10G,作文很着急~求拍
ISSUE 8. 多领域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 isrevitalization through new leadership.Write a response in which you discuss theextent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which thatclaim is based.The author directly contends that those inpower should be reelected every five years in any field, based on the reason thatthe surest path to be successful for any enterprise is revitalization throughnew leadership. This contention might be plausible to some extent, but I’drather offer a different opinion about this issue.
The claim might be useful when exerted in thefield of business, which requires a good sense of creativity normally lackingin seniors who have been in power for a long time. Take the field of IT forexample, unremitting new inventions like Microsoft and Facebook devised by anumber of energetic young men are thriving, which is largely owing to thecontributions by more and more young men participating in this field. That’swhy the field of business ought to change leaders every five years. What’smore, the government should also be made to change presidents in case of abuseof power. When a president has been in power for too long, there come problemssuch as unchangeable stodgy policies as well as damage to his health, and soforth. Thus it’s crucial for government to make a change after a few years toguarantee the safety of the nation as well as its multitude.
Nevertheless, the rule of changing leadersevery five years could be detrimental to the field of education, which isregularly composed of experienced scholars and teachers, most of who have beenin position for over decades. There is no denying that more experienced ateacher is, more excellently he inculcates his students, which might lead to awise choice to avoid changes of those in power. Similarly, some fields may bewell under way unless a change of leadership occurs. Federal Reserve Governor,for instance, is necessary to maintain this job for a long period, since every possiblepolicies made might take effect only after several years or even decades ofbeing performed, in which case this institute would be useless were there arule of change of leadership every five years.
Except the flawed claim, the reason suggestedby the author should also be scrutinized. Conceding that the surest path ofsuccess for any enterprise surely includes revitalization through newleadership, but it’s not confined to it. As is universally known, the road tosuccess lies in myriad aspects such as the quality of subordinates, the adaptabilityof a enterprise, and so forth—rather than merely refreshing leaders, and every possibleefforts should be taken into account in order to succeed thereby.
In sum, the author posited a relatively weakclaim drawn from an unsound reasoned, in which the mistake he made could be analyzedto be a lack of integrity of conception of success. He would be savvy to broacha reasonable claim had he freed his mind out of narrow means of success hepossessed.
478words， 36min
页:
[1]