Claim:in any field, those in power should step down after five years.
Reason:the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Charismatic leadership surely comprises an irreplaceable role in any enterprise’s endeavor to success; nevertheless, sometimes a leader’s charisma is relentlessly tarnished by stains which seem indelible. Sloth, misconduct and corruption are such stains that are at odds with a leader’s usually image. While those blots might exert a detrimental influence on the leader’s image, I have to emphasize their infrequency. As a result, from my perspective, the author of the issue may be so pessimistic that he arbitrarily equates those sporadic blemishes with predestined failure and therefore fiercely advocates the revitalization of leadership every five years.
In the field of politics, or in government, delinquency and crimes do occur. Such delinquency and crimes most likely derive from persistent power maintenance and greatly hinder political achievements. Therefore, revitalization through new leadership is highly deserved for success. New leadership, once introduced, will bring about strict restrictions, if not a deadly crack down, on the old bureaucracy. Those restrictions will further witness a balance of power between the new and old politicians. As a result, a harmonious working ethic within the government is birthed and subsequent success can be expected. The regular presidential election in the US, as well as in many other countries, exemplifies the significance of leadership revitalization within the political field. While many considerations contributed to such revitalization, the preclusion of corruption and other dishonest is no doubt one of the most important consideration.
When we turn to the field of education, however, the situation is different. When it comes to education, I disagree with this issue in terms of both its reason and claim. I contend that the surest path to success in universities , high schools and other education institutions, is not through the revitalization of leadership but rather through educators’ insightful decisions about vital policies. This insight, in most cases, springs from an accumulation of teaching experience. A sufficiently long teaching history further requires that the educators maintain position stability, which frequently exceeds a period of five years. For supporting examples, we can only imagine a university undergoing a steady change of department directions, even presidents within a short periods of years. This leadership fluctuation would definitely lead to an interruption of educational policies with students being the victims. However, if the leaders of the university are insightful and experienced enough to bring the university to a higher level, their tenure can be extended.
Finally, if we switch our attention to the field of business, we find that changes in leadership are much more flexible. All that a new leader should be equipped with is the potential or capability to bring maximum profits. In the business word, unanticipated bargaining success should endow an unsung Joe with widespread reputation which even a much older businessman would covet. However, it is of equal possibility that an eminently respected entrepreneur could lose his crown overnight for an unexpected failure in a regular negotiation. From this perspective, neither the reason nor the claim of this issue stands tenable in the business field.
While every enterprise should strive for success, the means via which the enterprise should utilize is conditional on more thorough considerations. As a result, whether a leader should step down after five years requires further deliberation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 229, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e surest path to success in universities , high schools and other education instit...
^^
Line 3, column 775, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'period'?
Suggestion: period
...ections, even presidents within a short periods of years. This leadership fluctuation w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, well, while, no doubt, as a result, as well as, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3050.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 536.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69029850746 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34420892614 2.79657885939 120% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555970149254 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 952.2 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 12.0 3.10617977528 386% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8011781791 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.962962963 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8518518519 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.51851851852 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.327492241851 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0705540644804 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0671164193074 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164001154774 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567874171185 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 170.0 100.480337079 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.