【10G10Hawk】8月7日任务——issue70

谦行天下UID: 2797557

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."

今天的作业照常改两遍。周日第一次互改，周一第二次互改！
互改顺序：（第一次后改前，第二次前改后）
1-9-13-10-15

迟交作业的6和11能否互改？



周日没有作业，下周开始：
进入强化训练阶段，时间两周
每天一篇A，一篇I
互改一次！

谦行天下UID: 2797557

Those people in power can be defined as the people who are in charge of the interests in certain area. In USA, the judge and professor can be tenure, which is a great crown that can inspire youth to hard working. Although is these two professions, the tenure have some negative effect, when it comes to the profit of a whole nation as the leader in politics, the tenure's bad effect is more obvious.

In the profession of business, some people who set up the business themselves is unreasonably hold the utter wield of their company. The talent Bill Gates’ company is running with high profit. But in his IBM Company, beside Bill, the other members in his council are resigned be Bill himself. If someone doesn't obey the regulation in his company, his has the power to fire them. That is how the period of holding power in the business. Thus, make the leader work in high profit.

In the area of education and law, in USA there is one kind of specialists called the tenure, which is regard as high reputation in the academic field. The tenure inspires young people to work hard and helps establish a culture of excellent in the university. The primary purpose of accepting the tenure system is to attract talent to the academic field and ensure them a life time academic freedom. However, one cost of the tenure system is that some professors do not use their academic freedom to be good. They become unproductive, shoddy, or irrelevant. The university pays a lifetime employment those people who prove unworthy of it. Hence, the tenure assures academic freedom but also diminish academic productivity.

Last, turn to the political word, the most typical example is the four years term of the American president, which is a defining method to ensure the democratic. As in one's premiership, the pressure is that he should create something new and using new policies to solve the immediate problem, like one of Obama's primary goal that relieve the financial crisis. New leaders bring the society some new blood and method. On the other hand, those in powers to steps up ensure the fairness to be the top officer of the government and nation, which is called the demotic. The groups hold different opinions with each other debate and people vote for them. Consequently, the group on the stage must represent of most people's interest. Therefore, having a term in the political word is a highly effective method to promote the process of democracy.

All in all, within different areas, the answer to whether the peoples in powers step down is various. Generally speaking, the tenure of someone in the government ensure a life time power which is definitely not help people, while the tenure in other field is controvertible today.

===========第一次自改文=============
==============第一次自改文======================
Those people in power can be defined as the people who are in charge of the interests in certain area. In USA, the judge and professor can be tenure, which is a great crown that can inspire youth to fight. Although in these two professions, the tenure have some negative effect, when it comes to the profit of a whole nation as the leader in politics, the tenure's bad effect is more obvious.


Admittedly, new leaders bring their characterized thought to institutes and change some policies which might result in significant improvement. For example, in the political world, the most typical example is the four years term of the American president, which is a defining method to ensure the new policy could be put into force. On one hand, in one's premiership, the pressure is that he should create something new and using new policies to solve the immediate problem, like one of Obama's primary goal that relieve the financial crisis. Under high pressure, new leaders always bring a nation some new blood and method. On the other hand, those in powers to steps up ensure the fairness to be the top officer of the government and nation, which is called the democratic. The groups hold different opinions with each other debate and people vote for them. Consequently, the group on the stage must represent of most people's interest. Therefore, having a term in the political word is a highly effective method to promote the process of democracy.

However, there exists an uncomfortable period for both leaders and subordinates to adapt to new changes, if either one cannot adapt, the leader is not competence or the subordinates are tired of adapting new leaders, this exchange may bring some negative effect. One organism’s development is tightly related to the ability of leaders. On the other hand, frequently changing the CEOs, which holds dispute about the management, can not lead employees efficiently. They will be puzzled with which one to obey. Hence, changing leader need take into account of some negative effect.


The last is a lifetime employment. In the area of education, in USA there is one kind of specialists called the tenure professor, which is regard as high reputation in the academic field. The tenure inspires young people to work hard and helps establish a culture of excellent in the university. The primary purpose of accepting the tenure system is to attract talent to the academic field and ensure them a life time academic freedom. However, one cost of the tenure system is that some professors do not use their academic freedom to be good. They become unproductive, shoddy, or irrelevant. The university pays a lifetime employment to those people who prove unworthy of it. Hence, the tenure assures academic freedom but also diminish academic productivity. People hold different opinion towards the tenure system resulting in a fierce debate.


All in all, within different areas, the answer to whether the peoples in powers step down is various. Generally speaking, the tenure of someone in the government ensure a life time power which is definitely not help people, while the tenure in other field is controvertible today.

======================第二次自改文======================

Those people in power can be defined as the people who are in charge of the interests in certain area. In USA, the judge and professor can be offered life-long tenure, which is a great crown that can inspire youth to fight. Although in these two professions, the tenure have some negative effect, when it comes to the profit of a whole nation as the leader in politics, the tenure's bad effect is more obvious.

Admittedly, new leaders bring their characterized thought to institutes and change some policies which might result in significant improvement. For example, in the political world, the most typical example is the four years term of the American president, which is a defining method to ensure the new policy could be put into force. On one hand, in one's premiership, the pressure is that he should create something new and using new policies to solve the immediate problem, like one of Obama's primary goal that relieve the financial crisis. Under high pressure, new leaders always bring a nation some new blood and method. On the other hand, those in powers to steps up ensure the fairness to be the top officer of the government and nation, which is called the democratic. The groups hold different opinions with each other debate and people vote for them. Consequently, the group on the stage must represent of most people's interest. Therefore, having a term in the political word is a highly effective method to promote the process of democracy.

