Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
While some people tend to think that understanding the past is not useful for people who lead the team or who work in current positions, others seem to disagree with it. However, in my opinion, I believe that understanding the past can benefit people.
To begin with, if we understand the past, we can know what ways that we have to prevent it. To be specific, we can prevent to use the same way like precursor that we can avoid the same mistake. For example, I am a leader in my college project before. At the beginning, I suggested the teammates that we should search the prior research first so that we would not make the same mistake. After we gained lots of information on the past resaerch, we know what we had to do, and we finished the project successfully. Eventually we got the great score. Thus, I think that understanding the past can benefit us.
The second point is that understanding the past can let people be more convinced to their leader. That is to say, people will be more convinced if their leader can understand what the company suffered before. For instance, if a leader can speak lots of past mistakes that company had during the meeting, his or her employee will be more convinced because they will understand they should not make the same mistakes like before, and they will realize that their leader is astute person. Therefore, I think understanding the past has benefit.
True, some people might say that whatever we understood much more the past, which cannot be useful to people due to the different situation. We cannot use the same way to deal with the diverse problem. However, this belief fools to consider the fact that understanding the fact is not let us to use the same way to deal with the problem, it can let us know what the mistakes we had, and we can prevent that we do the twice. Thus, it is hard to convince people of this idea.
To sum up, with the reasons above, I think that understanding the past can truly benefit people in current positions od leadership. There seems to be some validity to other points of view. However, I still believe that the reasons of my opinion are stronger.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, i think, in my opinion, to begin with, to sum up, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1771.0 2235.4752809 79% => OK
No of words: 385.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6 5.05705443957 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5378710252 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.431168831169 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 539.1 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.0211629344 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.55 118.986275619 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.7 5.21951772744 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196425290982 0.243740707755 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0765750234741 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773087754871 0.0758088955206 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138390050859 0.150359130593 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558027512123 0.0667264976115 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.1392134831 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.8420337079 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.1743820225 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.4 12.1639044944 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.96 8.38706741573 83% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 100.480337079 58% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
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.