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.
It has been often said that change is the only constant. Be it any field in the world today - science, business, politics - it is truer, now more than ever, that change is the only indicator of progress, that man must certainly keep evolving with the ever changing times or risk falling into a period of stagnation and stasis. The question of whether those in power should keep their power forever is an interesting one - for it forces us to think about how the influence of the right leadership helps mankind move forward, or holds it backward in their fixed social constructs. I mostly agree that a periodic change in leadership is an indicator of revitalization and change, and that those in power should step down after a period of five years to make room for new leadership.
First of all, having new individuals take up the role of leadership every five years also infuses new blood and vitality among those in charge. These candidates are often smarter, more canny and perceptive of the needs of the people. For instance, an older leader is not likely to keep abreast of new advances in technology, which keeps taking giant steps every year. But a younger, smarter individual who might replace them after five years would have their finger on the pulse of the nation. Their perspicacity may prove useful in recognizing the dangers of cybersecurity and bring out reforms to enhance online privacy. The same applies to business, science and education too - bringing changes in the leadership every five years affords the nation an oppportunity to be lead by canny individuals who are more up to date on current trends which can be implemented and bring about great changes in their respective fields.
Second, limiting the tenure of office makes great leaders accountable to their people, and galvanizes them into doing their best work. Today, one cannot fail but notice that more often than not, political races are often strife with demagogues wooing the people into voting for them - once elected, they usually do not act upon their promises. Their web of subterfuge and corruption often affords them a large number of votes, and subsequent re-election. This vicious cycle continues year after year - never changing, never evolving. On the other hand, if a fixed policy of limited tenure in office is implemented, the only candidates to compete will be those with a sincere wish and fervent zeal to work only towards the welfare of the people, and not to further their own selfish motives. Such leaders are likely to have only one goal in mind during their five years in office - to serve the people and be the best leader possible for their people. Void of selfishness, such individuals can go a long way in eradicating social evils and initiating great reforms.
However, like every coin as two sides, these changes can also prove deleterious if not implemented properly. Changes in the current leadership may not be a good idea if there is a lack of capable individuals to take their place. Electing an unexperienced candidate just for the sake of the policy is extremely harmful. Placing power in the wrong hands would then not just affect those in that particular field - but might even affect the nation. In those cases, a good alternative would be set a precedent in place to allow re-election for leaders who perform extremely well. However, unless this is properly enforced using an objective process, the disdadvantages may far outweight the benefits.
In conclusion, I do agree that the surest path to success to move forward as a species lies in constantly evolving and adjusting to the needs and expectations of the society. Periodic revitalization through new leadership is not only healthy, but affords any field today the chance to make greater strides and advances than ever before.
- 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 66
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long term realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 4, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[8]
Message: The adverb 'often' is usually put between 'has' and 'been'.
Suggestion: has often been
It has been often said that change is the only constant. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: Whether; The question whether
...into a period of stagnation and stasis. The question of whether those in power should keep their power ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 403, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...rfuge and corruption often affords them a large number of votes, and subsequent re-election. This...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, well, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3171.0 2235.4752809 142% => OK
No of words: 641.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94695787832 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.0316973083 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65230058594 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 320.0 215.323595506 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499219968799 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 999.0 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8977737887 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.84 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.64 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235354077438 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601019757918 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708488685191 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139962864362 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0715197494695 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => 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: 11.73 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 100.480337079 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 11.8971910112 147% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.