However, there exists an uncomfortable period for both leaders and subordinates to adapt to new changes, if either one cannot adapt, the leader is not competence or the subordinates are tired of adapting new leaders, this exchange may bring some negative effect (感觉这个句子表达得比较复杂，是否可以分作两个). One organism’s development is tightly related to the ability of leaders. On the other hand, frequently changing the CEOs, which holds dispute about the management, can not lead employees efficiently. They will be puzzled with which one to obey. Hence, changing leader need take into account of some negative effect.
这个应该再论述详细一点，再加点例子什么的，比如经常改变又会怎么样


The last is a lifetime employment. In the area of education, in USA there is one kind of specialists called the tenure professor, which is regard as high reputation in the academic field. The tenure inspires young people to work hard and helps establish a culture of excellent in the university. The primary purpose of accepting the tenure system is to attract talent to the academic field and ensure them a life time academic freedom. However, one cost of the tenure system is that some professors do not use their academic freedom to be good. They become unproductive, shoddy, or irrelevant. The university pays a lifetime employment to those people who prove unworthy of it. Hence, the tenure assures academic freedom but also diminish academic productivity. People hold different opinion towards the tenure system resulting in a fierce debate.
tenure professor到底是好还是不好呢？不好，为什么不好呢，为什么会导致那些不好的呢？

All in all, within different areas, the answer to whether the peoples in powers step down is various. Generally speaking, the tenure of someone in the government ensure a life time power which is definitely not help people, while the tenure in other field is controvertible today.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改15号
Wrong
Not Understand
Comment

Will the leadership undoubtedly help to revitalize the enterprise? Is it necessary for any profession to change the leader every five years? I fundamentally agree with the author’s assertion in some tune, but several other[delete] fields which the new leadership maybe not as effective as the old ones should be considered and ruled out.好像你这个rule out的主语是fields，是病句。

However【Admittedly诚然，公认的】, I concede the importance of the new leadership at fist. With the rapid development of our society, almost every profession has experienced the drastic change. In order to keep abreast of the stream of times, it is, perhaps, necessary to instill some new power to drive the development in any这个用于否定句和疑问句-改为every field, as the result of the new one will be likely to dedicate to reform the old habits. There are ample of examples to illustrate it. For example, the tenure of most of the Presidents and Chairmen in the world are【is】 4 or 5 years. And the Olympic Games are held every 4 years.这个跟文章有些不搭题 The main reason is that if a person serves as a position to long, he/she will possibly lose the innovation, as well as impede the development of new power.
新领导的重要性

Especially, in the political filed, if【delete】a leader in power to【too】 long never means a good thing. Although it will result in stability, the countries will complete possible always不明白这三个词放在一起是什么意思 develop in just one road,这里应该用句号了 what's more, the longer the authority in power, the less he/she will likely to strive, as result of without the pressure of being transferred, the corruption will be leaded.你这个句子想把人绕晕啊？建议修改 For example, China ever under the lead of Mao Zedong for 37 years, although society was quite stable, but the economic was not prosperous.你这个句子不是复合句诶，不符合语法规则 And Louis XIV served as the sovereign of France for 18 years, instead of resulting in social development, what he had brought to France was deep suffering and even the regression of economic and society.话说你这些句子之间都没有逻辑连接词诶，大怪！ It is, therefore, necessary to regulate the leader's tenure.
政治上leader的重要性

While, in certain profession, such as business and law, the new leadership is likely to be less effective as the experienced one. It is primarily because the experience and the profound comprehension in these areas usually very important. For example, Lenovo, a famous Computer Corporation, transferred the power to Yang Yuanqing several years ago, but its profit drastically declined after merging with the personal computer department of IBM, especially the abroad business fell in dilemma ever. However when it reinstated the disposition of Liu Chuanzhi, its former CEO, its business have steadily recovered.
很好的例子，point也很好，说明这些领域经验很重要。。。我想那你前面的部分是不是应该说那些领域经验不是很重要呢。

In sum, whether a profession is needed to step down its leader every five years, the crucial determinant hinges on what area is the profession意思是以经验作为标准么？. Meanwhile, before any enterprise making significant decision, especially changing the leadership, many foreseeing consequences should be well assessed.话说你文中并没有提到这个呀！ In all, new leadership possibly can make ensure revitalization, but revitalization is never the patent of new leadership.
文章问题比较大~~~

===========================改2号===============
Rose，你采取了中立的态度，有独一无二的破提点，我没有什么可以挑剔，全部是在学习！

The limiting of the term of those in power in many fields is a quite effective way to impede some unethic behavior. However, revitalization through new leadership is not definitely be the surest path to success for any enterprise, while the most reliable way is to adjust to the mode that is mostly appropriate to the enterprise.

To begin with, the limit of the term of those in authority can effectively prohibit the possibility of bribe and abuse of power. As the British Historian said, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Those who are sitting at the stern have established themselves as the highest authority, in whose hand there is absolute power. After a period of time, they get familiar with the management and the pattern in the field and build a great social net, which will probably increase the possibility of the bribe and abuse of power. In the United States, the Constitution specifies a four-year presidental term, and every president could only get one reappointment which contains eight years. Under this institution, every president will make the best effect of their work in their short terms.

However, when in favor of the limiting term, we cannot ignore the disadvantage of that method: the exchange of the rulers may disturb the former pattern. For example, the need for steady leadership during World War II (1939~1945) made it possible for Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt to break the tradition by winning four successive elections between 1932 and 1944. It is not only because of the great achievement that Roosevelt had gained during his terms, but also because in the restless world, an steady and effective leadership is the most important strategy in the United States. Thus, the succession of Roosevelt must be the best way to keep the good political environment. In business field, changing the supervisors in a short period will probably destroy the culture of the company and disturb the working habit of basic workers, which will certainly call for another period to establish the new culture. These changes such as depressed emotion in basic workers, unstable society and so forth are inevitable, but there must be some way to decrease the influence of those.

