Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
The issue of whether understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership has engendered controversy and can be divided into two schools of thought. On the one hand, staunch defenders support that the past constitutes an obsolete concept and thus leaders should be more attached to the future. On the other hand, opponents contend that the past is the most important factor that adumbrates a prosperous future. Were I, in such an ambiguous position whether to agree or disagree, I would support the latter argument idea, even though, the former one has some positive attributes.
First and foremost, understanding the past is the best way for those in leadership positions to broaden their knowledge and avoid important mistakes. Indeed, leaders can learn a lot that have happened in previous times, and thus analyze difficult circumstances of the present. For example, the political leaders of Germany can learn a lot from their history during the 1940s, where they started the Second World War and triggered all the brutal actions that had plunged Europe into dark for five consecutive years. Regarding, the current economic crisis occuring in Europe, adding the exreme-right political parties thriving in local elections, German politicians could have all the available knowledge form the past to avoid negative circumstances and lead Europe to prosperity.
In addition, understanding the past for current leaders introduces an important tool, that helps them evaluate their role and their scope. Leadership requires that those in power possess the true history of their nations and moreover their mores and values. For instance, the leaders of the United States of America could bolster their role and scope, by knowing their past and the way important problems have been faced during the years. Therefore, they would be sure about what they represent, and it is likely that they will lead their people to prosperity and development as happened with the founding fathers of the United States.
According to the other school of thought, those in leadership positions may sometimes undermine the future by looking to the past. In reference to that, it might hold some true elements because in future many challenges that appear are completely different from those in the past, consequently their scope could not be analyzed. Nonetheless, deep knowledge of the past always strengthens the leaders' abilities and traits, rendering them successful in any challenges, although some of them may not be directly correlated to the past.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly believe, that understanding the past alsways helps those in leadership positions to advance their disciplines and sharpen their accumen. It is the best way to render successful, as they are required to spearhead the lead their people to prosperity. Only by such traits will they be able to make our societies better and just.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 704, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
... could have all the available knowledge form the past to avoid negative circumstance...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, look, may, moreover, nonetheless, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2477.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 467.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30406852248 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78981051377 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507494646681 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 750.6 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0597103072 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.611111111 118.986275619 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9444444444 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1111111111 5.21951772744 194% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329493413735 0.243740707755 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112747594061 0.0831039109588 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134157486679 0.0758088955206 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189796091531 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774893849404 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.