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.
A common characteristic that everyone would think about when a memorable leader comes to their mind is a long period of leadership. Examples of this are Winston Churchill, with his ten-year period as a president, or Mahatma Gandhi, with his long-term pacifist activism against British colonialism. These two cases were presented as the beginning of my dissertation, in order to argument that, from my point of view, power should not be caducous, but instead long-lasting.
First of all, it needs to be highlighted that the claim in which this statement is based is the corruption that normally obscures long-lasting political systems. It is undeniable that no human is a flawless being, and errors characterize us in many occasions. As well as this, there are many psychological studies that confirm that power can be highly addictive. Thus, it is understandable that some people, in order to maintain their leadership, are keen on manipulating elections, or committing immoral acts. However, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, there are many cases in human history that prove that this claim is not applicable to everyone on earth, as there are people who can evade the temptation of becoming corrupt.
In my opinion, revitalization of a system can take place without having to change its leader. An annual reunion to reconsider all the measures that are being taken, and the use of brainstorming techniques to generate innovative ideas can be a valid solution. This approach is used by many successful companies, such as Tesla or Google, with astonishing results. Considering this, it seems useless to systematically change the leader of a company in a fixed time, as an alternate solution may be hugely satisfying.
Further emphasizing on my point of view, the leader of a company usually is, as well, its visible head. In the case of countries, he usually represents the ideology and values that people from there share, so his presence is vital to maintain the union of the population. From these two examples, it can be inferred that leadership, rather than implicating exclusively a person which has power over money or other people, represents abstract concepts, such as feelings, that could not be generated by another person. For this reason, I think that the scheduled change of a leader would bring a huge drawback, rather than benefits in terms of revitalization.
In conclusion, I am convinced that leadership is directly related to long-term power holding, and, due to this, a scheduled change of government or command is prejudicial for systems. In order to revitalize them, there are other ways that do not involve a change in power.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ixed time, as an alternate solution may be hugely satisfying. Further emphasizing on my point of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...e solution may be hugely satisfying. Further emphasizing on my point of view, the le...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, thus, well, i think, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2234.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 436.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12385321101 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04277157932 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543577981651 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 702.0 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.8618222019 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.111111111 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2222222222 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 5.21951772744 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.0806050634657 0.243740707755 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0262261650964 0.0831039109588 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0240686136374 0.0758088955206 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0500807381871 0.150359130593 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279251010369 0.0667264976115 42% => 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: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.