Thus, it reminds us that it seems that there is a delicate balance between abdication and adding new blood into the enterprise. Revitalization always has these merits: creative, energetic, full of power of action. Because after newborn forces entering the fields, the unique notion and attitude will also be brought to the institution and basic workers will face new order and requirement so as to they will work even harder. Of course, these advantages will be realized at the cost of old bellwether. Thus, the surest way to get success for any enterprise is not the revitalization but take most appropriate measures in the company, government or other institutions according to the contrete situation. For example, in business field, it will be unreasonable to change the highest manager within 5 years, but sometimes promotion and decreasing of some supervisor will add more competitive atmosphere which leads to higher productivity. While in politics, limiting term is an effective measure to oversee the officials about ethic and moral standards. As a result of that, every enterprise, after overall consideration and comparison, is bound to find the surest way to get success.

Five years is so accurate that no one will do actually as it rules, but this institution will definitely come into usage in society. No matter how many significance that revitalization will give, we must see clearly the present situation and decide the best method leading to the final success.

===============改9号====================
It is always the truth that the new leader will bring about new ways of thinking and can solve problems from new aspects.这是alwaystruth吗？过于绝对化了，如果那个领导超级不负责的话 However, this can not lead to the conclusion that in any profession, those in power should step down after five years. It is too simple to claim so, while overlooking all the other possible disadvantages. We have to scrutinize all the essence and dross before making the final conclusion in every profession. Especially in the business field, which is most complicated, the revitalization needs careful considerations.

The advantage and disadvantage of revitalization should be taken into account. As we know, when new leaders are elected regularly, the corruption and the abuse of power will restrained. And if the process of vote is fair enough, the democracy will also be guaranteed. On the other hand, the regular reelection will definitely damage the stability of the whole enterprise, constitution or the nation. So we have to consider this issue based on the need and needless of different professions.

In the realms like politics, where the most significant require is the insurance of democracy and preventing corruption and abuse of power, the men in power should step down regularly. Take America, the most powerful country in the earth[world] today as an example. The Constitution, the nature law in America, clearly rules that no president should be elected for more than two terms and each term is four years. Even there are[Among] lots of factors contribute to the prosperity of America, this law[the four-year prisendental term] is one of the most important factors. The Constitution is based on the assumption that all the people[everyone] in power are[is] evil and will try their best to keep the ability to use the[that] power. Thus,[delte感觉与前面衔接不流畅][Due to frequently change the top officer] the autarchy can never happen in America as long as The Constitution keep the same.话说你的句子都写得很vague，你应该写的清楚一点，换一种表达方式表示出来 And such law stimulates the competition between the two parties话说如果我很不明白是那两个party怎么办，后面的意思也很有歧义ambiquity, from which whole America benefit.

However, in the fields like science, where the most important factor is stability and continuity, the regular change of the leader will be helpless.The reputation of the leader can affect the whole constitution and every step of the researches. The most famous example is the Manhattan Project, of which Oppenheimer is the scientific director. It spent 3 years for them【delete】 to successfully create the atom bomb. The arguer may argue that 3 years is less than 5 years. However, 这里后面如果说有很多科学研究做了十几年比较好。。no matter how long it may took, the scientific director will not change, which can be proved by the fact that 99 percent of people absorbed in Manhattan Project even had no ideas of what they were working for and that means the power to lead the whole project would always in those few elites.你说得好绕 In these fields, the corruption and the abuse to the power is not the important threaten不可以做名词. Instead, the stability, the efficiency and the direction is the most significant factors we should focus on. Thus, we should not reelect the leader or those in power regularly.
语言不effective
And in business field, which is mentioned as the most complicated one, we need a case-by-case study to test whether we need to revitalization. Admittedly, the corruption and abuse of power should be considered in this field【为什么】. However, the stability of the enterprise is also important【为什么？没有论述】. So we should balance those two incompatible factors. If the company is too stubborn and need some new "blood" to wake the company up, the revitalization is a perfect idea; if the enterprise is very young and need to develop smoothly, the revitalization should be refused. So it is too extremely to claim that all enterprise would be ensured to success through the revitalization of the leaders.
你的例子太少了。。。。。
To sum up, the advantage and disadvantage of reelect are both obvious这句话很废话 and we should take the environment, situation and the realm, in which we are, into account before we make the decision. If those factors changed, our decision should also have enough flexible absorb some extremely situation, like the Roosevelt's four times reelection.
语言是大问题


TS 太绝对，应该按照领域来分。 而且还应该考虑特殊情况take into account
1．
领导更换的好处和坏处。所以应该扬长避短，考虑各个realm的需求
2．
在politics或者其它需要democracy和防止corruption和abuse of the power，我们应该要regularly更换leader Obama
3．
在science或者其他需要stability和leader的insightful forecast以及leader的reputation，我们就不该更换领导。Oppenheimer
is the scientific director of the Manhattan Project.
4．
更换与否也不应该是绝对stubborn，应该是flexibility。（Roosevelt 连任）

hwslqcUID: 2861597

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 646
TIME: 00:50:00
DATE: 2010-8-7 16:57:13

It is always the truth that the new leader will bring about new ways of thinking and can solve problems from new aspects. However, this can not lead to the conclusion that in any profession, those in power should step down after five years. It is too simple to claim so, while overlooking all the other possible disadvantages. We have to scrutinize all the essence and dross before making the final conclusion in every profession. Especially in the business field, which is most complicated, the revitalization needs careful considerations. (enterprise 不仅仅是business；事业）

The advantage and disadvantage of revitalization should be taken into account. As we know, when new leaders are elected regularly, the corruption and the abuse of power will restrained. And if the process of vote is fair enough, the democracy will also be guaranteed. On the other hand, the regular reelection will definitely damage the stability of the whole enterprise, constitution or the nation. So we have to consider this issue based on the need and needless of different professions.

