Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Alexander the Great said “I am not afraid of an army of lion led by a sheep, I am afraid of an army of sheep lead by lion.” From the quote and from our life experience we can draw the saliency of leadership in any field of human world be it business, politics, education or government. The statement in the prompt limit the leadership of a certain person to 5 years hinging on the parameter of revitalization in leadership to bring sure success. Though I believe the changes is good for any organization it gives different perspective to the employees of citizen of the work, but limiting the time to just 5 years seemed strict since it most of the time for the fine leaders to step down and place incompetence leader to lead and bring disaster. The changes in leadership should come at the will of its stakeholders when a better alternative is found.
The former president of US Barack Obama led America for 8 years and had to step down due to its time limits, given the rule that no one person can hold office for more than 2 tenures. He has some success story in terms of healthcare, international affairs, critical thinking and a widely accepted leader by the people all over America. The time limit factor made him step down and handover office to Donald Trump, who has shown his competency in constant failure in dealing with foreign and domestic issues, the most recent is the pandemic where his statements brought him sheer jeer from the world. Besides his action regarding Paris Climate Act, assassination of Kashem Suleimani might have impacts in the future course of America, and now in the next election people are to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump and American really is skeptic about both their leadership skill. This time limit factor really left American to reel.
The leaders like Jack Ma of Alibaba, Mark Zuckerbarg of Facebook or the famous politician Justin Trudeau of Canada and Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand are role models in terms of leadership. Replacement of these leadership with a fresh one might bring some changes afresh the whole system but the experiences of these great leader are surmountable to the progress of a nation or organization.
The arguments definitely hold a strong ground while talking about countries like North Korea or Companies like Amazon. All these names mentioned have different area of problems. They might not be an incompetence leaders to the contrary just the opposite and they with their insights, knowledge about history and people have turned the game to their favor to keep them on power. We should definitely respond to these tyrants through protest and demanding transparency and ending the rule of despots since they seem more like caring about themselves and their being on power rather than people. In case of Amazon, of course Jeff Bezos know how to run his company better than anyone else, but a new leadership might bring employee satisfaction and make everyone see thing from a different perspective. Refined perspective to see a things is very crucial in leading an organization towards future.
In the conclusion I would say that we must keep in check and understand the fine line between an empathic and an avaricious leader and bring down the later at the right time and keep preparing generations as the future leadership so we do not see any dearth in that very avenue, which is actually our current situation but giving a fixed time limit might not help the economy of the people since leaders can plan for long term and will only focus on short term goal which might even create chaos in the regime of a true leader.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 204, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this leadership' or 'these leaderships'?
Suggestion: this leadership; these leaderships
... in terms of leadership. Replacement of these leadership with a fresh one might bring some chang...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 827, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a thing' or simply 'things'?
Suggestion: a thing; things
...perspective. Refined perspective to see a things is very crucial in leading an organizat...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, if, really, regarding, so, while, of course, talking about, i am afraid
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 14.8657303371 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 102.0 58.6224719101 174% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2991.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 626.0 442.535393258 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77795527157 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00199880112 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58946475274 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 329.0 215.323595506 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525559105431 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 943.2 704.065955056 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 34.0 23.0359550562 148% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 107.873454097 60.3974514979 179% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.166666667 118.986275619 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.7777777778 23.4991977007 148% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.153269468048 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442169624595 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406539370539 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0815639013032 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0547063077283 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.1392134831 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 48.8420337079 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.04 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 100.480337079 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 11.8971910112 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.2143820225 139% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => 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.