Issue 70 (第一次发帖)

GabrielGaoUID: 2800551

Issue 70
写了3个星期issue，想让大家评判一下。请给出宝贵意见，谢谢！


In anyprofession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step downafter five years. The surestpath to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.


The speaker asserts that commander in chief shouldstep down after five years, no matter which profession it is. This statement ismerely based on speaker’s premise that the surest path to success for anyenterprise is revitalization through new leadership. Although this claim hasconcrete merit, it is still specious by overestimating the function ofleadership replacement. In my view, frequent stepping-down of leadership is notomnipotent and the surest path to success is the ability of leadership andeffective management.
Indeed,government should apply an institutionalized regulatory method to itsleadership in order to prevent totalitarianism, nepotism and corruption fromhappening. After all, if leadersand commanders can step down after a duty period, the political system andbureaucracy can largely remain fair and robust. It is also the hallmark ofequalization in opportunity for a democratic society as well. A leader or aleading panel’s ability and talent will sometimes fade after a period of time. Asa result, people should step down and leave the position for newly electedpeople to demonstrate their talents. For example, George Washington, the fatherof America initiated the tradition of stepping down after two periods ofpresidency. This intelligent political innovation also enthrones aconfederation that has the most polished presidency system in the world. Thisalso holds true for many business and education systems in that absolute powerand authority must not exists for long, in case that the management of acorporation and the academics of a school might be banal. Therefore, a companymust keep a fresh and young momentum for further development and a university shouldaccept new ideas for new challenges.
However, likemany concepts in management science, frequent leadership stepping-down is alsoa double-edged sword. Consideringpolitics, some giant constructions and projects, such as an economic reform, areso complex that requires a long period of time to see if there is any outcome. Sometimes,if the problems is too ingrained, what a brilliant leader need is not just fiveyears, but maybe ten years or even more. In other words, sometimes policiesneed a coherency in power to take effect, because a social experiment can bevery multi-faceted. Besides, withoutother regulatory policies in authority management, some leaders might exploitthe chance of leadership revitalization to leave the mess they caused to theirposteriors. However, they should never be exculpated by a mere stepping down. Additionally, since differentprofessions have different managerial characteristics. Even in one profession,no matter it is education, business or politics, different situations exist indifferent cases. If so, how can the duty period be affirmed as a universalprotocol? Even if it can be, is it two years, five years or more?
Another problem ofthe speaker’s assertion is particularly specious. The speaker unwarrantedly equalizes the surest pathto success with revitalization through new leadership. However, according to myobservation, on the road to success, we need good leadership but not simply anominal “new leadership”. No evidence shows any linkage between a good leaderand a good politics with a fixed revitalization period. In many cases, manysocial problems cannot be solved by frequent resignation of a prime minister.In contrast, there are successful enterprises who adopt no strictrevitalization pattern. For instance, Toyota utilizes family lineage for itstop leadership, and there is no regulation about how long at most can a CEO’sduty be. And yet Toyota’s business has been increasing for 20 years and now itis the biggest automobile enterprise in the world. Same applies in politics, PresidentLee of Singapore took real power for more than 30 years, and people still lovehim for his personal achievement both in economics and politics in Singapore. What’s worth mentioning is that,different from the George Washington, President Lee, also an excellentpolitician in Westerner’s judging criteria, is not a believer of revitalizationof leadership.
In sum, the merit of leadership revitalization isconspicuous in terms of guaranteeing opportunities for new personnel and interms of instilling new blood to a political, educational and businessinstitution. Nevertheless, it is nottrue that new leadership and revitalization definitely means success.

zhangjunzjUID: 2658970

总体写得不错，其中的很多词很好，那些术语很专业，但不知你在考场上能否写出。还有，issue不要写的像argument的样子，尽量以自己的观点为主，不要去反驳作者的漏洞。不错，看得出你花了功夫的，但是照抄北美范文格式和句型太多了，尽量形成自己的风格。本人水平一般，如有不对，请多包涵