In the realms like politics, where the most significant require is the insurance of democracy and preventing corruption and abuse of power, the men in power should step down regularly. Take America, the most powerful country in the earth today as an example. The Constitution, the nature law in America, clearly rules that no president should be elected for more than two terms. Even there are lots of factors contribute to the prosperity of America, this law is one of the most important factors. The Constitution is based on the assumption that all the people in power are evil and will try their best to keep the ability to use the power. Thus, the autarchy can never happen in America as long as The Constitution keep the same. And such law stimulates the competition between the two parties, from which whole America benefit.

However, in the fields like science, where the most important factor is stability and continuity, the regular change of the leader will be helpless. The reputation of the leader can affect the whole constitution and every step of the researches. The most famous example is Manhattan Project, of which Oppenheimer is the scientific director. It spent 3 years for them to successfully create the atom bomb. The arguer may argue that 3 years is less than 5 years. However, no matter how long it may took, the scientific director will not change, which can be proved by the fact that 99 percent of people absorbed in Manhattan Project even had no ideas of what they were working for and that means the power to lead the whole project would always in those few elites. In these fields, the corruption and the abuse to the power is not the important threaten. Instead, the stability, the efficiency and the direction is the most significant factors we should focus on. Thus, we should not reelect the leader or those in power regularly.

And in business field, which is mentioned as most complicated, we need a case-by-case study to test whether we need to revitalization. Admittedly, the corruption and abuse of power should be considered in this field. However, the stability of the enterprise is also important. So we should balance those two incompatible factors. If the company is too stubborn and need some new "blood" to wake the company up, the revitalization is a perfect idea; if the enterprise is very young and need to develop smoothly, the revitalization should be refused. So it is too extremely to claim that all enterprise would be ensured to success through the revitalization of the leaders.

To sum up, the advantage and disadvantage of reelect are both obvious and we should take the environment, situation and the realm, in which we are, into account before we make the decision. If those factors changed, our decision should also have enough flexible absorb some extremely situation, like the Roosevelt's four times reelection.
（对后一个问题没有进行准确的论述）


TS 太绝对，应该按照领域来分。 而且还应该考虑特殊情况take into account
1．
领导更换的好处和坏处。所以应该扬长避短，考虑各个realm的需求
2．
在politics或者其它需要democracy和防止corruption和abuse of the power，我们应该要regularly更换leader Obama
3．
在science或者其他需要stability和leader的insightful forecast以及leader的reputation，我们就不该更换领导。Oppenheimer
is the scientific director of the Manhattan Project.
4．
更换与否也不应该是绝对stubborn，应该是flexibility。（Roosevelt 连任）

hwslqcUID: 2861597

Those people in power can be defined as the people who are in charge of the interests in certain area. In USA, the judge and professor can be tenure, which is a great crown that can inspire youth to hard working【inspire to do但是hard working不是谓语动词】. Although is these two professions【没明白这个although的从句在说什么。】, the tenure have some negative effect, when it comes to the profit of a whole nation as the leader in politics, the tenure's bad effect is more obvious.

In the profession of business, some people who set up the business themselves is【are】 unreasonably hold the utter wield of their company. The talent Bill Gates’ company is running with high profit. But in his IBM Company, beside Bill, the other members in his council are resigned be Bill himself. If someone doesn't obey the regulation in his company, his has the power to fire them. That is how the period of holding power in the business. Thus, make the leader work in high profit.【这个写的也太简单。。。完全没有展开，bill可以代表所有人么？是，为什么？不是，为什么？不是，那些情况要时常换，那些不用？为什么？不换有high profit，为什么？换了就没有了，为什么？】

In the area of education and law, in USA there is one kind of specialists called the tenure, which is regard as high reputation in the academic field. The tenure inspires young people to work hard and helps establish a culture of excellent in the university. The primary purpose of accepting the tenure system is to attract talent to the academic field and ensure them a life time academic freedom. However, one cost of the tenure system is that some professors do not use their academic freedom to be good【use xxx to be good?没明白。】. They become unproductive, shoddy, or irrelevant. The university pays a lifetime employment those people who prove unworthy of it. Hence, the tenure assures academic freedom but also diminish academic productivity.【本段内容“虽然tenure有好处，但是也有坏处”，然后呢？应不应该采用呢？还是说按照什么来采用。】

Last, turn to the political world, the most typical example is the four years term of the American president, which is a defining method to ensure the democratic. As in one's premiership, the pressure is that he should create something new and using new policies to solve the immediate problem, like one of Obama's primary goal that relieve the financial crisis. New leaders bring the society some new blood and method. On the other hand, those in powers to steps up ensure the fairness to be the top officer of the government and nation, which is called the democratic. The groups hold different opinions with each other debate and people vote for them. Consequently, the group on the stage must represent of most people's interest. Therefore, having a term in the political word is a highly effective method to promote the process of democracy.

All in all, within different areas, the answer to whether the peoples in powers step down is various. Generally speaking, the tenure of someone in the government ensure a life time power which is definitely not help people, while the tenure in other field is controvertible today.【是说了3个领域，没有总结升华。感觉比较一般，而且字数严重不足，470字除非字字珠玑否则很难拿到你想要的分数。另外，为什么分这几个领域而不是其他？没有给出理由。我的文章写了一点理由，可能不太准确，不过希望能起到一个抛砖引玉的作用。】
=======================================================================================
TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 439
TIME: 00:48:43
DATE: 2010-8-9 15:45:13

In this fast changing world, any organization, such as a country, a company or an NGO, need to change itself continuously to adapt to the world so that they can achieve success. However, this revitalization may or may not be brought about by new leadership. And it depends on the nature of the organization whether the leader should step down after several years in office.

