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.
Stating that, the surest path to success for any enterprise is to revitalization through new leadership this view asserts that in any field such as business, politics, education, governments those in power should step down after five years. In some senses, any community need to be renewed by changing one's president. In my point, however, changing leaders regularly cannot be helpful for achieving goals in terms of whether next leader is competent and that present leader is proper for the goals.
Of course, few would disagree that any kind of organization needs to be reformed by electing new chair-man. If one leader maintains his authority long time, as we can see in history, he/she, or his colleague would necessarily corrupt. For example, Caesar was originally an advocate of Roman Republic, after getting powers in Rome, he became like an emperor. This implies that focused and long-lasting force could be harmful to any field
Nevertheless, the long-lasting force is always central for one organization to prosper. If the leader who has had powers is talented for that realm, alteration of him/her could discourage of development of the realm. For example, the CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs had fired once from his company. After that time, the company began to be unstable and earn lower profit than before In the end, the corporation hired him as CEO again. This implies that competent leader's prolonged seizing power is helpful long-term benefit of an organization.
Moreover, in history, we can see the other examples show that changing the leader for only revitalization could be very dangerous. Nazi regime was elected for replacing incapable predecessors. But as we know, they were very heinous and did the genocide. Through this case, we can know that only to revolve ethe organization, electing next leader,without considering his competence or other trait, could be very dangerous.
To summarize, it is deniable that letting our leaders regularly step down is beneficient for development. However, when it comes to the quality of next the powerful and property of present leader, changing leaders each five years could be peripheral.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 303, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ommunity need to be renewed by changing ones president. In my point, however, changi...
^^^^
Line 3, column 437, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ting force could be harmful to any field Nevertheless, the long-lasting force is ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...per. If the leader who has had powers is talented for that realm, alteration of h...
^^
Line 8, column 115, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... leader for only revitalization could be very dangerous. Nazi regime was elected ...
^^
Line 8, column 296, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...Through this case, we can know that only to revolve ethe organization, electing n...
^^
Line 8, column 348, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , without
... ethe organization, electing next leader,without considering his competence or other tra...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, for example, kind of, of course, 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: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1817.0 2235.4752809 81% => OK
No of words: 347.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23631123919 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86698184765 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.564841498559 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 704.065955056 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.4167171941 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.882352941 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4117647059 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272297542675 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0870905449424 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.173338916485 0.0758088955206 229% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158933715433 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.164517318528 0.0667264976115 247% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.