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.
Every filed need vitality; without it, there would be no innovation in that field, resulting in devastation of it. Then how could we keep those enterprise vitalized? One may argue that the surest way to do so is to change the leadership; hence, make people in power step down after five years. However, I do not agree with this line of reasoning. First, although in some field, the claim has merit, I will argue that it should not be applied to any field. Second, there are many ways to keep a field alive, that is, the reason could be false. Third, even if the reason is not disputed, it does not follow the claim right from the reason.
First, consider the applicability of the policy. In politics, in particular presidency, it has merit. For instance, South Korea made a rule according to which its president cannot be re-elected. Since South Koreans experienced long dictatorship during its past, this rule functions as keep their democracy invulnerable. However, for a filed where it needs long-term visions, such as start-up business, the policy makes things worse. If a new start-up runner does care only about the next five years, what could happen in the business?
Second, there are many alternative revitalization scenarios without any change in leadership. Take an example of Samsung, one of the largest and most innovative electronic companies in the world. Although the company has succeeded in smartphone section and memory hardware, fields in which to success one needs to be innovative, Leaderships of the company have never experienced a huge change in that its ownership remains only Lee-family. What actually changed was its technicians, not its leaders. As Samsung’s case shows, there is an alternative way to promote innovation without changing its leadership.
Thirds, the argument is invalid, that is, even if the reason is correct, the claim is not guaranteed. Suppose for reductio that changes in leadership is the surest way of revitalization. However, it does not entail every leadership should step down after five years. In the case of the presidency of South Korea as I give above, it would be appropriate. However, there are fields in which a five-year policy is inappropriate. Let me give you an example. Consider the presidency of the united states. It allows up to 8 years. Why they do that? It is because they care about its consistency. Think about the following scenario. One president started a national project which, say take 8 years to complete. Then, 5 years later, the next president, who was a representative opponent of the project, take powers and undo the project. Such inconsistency will make the long-term projects impossible to complete.
In a nutshell, I argued that the claim should be rejected on the basis of the following reasons: first, the policy cannot be applied uniformly; second, the reason is not guaranteed; third, the argument for the policy is not valid. Rather, I argue that there is no panacea for revitalization, but case-by-case solutions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 139, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this enterprise' or 'those enterprises'?
Suggestion: this enterprise; those enterprises
...vastation of it. Then how could we keep those enterprise vitalized? One may argue that the sures...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 321, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...talization, but case-by-case solutions.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, for instance, in particular, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2530.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 499.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07014028056 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91716667439 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498997995992 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 704.065955056 112% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 23.0359550562 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7580859655 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.4117647059 118.986275619 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.6764705882 23.4991977007 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17647058824 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237670258481 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.052456262463 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582366898799 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124039652423 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059367142178 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 14.1392134831 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 48.8420337079 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 12.1743820225 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.53 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.2143820225 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.