It is frequently said that the vigor of any enterprise can be maintained and extended only by periodic changes in its leadership. In some sense, it is hard to deny that fresh ideas from the younger perspective can contribute to the road to success of enterprise. However, this view underestimates the importance of stable and consistent visions which accompany with maturity and experience.
Of course, there are a number of merits that can be expected only from regular changes in management. In the world of modern business where innovation is essential for survival of a corporation, it becomes even a norm to stimulate the entire organization by changes in leadership. In fact, Microsoft is believed to continue its well-known glory into this decade partly because of the wisdom of its owner and former CEO, Bill Gates to invite younger specialists who design its future; despite the great know-how's and experiences of the old members, they knew that their ideas would not perfectly match the rapidly changing market conditions as well as ever-younger new clients.
In politics, shifts in leadership can prevent a strongly established inner-circle from becoming stagnant and corrupt. Lacking the revitalization through new leadership, the latter half of Mao's China produced a number of evils a rigid political system can make. In contrast, the modern China, which introduced the policy to change its power structure on the regular basis, has successfully reduced the old evils and been becoming one of the world's leadership powers.
Beneath the surface, however, there exist many reasons we need not to extol the wisdom of frequent changes in leadership. When it comes to the cost of trial-and-errors that is inevitable for most inexperienced new leaders, it becomes clear that the success of an enterprise is not a simple function of filling new bloods. In many professional sports clubs, we can easily observe the increasing confusions and ever-complicated messes plagued in certain inferior organizations which too easily fire their head coaches and staffs. To the contrary, despite the long-term tyranny of the Steinbrenner, the Yankees have successfully continued its empire.
- 133. In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the posit 16
- 133. In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the posit 66
- 133. In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the posit 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s well as ever-younger new clients. In politics, shifts in leadership can prev...
^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
... old evils and been becoming one of the worlds leadership powers. Beneath the surf...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 68, Rule ID: NEEDNT_TO_DO_AND_DONT_NEED_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'extol'?
Suggestion: extol
...r, there exist many reasons we need not to extol the wisdom of frequent changes in leade...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, well, in contrast, in fact, of course, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1848.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 346.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34104046243 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06835706239 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592485549133 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 704.065955056 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.4785422416 60.3974514979 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.153846154 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6153846154 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46153846154 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0587973887192 0.243740707755 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.023162287427 0.0831039109588 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0200714603485 0.0758088955206 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0383908586451 0.150359130593 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0147685644422 0.0667264976115 22% => 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: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.13 8.38706741573 121% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.