Issue70 【Persistenc 小组】第十三次作业

小驴子UID: 2222683

70. "In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
在任何领域中——商业、政治、教育、政府——掌权者应该在五年后就让位。这是任何机构获得成的最好的方式：通过更新领导者而保持活力。
Position: Limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiatives.
A. When leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power.
B. A new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas.



I agree with the author’s assertion that to change the former leadership is the method to success for any enterprise. And limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiative. However, whether five years is the best time for a leader stepping down from the power in any profession is still questionable.

In any field, such as business, politics, education, government, when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they might tend to abuse their power. China has over 1,000 years history and been ruled by different emperors in the past time. Each emperor could lead the whole country throughout his whole life. At the same time, the number of wise emperor is so little. Kang Xi was the most famous wise emperor in Chinese history. Even when he reached his late years, he made all China society into a chaos because his superstition on a medicine on which he believed had the power to make a person get young again. The same thing didn’t happen only once in the history of China, and nearly all because they were not worried about losing their status and misused their power.

In addition, a new leader usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas. If a person stays in power for a long time, he might not have time or be interested to study the new knowledge about his job. All his energy might only settle down on the job at the present and even if he hoped to learn something new, he might not have the quality to accept it. For example, in nowadays China, many directors of the factory are desired to study the advanced experience of market management from western country. Because in China, the number of such training company is only a few and most of their teaching material is from western country and published in English, and even some books are translated into Chinese, there are still a lot of English proper none which need to remember; therefore, if these directors want to study the knowledge, they first have to understand a little English. However, most directors don’t know anything about English, which become the barrier of their success. What’s more, a new leader might have different thought compared with the old one, which might be fit for the changing society. A leader in planned economy might not survive in market economy. A new leader who is familiar with the rule of market economy might have more chance to success.

However, whether 5 years are the perfect time for those in power stepping down from their status is still questionable. Firstly, different profession may have different situation. For example, in political field, a leader might only put the emphasis on his achievement and ignore the development in the long run. Secondly, 5 years might be a waste for those leaders with much experience and the new leader could not handle the affair because of lacking of experience. Moreover, in private areas such as business it might not be so necessary to limit the term of leadership. Some companies which are found by individual might not change leaders as fast as the author asserts.

In sum, we should set up different changing time according to different profession and specific situation. The former GE CEO Jack Welch leaded the whole company for 20 years and finally made GE rand the second in the Top 500 on Forbes. It is reasonable that we should make those in power step down from the power after some years, however, ‘5 years’ is a too detail number and might not be suit to every profession.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

I agree with the author’s assertion that to change the former leadership is the method to success for any enterprise. And limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiative. However, whether five years is the best time for a leader stepping down from the power in any profession is still questionable. （从agree到however，简明而清晰的展示了一个“平衡”观点，好！好久好在你的简明！我在行文时，这段废话挺多，向你学习。）In any field, such as business, politics, education, government, when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they might tend to abuse their power. China has over 1,000 years（不止1000吧？虽然给老美讲中国历史咱是权威，可，老谋子这些人把荆柯刺秦这种东西都搬到了百老汇，咱总还是把数据弄稍微精确点好。嬴政同学可是在公元前200多年就称皇了，现在是公元2007年，你自己算算咯。再说，你后面用的是history，通俗的说法，咱是“上下五千年”诶，即便用thousands也不为过嘛。） history and been ruled by different emperors in the past time. Each emperor could lead the whole country throughout his whole life. At the same time, the number of wise emperor is so little.（用little直接这么形容number感觉有点别扭，虽然语法可能没什么错） Kang Xi was the most famous wise emperor in Chinese history. Even when he reached his late years, he made all China society into a chaos because his superstition on a medicine on which he believed had the power to make a person get young again.（康熙这个例子举得不错！俺愣没想到） The same thing didn’t happen only once in the history of China, and nearly all because they were not worried about losing their status and misused their power.（主题句明确——似曾相识，呵呵——论证合理。一点商榷：举的例子都和politics有关，是否可以考虑在TS后加上一个“比如说”一类的表达呢？现在这样给人的感觉，你要把TS里列的所有领域都说一遍一样，实际上不是这样的。） In addition, a new leader usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas. If a person stays in power for a long time, he might not have time or be interested to study the new knowledge about his job. All his energy might only settle down on the job at the present and even if he hoped to learn something new, he might not have the quality（从你后面举的例子来看，似乎用ability更合适一点） to accept it. For example, in nowadays China, many directors of the factory are desired to study the advanced experience of market management from western country. Because in China, the number of such training company is only a few and most of their teaching material is from western country and published in English, and even some books are translated into Chinese, there are still a lot of English proper none（是noun的笔误吧？俺看半天没有明白诶） which need to remember; therefore,（要么用成Therefore，要么，估计的加一个and，即and therefore，前面是一个完整的句子了，therefore是adv.） if these directors want to study the knowledge, they first have to understand a little English. However, most directors don’t know anything about English, which become the barrier of their success.（例子举得不错，可惜，对于为什么这些directors不能很好的学习英语论证不够，这是大概算是一个漏洞吧。仅仅从你的论述，别人一反问：“那他们就先好好学英语呗”，则你的论述就显得有点无力了。） What’s more, a new leader might have different thought compared with the old one, which might be fit for the changing society. A leader in planned economy might not survive in market economy. A new leader who is familiar with the rule of market economy might have more chance to success. However, whether 5 years are the perfect time for those in power stepping down from their status is still questionable. Firstly, different profession may have different situation. For example, in political field, a leader might only put the emphasis on his achievement and ignore the development in the long run. Secondly, 5 years might be a waste for those leaders with much experience and the new leader could not handle the affair because of lacking of experience. Moreover, in private areas such as business it might not be so necessary to limit the term of leadership. Some companies which are found by individual might not change leaders as fast as the author asserts.（这段论述很好，简洁明了，有力！）In sum, we should set up different changing time according to different profession and specific situation. The former GE CEO Jack Welch leaded the whole company for 20 years and finally made GE rand the second in the Top 500 on Forbes. It is reasonable that we should make those in power step down from the power after some years, however, ‘5 years’ is a too detail number and might not be suit to every profession.（结尾也不错，还用了一个很好的例子！）

1.       思想性上，没有问题。没猜错的话，用的是“北美”的提纲思路，能够说服人。
2.       结构性上，安排合理，尽管参考了“北美”，我仍要提及一个你的优点：对于本文，我也看了“北美”的思路，但是，即便拿到它的提纲也不知道如何去展开论述，而你这一点做得很好！例证丰富，论述合理。
3.       语言上没什么大问题，临场有这个水平，足够高分。
4. 一点感想：没记错的话你是学医的吧？怎么对经济这么熟？佩服佩服！该不会打算转行考MBA吧？那估计你得考GMAT了，呵呵，开个玩笑。加油加油，你做得很不错了，还要注意保重身体。