The statement claims that inculcating the trait of cooperation rather than competition in young people is the best way to prepare them for leadership positions.
The statement claims that inculcating the trait of cooperation rather than competition in young people is the best way to prepare them for leadership positions. I tend to disagree with this statement on two primary accounts as detailed in the sequel.
First and foremost, I find it hard to accept that the "best" way to prepare people for leadership is to only focus on one single dimension. Even though the question of cooperation versus competition may be relevant, it is not the only aspect to focus on when it comes to leadership. In fact, a leader is expected to demonstrate an array of skills and traits, among which cooperation and competition can be argued to be trivial. Emotional intelligene, transformational leadership, emotional appeal, and the like are among the more substantial personality traits to develop and implant in young people in preparing them for future leadership positions. Therefore, leadership is an intricate concept and demands a more hollistic view incorporating various skills, traits, and qualifications and one cannot oversimplify the concept of leadership development by solely focusing on one aspect.
Even if the question can hypothetically be oversimplified to competition or cooperation, a leader is eventually bound to fail if he or she develops one extreme as opposed to a balance of both. This is because a leader most likely than not would encounter various situations and predicaments which may call for either or both. For instance, at times of war, a leader may be expected to exhibit a more competitive nature to defend his land and people while a more cooperative attitude may be required when countries are working toward a coalition to combat global warming. Hitler, the German leader, examplified a competitive trait and very few people can argue that he was a great example of leadership. Likewise, an extremely cooperative leader will find himself helpless in situations calling for a cmopetitive nature.
Having said that, I acknowledge some cogency in the opposing wordlview. We all know from common knowledge and experience that agreeable people tend to make more friends and tend to get more buy in, which may lead some people to believe that effective leaders ought to be agreeable too. However, as explained earlier, this generalization does not apply to the arena of leadership due to its sophisticated nature requiring not only cooperation but many other skills.
In summary, the statement was found to be very shallow hinging on only one trait among many other skills and qualifications a leader demands. Furthermore, it was argued that a balance of both, rather than an extreme in either is more pertinent. Although we acknowledged some cogency in the opposing wordlview, it is ultimately deemed immaterial to cause a shift in our position.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, likewise, may, so, therefore, while, for instance, in fact, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2375.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 454.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23127753304 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1628184273 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504405286344 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 761.4 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3675804595 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.944444444 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2222222222 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.21951772744 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.378022522051 0.243740707755 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130739822929 0.0831039109588 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.220887591419 0.0758088955206 291% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256077367532 0.150359130593 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.239522803649 0.0667264976115 359% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.