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
The topic of issue raises the controversial issue of whether the powerful person in any field should step down after five years. To support his claim, author says that the surest path for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Indisputably, with time, condition changes in the business or politics or education or government, but it is not necessary that in each situation a change would always be beneficial. It takes time to get experienced in any field. Hence, I would disagree with this issue and argue that it depends on several cases, in which field you are talking about and also the nature of individuals and their effects on society.
First of all, for a person to be experience in any field, it takes time. I do not think that five years is a sufficient time to connoisure of a field. When we talk about politics, no time range is sufficient. A person choose a field, learn about that field and get experienced, but when a time would to come to give, all these knowledge that he earned, back to society, we are saying him to change his field, I would be unfair to him. In business, people invest even their entire life to make a business a successful, whether we talk about Dhirubhai Ambani, or Bill gates, they have invested their whole life to make their business. If after five years Dhirubhai Ambani would have change his field from petroleum and gone to information technology, then we would not be witness the success of Reliance company. The same also true for Bill gates and many more.
Furthermore, if we talk about education, then the perfect example would be Dr. A P J abdul kalam. If we talk about his life, then we would encounter that, in his initial five years of space program, he had not achieved much. The knowledge he gained in his initial years had made foundation for his successful journey ahead, and ultimately became the Missile Man of India.
Admittedly, we talk about the corrupt government officials, it give some reasonable reasoning that, transfer of their fields and location would be good for society and reigon. Police officers, politicians, and government officials etc., they do corrupt with time, their influence increase with time, hence it is advisable to change and transfer their field so administration and reigon. I would surely good for society. However, the above reasoning does not valid in every circumstances and would not provide sufficient logic to generalize this idea.
In conclusion, however there are some circumstance where to change a field is advisable like above discussed, but it does not hold everytime a logical action. I would harm to experience of these leaders and society would not get benefits of their experience. Hence, I would disagree with the presented issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 219, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'chooses'.
Suggestion: chooses
..., no time range is sufficient. A person choose a field, learn about that field and get...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 322, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this knowledge' or 'these knowledges'?
Suggestion: this knowledge; these knowledges
... when a time would to come to give, all these knowledge that he earned, back to society, we are...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 64, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'gives'?
Suggestion: gives
...ut the corrupt government officials, it give some reasonable reasoning that, transfe...
^^^^
Line 11, column 310, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ould disagree with the presented issue.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, then, in conclusion, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 56.0 33.0505617978 169% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2306.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 469.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91684434968 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71812447021 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492537313433 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9586807794 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.818181818 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3181818182 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68181818182 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.224246402661 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0736895912016 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0953431221779 0.0758088955206 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142338343104 0.150359130593 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.172878002262 0.0667264976115 259% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.