Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
It is asserted that the understanding of the past is negilgible in usage by those in current positions of leadership. However, this is to be strongly disagreed with, as a leaders should be vest in the understanding of the past most actually in relation its environ. To justify this opposition, the following reasons would be considered.
First, a leadership with a strong understanding of its peoples past give an edge in decision makings regarding the society. To gain the peoples support in projects or any developmental issue, a leadser must be seen as one who is empathic. From exeprience as a leader of a Non- Government Orgaanization, observation shows that respect is gernered from people when there is an understanding of where they are coming from to where they should be. This can be said to actually bridge the gap between a leader and the people.
Also, the past is a means of guilding a leader in any current position in terms of experience from precedestors. As the old saying goes, knowlegde is gained while standing on the shoulder of giant. So therefore, its can be inferred that for a leader to avoid making mistakes already commited before, therefore, the need of past understanding of the past events. For example, a newly elected President of Conoil Gas Station would have to liase with the subordinates in order to get understanding of what has being going on - and evaluation technic. Informations can also be garner from the past President of the station to enhance development.
In conclusion the assertation that the understanding of the past is negligible in usage by those in current positions of leadership is strongly disagreed with, because a leader should be vest in the understanding of the past most expecially in relation to the environment. In view of this, to justify this opposition, the reasons mentioned above should be consider.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 170, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a leader' or simply 'leaders'?
Suggestion: a leader; leaders
...is is to be strongly disagreed with, as a leaders should be vest in the understanding of ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 190, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'vested'?
Suggestion: vested
... disagreed with, as a leaders should be vest in the understanding of the past most a...
^^^^
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: SO_THEREFORE[1]
Message: Use simply 'So' or 'therefore'.
Suggestion: So; Therefore
...hile standing on the shoulder of giant. So therefore, its can be inferred that for a leader ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...on the shoulder of giant. So therefore, its can be inferred that for a leader to av...
^^^
Line 4, column 188, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'vested'?
Suggestion: vested
...agreed with, because a leader should be vest in the understanding of the past most e...
^^^^
Line 4, column 356, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'considered'?
Suggestion: considered
..., the reasons mentioned above should be consider.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 2235.4752809 70% => OK
No of words: 313.0 442.535393258 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98083067093 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1187125885 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 215.323595506 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488817891374 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 704.065955056 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8603514687 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.357142857 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.78571428571 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161152387502 0.243740707755 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689770334516 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746274125989 0.0758088955206 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125039829118 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534540753112 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 100.480337079 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.