A threshold question is whether the institutions need revitalization? Currently, our ways of working are based on the environment we lived and knowledge we obtained in the past. Since the knowledge is expanding itself at an unprecedented rate and the surroundings we live constantly change, both of factors make our ways of working obsolete which means that our working methods should change accordingly. If not, we would fall behind others. Take China as an example. Before 1978, the economy in China was a controlled one and the leaders of factories and companies did not need to worry about how to sell what they produced. However, when【after】 the reform was introduced, people had the opportunity to choose which made marketing a necessary for each company. Therefore, once an enterprise leader decided to advertise for the products, chances were the company would succeed. On the contrary, those refusing to take any marketing strategies finally collapsed. Revitalization is a key to success in an institution.【说明现代社会在变化，所以institutions也需要变化。nice】

However, revitalization may or may not from new leadership, despite the fact that new leader bring new ideas most often. It depends on the nature of the institution whether the leaders should be changed regularly.

In politics and government, revitalization takes the form of elections. Every four years, the elections of the American presidents are huge events which draw the attention of the whole world.【这句话没表达清楚，每四年又一次election而不是每四年election是个大事件。】
With the new president in the white house, many of the problems the country faced might have a solution and also the new president would bring his new concept of administration to the nation, which would be beneficial to the developments of the nation. Besides, the presidents should step down after four years is written in the Constitution and this mechanism ensures the safety and freedom of the people and democracy of the nation. Suppose a president could hold the power as long as he wanted, and thus he could do what he pleased, and this certainly leads to tyranny. Therefore, leaders should step down in four years.【为什么是4年？不是其他的？题目中的5年哪里不好？】

In business, things are different. Revitalization is still need in this highly competitive business world but changing the leaders periodically is optional. Take Apple for an example. Steve Jobs has been the CEO for that multinational since 1997. Through these years Apple has produced a series of consumer electronics products and has become an icon of popularity. Recently, Apple has passed Microsoft as the most profitable IT company in the world. This is largely attributable to Steve, although he has been in that position for a long time but he never stops thinking; he always has new ideas. He is an inventor himself. Also he has a long vision【long-sighted，没有搜索到long vision的用法】, he could see the potentials and drawbacks of a product. All these personalities determine that he is the source of revitalization in Apple. One cannot imagine what Apple would look like if Steve had been replaced by someone after he was in position for five years.

We should also be careful that revitalization does not mean throwing the tradition. The essence of revitalization is that it does not replace tradition but revise it.【没有意义的段落。要说，展开说。两句话不如不说。而且这个和换不换leader关系不大。没有特意写一段的必要。】

To sum up, revitalization is the key to success of any enterprise. While changing leaders regularly is a way to achieve revitalization but it is not compulsory in all organizations. And revitalization is to constantly revise tradition.【这句话你想表明什么？没明白。个人通读全文认为这句话可以删掉，然后升华你的文章一下。怎么判断是否change leader会导致有力的revitalization。】

austen06UID: 2841836

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 579          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-8-7 20:33:50
Nowadays leaders of countries, big companies or any kind of important institutions have become the focus of the public attention. In the years of elections years, the news about the campaigns of each presidential candidate always take the front page of newspapers. Indeed, the change of leaders is beneficial to the organization in many ways, yet it is not necessary to ensure success for a enterprise.

Admittedly, the change of leaders inevitably causes some problems. The problems vary in different fields. In politics, electing a president is a big event in every nation, especially in the United States. Every political campaign consumes a large amount of money which is donated by individuals and companies. Money spent on political campaign does no good to the society except for the president-elected. Besides, people also spends much time to know the situation of the election, ignoring many important things which needs our attentions. Moreover, the rancor between people belonging to different political parties might polarize the country which casues disunity of the entire society. Even in the education field, problems remain. The election of a new principal in a college might serve to change the school greatly; because the new principal will do what he sees fit.

Changing leader always comes at a price, high or low. However, the benefits of changing leaders might well overweigh the loss. According to a fundamental theory in political science, rights surely induce corruption, as well as the abuse of power, no matter how the leader gets the right. Thus we need a mechanism to prevent these from happening. The founding fathers of America have already provided us with answers. They wrote it into the constitution that one term of a president is four years, and every president should step down after at most two terms. This regulation ensures democracy fundamentally. Thinking of the example of the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. He gained his power illegally, and maintained the leader of the contry since 1980s. What he did is just making him a very rich man while leaving many Zimbabwe people in poverty and struggle. Still he does not want to step down.

Moreover, changing leaders might accelerate the development of an organization. In 1997, the IT giant was in big trouble becasue of the continuous complaints made by their clients all over the world. At that time, Steve took the job of CEO of Apple and started to reform the company greatly. He himself is an inventor, bringing innovation and design to the new apple products. Finally he succeed; apple products are more popular than ever before. Recently Apple has passed Microsoft as the biggest IT companies in the world.
We must keep this in mind that even though changing leader regularly is critical to the success for an enterprise, but this mechanism is far from adequate.  Success comes when everybody involved in that enterprise work hard together. We should not expect the newly elected leader to do all the things for us.  George Washington, the commander in chief of the Continental Army, did not defeat the British army solely. It was the soldiers he commanded that fought  against the British.

To sum up, changing leaders according to certain rules is crucial to the success of an enterprise, and every incumbent leader step according to the rules.  Also, when we have a right leader and the mechanism to replace leader from time to time, we still need courage, hard work, team spirit etc. to achieve great  accomplishments.

重写++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 439          TIME: 00:48:43          DATE: 2010-8-9 15:45:13
In this fast changing world, any organization, such as a country, a company
or an NGO, need to change itself continuously to adapt to the world so that
they can achieve success. However, this revitalization may or may not be
brought about by new leadership. And it depends on the nature of the
organization whether the leader should step down after several years in
office.

A threshold question is whether the institutions need revitalization?
Currently, our ways of working are based on the environment we lived and
knowledge we obtained in the past. Since the knowledge is expanding itself
at an unprecedented rate and the surroundings we live constantly change,
both of factors make our ways of working obsolete which means that our
working methods should change accordingly. If not, we would fall behind
others. Take China as an example. Before 1978, the economy in China was an
controlled one and the leaders of factories and companies did not need to
worry about how to sell what they produced. However, when the reform was
introduced, people had the opportunity to choose which made marketing a
necessary for each company. Therefore, once a enterprise leader decided to
advertise for the products, chances were the company would succeed. On the
contrary, those refusing to take any marketing strategies, finally
collapsed. Revitalization is a key to success in an institution.

