in India can stand up to the standards of Modi or will a new leadership fail in this case.
Thirdly, in fields like business and dealing with government, experience does matter a lot. Hence, if a leader has been effective in his performance last term and has shown considerable success during his tenure, then new leadership won't be necessary. Although, one may suggest that with a new candidate, new opinions and new methodologies step in which could help the enterprise reach it's acme but if a leader has proved efficient in his previous tenure, there is no need for him to step down after five years. Probably, the company can be successful even with the same leader continuing.
Thus, it is very bizarre to directly conclude that new leadership is the surest path to success. The reason quoted above is flawed. To assess if a new leader will be beneficial or will be deleterious, one should assess the progress witnessed in that field during that leader's term. If a leader has produced mediocre results, new leadership would be a viable option. Otherwise, the same leader could be in power and continue to produce great results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 368, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...cessful in any endeavor, new leadership doesnt play a cardinal role as suggested by th...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 464, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...lthough, new leadership is salutary, it isnt a necessity. Admittedly, the role a...
^^^^
Line 3, column 77, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...is of crucial importance. However, this doesnt imply that a new leader is necessary to...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...for two terms. Despite the fact that he didnt step down after five years, there were ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 493, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e contradicts the claim that leadership doesnt have to keep changing roles to witness ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2385.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98953974895 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75653556059 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493723849372 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 734.4 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.167056866 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.375 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.328638018844 0.243740707755 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0940139781917 0.0831039109588 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862881376629 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2064799673 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1227050125 0.0667264976115 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.