Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
149. In any field - business, politics, education, government - those in power should be required to step down after five years.
In recent years, there has been continuous discussions on the appropriate duration that people can stay in power. Some people demand that those in power should be compulsorily asked to step down after five years, in whatever realm. While others support longer periods of power, or even unlimited period as long as being suitable for high positions. This essay is going to argue that, in most circumstances, such relinquishment after five years should not be forced, because staying in power for longer periods contributes to gaining experience and building personal credibility, which are crucial elements to success in most spheres.
Admittedly, advocates of the above-mentioned policy might have concerns about the flexibility of a field if a certain person were allowed to be left in power for a long time. In such scenarios, the leader, inevitably, would pass and veto policies according to personal tastes, because individual bias is ubiquitous. This is generally considered as harmful for the development of an industry, no matter politics, education, or business, since a single perspective is unlikely to be applicable for all the potential intractable difficulties. On the other hand, if the higher positions were changing every five year, for instance, various leaders would probably capable of dealing with capricious situations the industry is facing. Therefore, with this respect, the policy seems plausible to ask for a compulsory relinquishment per half decade.
Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that longer periods of being exposure to power helps to gain experiences Therefore, in areas which attach great importance to experience, coercing rapidly changing of leading positions would unarguably hinder the prosperity of the realm. The most apparent example in this case is the education sector, longer periods of exposure to students and parents would build up people’s knowledge of the most efficient approaches to communicate with students, the most frequently made mistakes, and the most appropriate teachers for each subject. All those precious knowledge are products of time, and therefore the rapid change of education leaders will only act as obstructions to the efficiency of education. Hence, the implementation of the policy should, at least in certain experience-intensive fields, be dismissed.
Moreover, another privilege of consistently staying in power is the construction of personal credibility. Taking the business industry as an example, clients choose a certain company not only because of the products they provide, but also due to their trust to that company. While, the person in power is often considered as the symbol of a company’s credibility. Therefore, changing a new leader would imply that the company has to build its credibility again from the beginning, which is an extremely wasteful way of using resources. Thus, in areas where credibility is put as the rudimentary consideration, frequent changing of people in power seems would put more cons than its pros.
To summarise, this essay has argued that the policy of requiring the step down of people in power every five years should be vetoed, at least in certain fields. Because although such policies would bring more flexibility of the field, it seriously sacrifices gaining experience and building up credibility. Further studies could be conducted on the identification of sectors suitable for rapid relinquishment. In that way, this policy could stimulate the development in those areas.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elements to success in most spheres. Admittedly, advocates of the above-menti...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sory relinquishment per half decade. Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ence-intensive fields, be dismissed. Moreover, another privilege of consisten...
^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s would put more cons than its pros. To summarise, this essay has argued that...
^^^^
Line 17, column 308, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...experience and building up credibility. Further studies could be conducted on the ident...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, at least, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2989.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 541.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52495378928 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12554504252 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521256931608 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 928.8 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 13.0 4.38483146067 296% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.7219170257 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.863636364 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5909090909 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.54545454545 5.21951772744 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => 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: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102110365452 0.243740707755 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0353039251397 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0256462472045 0.0758088955206 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0633908418028 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289276259712 0.0667264976115 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.