However, revitalization may or may not from new leadership, despite the fact
that new leader bring new ideas most often. It depends on the nature of the
institution whether the leaders should be changed regularly.

In politics and government, revitalization takes the form of elections.
Every four years, the elections of the American presidents are huge events
which draw the attention of the whole world. With the new president in the
white house, many of the problems the country faced might have a solution
and also the new president would bring his new concept of administration to
the nation, which would be beneficial to the developments of the nation.
Besides, the presidents should step down after four years is written in the
Constitution and this mechanism ensure the safety and freedom of the people
and democracy of the nation. Suppose a president coudld hold the power as
long as he wanted, and thus he could do what he pleased, and this certainly
leads to tyranny. Therefore, leaders should step down in four years.

In business, things are different. Revitalization is still need in this
highly competitive business world but changing the leaders periodically is
optinoal. Take Apple for an example. Steve Jobs has been the CEO for that
multinatinal since 1997. Through these years Apple has produced a series of
consumer electronics products and has become an icon of popularity.
Recently, Apple has passed Microsoft as the most profitable IT company in
the world. This is largely attributable to Steve, although he has been in
that position for a long time but he never stops thinking; he always has new
ideas. He is an inventor himself.Also he has a long vision, he could see the
potentials and drawbacks of a a product. All these personalities determin
that he is the source of revitalization in Apple. One can not imagine what
Apple would look like if Steve had been replaced by someone after he was in
position for five years.

We should also be careful that revitalization does not mean throwing the
tradition. The essence of revitalization is that it does not replace
tradition but revise it.

To sum up, revitalization is the key to success of any enterprise. While
changing leaders regularly is a way to achieve revitalization but it is not
compulsory in all organizations. And revitalization is to constantly revise
tradition.

austen06UID: 2841836

改adam
TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 646
TIME: 00:50:00
DATE: 2010-8-7 16:57:13

It is always the truth that the new leader will bring about new ways of thinking and can solve problems from new aspects. However, this can not lead to the conclusion that in any profession, those in power should step down after five years. It is too simple to claim so, while overlooking all the other possible disadvantages. We have to scrutinize all the essence and dross before making the final conclusion in every profession. Especially in the business field, which is most complicated, the revitalization needs careful considerations. (enterprise 不仅仅是business；事业）

The advantage and disadvantage of revitalization should be taken into account. As we know, when new leaders are elected regularly, the corruption and the abuse of power will restrained. And if the process of vote is fair enough, the democracy will also be guaranteed. On the other hand, the regular reelection will definitely damage the stability of the whole enterprise, constitution or the nation. So we have to consider this issue based on the need and needless of different professions.

In the realms like politics, where the most significant require is the insurance of democracy and preventing corruption and abuse of power, the men in power should step down regularly. Take America, the most powerful country in the earth today as an example. The Constitution, the nature law in America, clearly rules that no president should be elected for more than two terms. Even there are lots of factors contribute to the prosperity of America, this law is one of the most important factors. The Constitution is based on the assumption that all the people in power are evil and will try their best to keep the ability to use the power. Thus, the autarchy can never happen in America as long as The Constitution does not be （怎么感觉这么别扭） modified. And such law stimulates the competition between the two parties, from which whole America benefit.

However, in the fields like science, where the most important factor is stability and continuity, the regular change of the leader will be helpless. The reputation of the leader can affect the whole constitution and every step of the researches. The most famous example is Manhattan Project, of which Oppenheimer is the scientific director. It spent 3 years for them to successfully create the atom bomb. The arguer may argue that 3 years is less than 5 years. However, no matter how long it may took, the scientific director will not change, which can be proved by the fact that 99 percent of people absorbed in Manhattan Project even had no ideas of what they were working for and that means the power to lead the whole project would always in those few elites. In these fields, the corruption and the abuse to the power is not the important threaten. Instead, the stability, the efficiency and the direction is the most significant factors we should focus on. Thus, we should not reelect the leader or those in power regularly.

And in business field, which is mentioned as most complicated, we need a case-by-case study to test whether we need to revitalization. Admittedly, the corruption and abuse of power should be considered in this field. However, the stability of the enterprise is also important. So we should balance those two incompatible factors. If the company is too stubborn and need some new "blood" to wake the company up, the revitalization is a perfect idea; if the enterprise is very young and need to develop smoothly, the revitalization should be refused. So it is too extremely to claim that all enterprise would be ensured to success through the revitalization of the leaders.

To sum up, the advantage and disadvantage of reelect are both obvious and we should take the environment, situation and the realm, in which we are, into account before we make the decision. If those factors changed, our decision should also have enough flexible absorb some extremely situation, like the Roosevelt's four times reelection.
（对后一个问题没有进行准确的论述）

