issue70 高频题。关于领袖的新老更替。政治类。

mist1941UID: 162770

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.【70】16
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
构获得成功的最好的方式：通过更新领导者而保持活力。
Thousands of years’ passed, people never slow their pace seeking power. History informs us that, for better or worse, it is human nature to dominate and be dominated and power always directly links to the benefit. So, leader in any professions wants to keep their power, and people incline to sticking successful and charismatic leader rather than to mercilessly replace him/her with a new one after a limited time. In general, I agree with the speaker’s claim. But, it cannot apply to all the cases.  

On the one hand, long-term leadership often leads to worsen either the enterprise or the leader. As the saying “absolute power leads to absolute corruption” goes, in some particular profession timely revitalization in leadership is a necessary and effective factor not only to make strategy and measures adopted the development of the era, but also to abstain from the corruption. For example, in politics, the Constitution of the United States specifies a four-year presidential term. It originally said nothing about how many terms a president could serve. But the precedent established by George Washington limited his successors to two terms. As a result, most of the precedents of U.S. do a good job, and avoid corruption. Besides, in business, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the great corporation changed with high frequency just according his/her achievement and market. Therefore, they can survive in competitive business.

On the other hand, the surest path to success is not the revitalization through new leadership in some circumstances. In fact, new leaders would be taken times to get familiar with position as well as the running of the enterprise. More challenged things than his predecessor were waiting for him/her. There is no doubt that seniors have more experiences and shorter adaptive time than novice. For instance, a experienced teacher is more effective for the naughty child than a new graduated one. In the same way, an old leader who has done success in the profession have more chance to lead his colleagues do the same thing, if he has never abuse the power.

In sum, neither absolute stability nor rash alternation in power leads to the success. Equally competitive environment of leadership is the most important factor for the success in any profession. Five years’ term can be decided a leader in power whether suit for his role, but cannot applies in all the cases. Although, it is universally acknowledged that the position in leadership have grown to a point where its responsibilities and powers almost exceed the capacity of any one individual to manage them, needless to say about leading to success.

mist1941UID: 162770

虽然写了4篇了，还是感觉不是很好。不知道怎么展开论述又局限于对语言的掌控。只能慢慢提高了。晚上争取再写一篇。

mist1941UID: 162770

恩，先谢了。

xiaoheUID: 162707

Thousands of years’ passed, people never slow their pace seeking power. History informs us that, for better or worse, it is human nature to dominate and be dominated and power always directly links to the benefit. 此句不通 So, leader in any professions去掉 wants to keep their power, and people incline to sticking successful and charismatic leader rather than to mercilessly replace him/her with a new one after a limited time. In general, I agree with the speaker’s claim. But, it cannot apply to all the cases. 我觉得说明自己的论点时不能简单说同意或同意命题，而应该用自己的话把论点完整的表述出来。

On the one hand, long-term leadership often leads to worsen either the enterprise or the leader. As the saying “absolute power leads to absolute corruption” goes, in some particular profession timely revitalization in leadership is a necessary and effective factor not only to make strategy and measures adopted the development of the era, but also to abstain from the corruption. For example, in politics, the Constitution of the United States specifies a four-year presidential term. It originally said nothing about how many terms a president could serve. But the precedent established by George Washington limited his successors to two terms. 是这样吗？与我了解的好象有出入As a result, most of the precedents of U.S. do a good job, and avoid corruption. Besides, in business, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the great corporation changed with high frequency just according his/her achievement and market. Therefore, they can survive in competitive business.

On the other hand, the surest path to success is not the revitalization through new leadership in some circumstances. In fact, new leaders would be taken times to get familiar with position as well as the running of the enterprise. More challenged things than his predecessor were waiting for him/her. There is no doubt that seniors指年长者还是指高层人员？好象跟后面的论据不统一 have more experiences and shorter adaptive time than novice. For instance, a experienced teacher is more effective for the naughty child than a new graduated one. In the same way, an old leader who has done success in the profession have more chance to lead his colleagues do the same thing, if he has never abuse the power.

In sum, neither absolute stability nor rash alternation in power leads to the success. Equally competitive environment of leadership is the most important factor for the success in any profession. Five years’ term can be decided a leader in power whether suit for his role, but cannot applies in all the cases. Although, it is universally acknowledged that the position in leadership have grown to a point where its responsibilities and powers almost exceed the capacity of any one individual to manage them, needless to say about leading to success.

说点意见：
1 我觉得你这篇文章论点不明确。你批判两个极端，但你支持的是什么呢？这个不能留给读者去推论，应该明确说出来。
2 论证太停留于表面，没有去探求深一层的原因，而且分论点的层次太少，使论证的说服力不够。
3 语言上还有不少问题，标了些，供参考。

个人意见，有何不妥还请见谅。欢迎讨论啊。

mist1941UID: 162770

前面一篇issue205，请一位很忙的美国朋友帮我修改，结果基本没一句话是标准的。唯一一句没修改的还是我背资料里的，好郁闷。修改过的要发出来研究一下吗？这篇写得很累，请大家帮我看看好吧，先谢谢了。