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 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.
Revitalisation and change is one important aspect for development in any field. People with power in almost every fields should surely be changed every once in a while. That being said, creating a policy to require those in power in all fields to step down after five years will still be harmful to the development and growth of those fields. Five years is sometimes too short of a time for even the powerful people in a certain fields to create real and lasting effects. Most policies or ideas needs more than a mere five years to be fully developed or implemented. Requiring those on top to step down after five years might thwart the progress of certain ideas and policies before they could reach their potentiality, thus putting into waste the last five years dedicated to them. Therefore, the proposed policy should not be implemented.
In most of the fields, especially in politic, government, and education, creating lasting effects tends to include a big change in the current system. To change the system, one would need to go through quite a lot of different stages: from analysing the problem in the status quo, proposing a change of policies in certain problematic aspects, bringing the proposal to be accepted on the congress floor, to the arduous works needed to ensure that the policies are being implemented in the intended way. With only five years in hand, the risk of those changes being thwarted and abandoned before completion is very high. With a constant change of leadership, there will also be a constant change of visions, missions, and agendas. The changes of prioritised policies are a given due to the inherent difference of each individual and the natural human desire to be seen as better and uniquely different from their predecessors. When this happens, no lasting changes could be made in any of these fields.
To illustrate the stated problem, let us look at the example of constant changes in the Indonesian Ministry of Education. The ministry has undergone a constant and non-stop change of leadership for the last few decades. Unfortunately, each new minister had their own perspective on what would constitute a good national curriculum for the nation. Every one of them created a new curriculum and tried to implement them—along with new textbooks, exam formats and standard mark—in all thirty-three different provinces in the country. At the end of the day, all of these well-intentioned changes only overwhelmed and perturbed the works and progress made by teachers and students all across the nation. In the case in which a constant changes is ensured by the proposed policy, whether or not one lasting effect was made could not even be evaluated because none of the changes were implemented long enough for us to see the effects.
Aside from ensuring that lasting effects are being made in these fields, we also want to make sure that those in charge have the needed experience and practical knowledge on how the system works in their field. Insightful experience and understanding usually takes more than five years to be acquired. At the end, a limit of five years for all of those in charge would limit the lasting changes and developments that could be made in a certain fields. For instance, a brand new supreme court judge would of course have no more understanding of both the law and the practical implications of those law compared to a standing judge who has served in the supreme court for at least ten years of time. If the policy is being put to place, there would not be any experienced judges to compare to in the very first place. Requiring those in power to step down once every five years will diminish the chances for many of them to have enough experience and understanding of the system to be able to grow to their full potential.
Of course with the benefit of experience and ability to create bigger changes, extended period of power also comes with their own risks and problems. The ones in power sometimes also have the tendency to love the feeling of those powers in their hands. More than a diminutive numbers of them would be tempted to try to do whatever it takes to keep the power close to their hand. This was what had brought many countries to put the limit of two serving terms for those in power—especially those with the executive power such as presidents. For most of the time, this system has been proven to work as intended. Two terms of power was just about enough to be experienced and to make a certain lasting effects. At the same time, the system manages to ensure that the country would not be put under an autocratic dictator that we would not be able to easily remove from power when the need rises. To implement the proposed policy and reduce the time limit to five years would only harm the current harmony in these countries with no additional benefits.
In conclusion, the policy being proposed by the topic should not be implemented to ensure that those in powers would still have the ability to create practical changes with lasting effects in their fields. The hunger for power is sufficiently managed in most countries with the currently common two-term system. Implementing the policy will only bring more harm than good for the related fields.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-23 | jason123 | 66 | view |
2019-12-21 | meghanajilla | 50 | view |
2019-12-08 | er.vprashant | 66 | view |
2019-10-03 | hj84 | 66 | view |
2019-10-03 | hj84 | 16 | view |
- "A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its profe 50
- Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals. Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish. 79
- 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 position you take. In developing a 50
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor’s record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition.Write 50
- “The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the la 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 11, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...should not be implemented. In most of the fields, especially in politic, gover...
^^
Line 5, column 775, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...nges is ensured by the proposed policy, whether or not one lasting effect was made could not e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 592, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this law' or 'those laws'?
Suggestion: this law; those laws
...e law and the practical implications of those law compared to a standing judge who has se...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 700, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'effect'?
Suggestion: effect
...perienced and to make a certain lasting effects. At the same time, the system manages t...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'at least', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'of course', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.210526315789 0.240241500013 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.15995872033 0.157235817809 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.09391124871 0.0880659088768 107% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0536635706914 0.0497285424764 108% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0196078431373 0.0444667217837 44% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136222910217 0.12292977631 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0598555211558 0.0406280797675 147% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.64216094054 2.79330140395 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.046439628483 0.030933414821 150% => OK
Particles: 0.0030959752322 0.0016655270985 186% => OK
Determiners: 0.128998968008 0.0997080785238 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0227038183695 0.0249443105267 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00825593395253 0.0148568991511 56% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 5262.0 2732.02544248 193% => OK
No of words: 903.0 452.878318584 199% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82724252492 6.0361032391 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.48178423532 4.58838876751 119% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.324473975637 0.366273622748 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.243632336656 0.280924506359 87% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.161683277962 0.200843997647 81% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0996677740864 0.132149295362 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64216094054 2.79330140395 95% => OK
Unique words: 352.0 219.290929204 161% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.389811738649 0.48968727796 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 52.4942864567 55.4138127331 95% => OK
How many sentences: 36.0 20.6194690265 175% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0833333333 23.380412469 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.35570999 59.4972553346 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.166666667 141.124799967 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 23.380412469 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.416666666667 0.674092028746 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 49.4465669989 51.4728631049 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.74336283186 1.64882698954 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.405010792256 0.391690518653 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.113693443157 0.123202303941 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0563045506686 0.077325440228 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.530744788172 0.547984918172 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.139730451993 0.149214159877 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173034505593 0.161403998019 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0768744974555 0.0892212321368 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.58135672077 0.385218514788 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0636316527527 0.0692045440612 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321054655223 0.275328986314 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473558847918 0.0653680567796 72% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 22.0 10.4325221239 211% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88274336283 164% => OK
Positive topic words: 20.0 7.22455752212 277% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.70907079646 185% => OK
Total topic words: 27.0 13.5995575221 199% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.