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In most cases, limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and from lacking of initiatives. But what not so exact is that, government-those in power are not so necessarily to stepped down while the elections for the new session are needed absolutely. And I agree that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new session as I will discuss below.
First of all, seeing from the view of those in power, to set elections every five years would prevent the leaders from corrupting and thus encourage them to put more energy in their works. In government, politics had better exam whether the olds could continue his or her possession or change another new one. Because when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power and that is why the term of each American President is four years. For instance, Nixon, who abused his power to spy the meeting of Democratic Party in order to maintain his position for a longer period of time, has came up with the incidence of Water Gate scandal. This eventually led to his resignation from the presidency and destroyed the image of government in the mind of its citizens that aroused significant distrust in the government work. In addition, the old ones’ thinking sometimes to be too modeling to some extent, we call it a kind of lacking of creativities. Therefore, under the policy of changing leaders four years a time would make the leader do more creative benefits and won't abuse power at random during his or her administration in order to build up political capital.
Secondly, seeing from the newly emerging forces, they could bring in more new thoughts and better concepts of administration which pours new activities in the collective group. Those in power would inevitably generate a certain inertia while they have had a long time in office. Under this circumstance, to change a new leader appropriately becomes an effective way of staying motivated. Especially for enterprise or institution, they should be fulfilled the young powers constantly. Thereby they can adjust their own to the environment of the market, continuous improvement and introduce new ideas. For example, if the business doesn't hold a re-generation, then the future of this undertaking would hard to be predicted. It is not to say that those old leaders are conservative, it is to say that their abilities of accepting news which can't be denied are not so good as the new blood, and their self-regulations occurred on the changing of environment are lower which are totally bad for the enterprises.
However, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems, therefore, they need a period of time for an adaptation while they may probably have to leave the jobs the moment they just get well up in the jobs. To change frequently would occur vanity projects in which the old leaders ignoring the benefits of the leaders afterwards and ignoring the goals in a long run. There are still some positions call for a stability such as U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Lifelong jobs, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the like. Therefore we can conclude that the elections for new session are needed to be held a certain years a time. But it doesn't mean that the old couldn't have the re-election. What we need to choose is someone who holds creativity, work ability, good morality and mature character at the same time.
In sum, the surest path to success for any enterprise is indeed the policy of changing leaders a certain period a time. But the olds should always get the right to join the election. In other words, people who are recognized to be creative, competent, moral and mature are qualified for elections.

语言很优美，但是句子太长。。。
====================================================================================
改Rose

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 608          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2010/8/7 23:02:55

The limiting of the term of those in power in many fields is a quite effective way to impede some unethic behavior. However, revitalization through new leadership is not definitely be the surest path to success for any enterprise, while the most reliable way is to adjust to the mode that is mostly appropriate to the enterprise.

To begin with, the limit of the term of those in authority can effectively prohibit the possibility of bribe and abuse of power. As the British Historian said, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Those who are sitting at the stern have established themselves as the highest authority, in whose hand there is absolute power. After a period of time, they get familiar with the management and the pattern in the field and build a great social net, which will probably increase the possibility of the bribe and abuse of power. In the United States, the Constitution specifies a four-year presidental term, and every president could only get one reappointment which contains eight years. Under this institution, every president will make the best effect of their work in their short terms.

However, when in favor of the limiting term, we cannot ignore the disadvantage of that method: the exchange of the rulers may disturb the former pattern. For example, the need for steady leadership during World War II (1939~1945) made it possible for Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt to break the tradition by winning four successive elections between 1932 and 1944. It is not only because of the great achievement that Roosevelt had gained during his terms, but also because in the restless world, an steady and effective leadership is the most important strategy in the United States. Thus, the succession of Roosevelt must be the best way to keep the good political environment. In business field, changing the supervisors in a short period will probably destroy the culture of the company and disturb the working habit of basic workers, which will certainly call for another period to establish the new culture. These changes such as depressed emotion in basic workers, unstable society and so forth are inevitable, but there must be some way to decrease the influence of those.

Thus, it reminds us that it seems that there is a delicate balance between abdication and adding new blood into the enterprise. Revitalization always has these merits: creative, energetic, full of power of action. Because after newborn forces entering the fields, the unique notion and attitude will also be brought to the institution and basic workers will face new order and requirement so as to they will work even harder. Of course, these advantages will be realized at the cost of old bellwether. Thus, the surest way to get success for any enterprise is not the revitalization but take most appropriate measures in the company, government or other institutions according to the contrete situation. For example, in business field, it will be unreasonable to change the highest manager within 5 years, but sometimes promotion and decreasing of some supervisor will add more competitive atmosphere which leads to higher productivity. While in politics, limiting term is an effective measure to oversee the officials about ethic and moral standards. As a result of that, every enterprise, after overall consideration and comparison, is bound to find the surest way to get success.

Five years is so accurate that no one will do actually as it rules, but this institution will definitely come into usage in society. No matter how many significance that revitalization will give, we must see clearly the present situation and decide the best method leading to the final success.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 636
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/8/7 21:00:18

In most cases, limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiatives. But what not so exact is that, government-those in power are not so necessarily to stepp down while the elections for the new session are needed absolutely. And I agree that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new session as I will discuss below.

First of all, see from the view of those in power, to set elections once a five years would prevent the leaders from corrupting and thus encourage them to put more energies in their works. In government, politics had better exam whether the old could continue his or her possession or change another new one. Because when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power and that is why the term of each American President is four years. For instance, Nixon, who abused his power to spy the meeting of Democratic Party in order to maintain his position for a longer period of time, has came up with the incidence of Water Gate scandal. This eventually led to his resignation from the presidency and destroyed the image of government in the mind of its citizens that aroused significant distrust in the government work. In addition, the old ones’ thinkings sometimes to be too modeling to some extent, we call it a kind of lacking of creativities. Therefore, under the policy of changing leaders four years a time would make the leader do more creative benefits and won't abuse power at random during his or her administration in order to build up political capital.

Secondly, see from the newly emerging forces, they could bring in more new thoughts and better concepts of administration which pours new activities in the collective group. Those in power would inevitably generate a certain inertia while they have had a long time in office. Under this circumstance, to change a new leader appropriately becomes an effective way of staying motivated. Especially for enterprise or institution, they should fulfill the young powers constantly. Thereby they can adjust their own, continuous improvement and introduce new ideas according to the environment of the markets. For example, if the business doesn't hold a re-generation, then the future of this undertaking would hard to be predicted. It is not to say that those old leaders are conservative while it can't be denied that their abilities of accepting news are not so good as the new blood and their self-regulations occurred on the changing of environment are lower which are totally bad for the enterprises.

However, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems, therefore, they need a period of time for an adaptation while they may probably have to leave the jobs the moment they just get well up in the jobs. To change frequently would occur vanity projects in which the old leaders ignoring the benefits of the leaders afterwards and ignoring the goals in a long run. There are still some positions call for a stability such as U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Lifelong jobs, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the like. Therefore we can conclude that the elections for new session are needed to be held a certain years a time. But it doesn't mean that the old couldn't have the re-election. What we need to choose is someone who holds creativity, work ability, good morality and mature character at the same time.

In sum, the surest path to success for any enterprise is indeed the policy of changing leaders a certain period a time. But the olds should always get the right to join the election. In other words, people who are recognized to be creative, competent, moral and mature are qualified for elections.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第一次自改：
In most cases, limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and from lacking of initiatives. But what not so exact is that, government-those in power are not so necessarily to stepped down while the elections for the new session are needed absolutely. And I agree that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new session as I will discuss below.
First of all, seeing from the view of those in power, to set elections every five years would prevent the leaders from corrupting and thus encourage them to put more energy in their works. In government, politics had better exam whether the olds could continue his or her possession or change another new one. Because when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power and that is why the term of each American President is four years. For instance, Nixon, who abused his power to spy the meeting of Democratic Party in order to maintain his position for a longer period of time, has came up with the incidence of Water Gate scandal. This eventually led to his resignation from the presidency and destroyed the image of government in the mind of its citizens that aroused significant distrust in the government work. In addition, the old ones’ thinking sometimes to be too modeling to some extent, we call it a kind of lacking of creativities. Therefore, under the policy of changing leaders four years a time would make the leader do more creative benefits and won't abuse power at random during his or her administration in order to build up political capital.
Secondly, seeing from the newly emerging forces, they could bring in more new thoughts and better concepts of administration which pours new activities in the collective group. Those in power would inevitably generate a certain inertia while they have had a long time in office. Under this circumstance, to change a new leader appropriately becomes an effective way of staying motivated. Especially for enterprise or institution, they should be fulfilled the young powers constantly. Thereby they can adjust their own to the environment of the market, continuous improvement and introduce new ideas. For example, if the business doesn't hold a re-generation, then the future of this undertaking would hard to be predicted. It is not to say that those old leaders are conservative, it is to say that their abilities of accepting news which can't be denied are not so good as the new blood, and their self-regulations occurred on the changing of environment are lower which are totally bad for the enterprises.
However, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems, therefore, they need a period of time for an adaptation while they may probably have to leave the jobs the moment they just get well up in the jobs. To change frequently would occur vanity projects in which the old leaders ignoring the benefits of the leaders afterwards and ignoring the goals in a long run. There are still some positions call for a stability such as U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Lifelong jobs, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the like. Therefore we can conclude that the elections for new session are needed to be held a certain years a time. But it doesn't mean that the old couldn't have the re-election. What we need to choose is someone who holds creativity, work ability, good morality and mature character at the same time.
In sum, the surest path to success for any enterprise is indeed the policy of changing leaders a certain period a time. But the olds should always get the right to join the election. In other words, people who are recognized to be creative, competent, moral and mature are qualified for elections.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第二次自改：
In most cases, limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and from lacking of initiatives. But what not so exact is that, government-those in power are not so necessarily to step down while the elections for the new session are needed absolutely. And I agree that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new session as I will discuss below.
First of all, seeing from the view of those in power, to set elections every five years would prevent the leaders from corrupting and thus encourage them to put more energy in their works. In government, politics had better exam whether the olds could continue his or her possession or change another new one. Because when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power and that is why the term of each American President is four years. For instance, Nixon, who abused his power to spy the meeting of Democratic Party in order to maintain his position for a longer period of time, has came up with the incidence of Water Gate scandal. This eventually led to his resignation from the presidency and destroyed the image of government in the mind of its citizens that aroused significant distrust in the government work. In addition, the old ones’ thinking sometimes to be too modeling to some extent, we call it a kind of lacking of creativities. Therefore, under the policy of changing leaders four years a time would make the leader do more creative benefits and won't abuse power at random during his or her administration in order to build up political capital.
Secondly, seeing from the newly emerging forces, they could bring in more new thoughts and better concepts of administration which pours new activities in the collective group. Those in power would inevitably generate a certain inertia while they have had a long time in office. Under this circumstance, to change a new leader appropriately becomes an effective way of staying motivated. Especially for enterprise or institution, they should be fulfilled the young powers constantly. Thereby they can adjust their own to the environment of the market, continuous improvement and introduce new ideas. For example, if the business doesn't hold a re-generation, then the future of this undertaking would hard to be predicted. It is not to say that those old leaders are conservative, it is to say that their abilities of accepting news which can't be denied are not so good as the new blood, and their self-regulations occurred on the changing of environment are lower which are totally bad for the enterprises.
However, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems, therefore, they need a period of time for an adaptation while they may probably have to leave the jobs the moment they just get well up in the jobs. To change frequently would occur vanity projects in which the old leaders ignoring the benefits of the leaders afterwards and ignoring the goals in a long run. There are still some positions call for a stability such as U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Lifelong jobs, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the like. Therefore we can conclude that the elections for new session are needed to be held a certain years a time. But it doesn't mean that the old couldn't have the re-election. What we need to choose is someone who holds creativity, work ability, good morality and mature character at the same time.
In sum, the surest path to success for any enterprise is indeed the policy of changing leaders a certain period a time. But the olds should always get the right to join the election. In other words, people who are recognized to be creative, competent, moral and mature are qualified for elections.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

改【13】

Nowadays leaders of countries, big companies or any kind of important institutions have become the focus of the public attention. In the years of elections years（改成during the election years感觉会好一点）, the news about the campaigns of each presidential candidate always take the front page of newspapers. Indeed, the change of leaders is beneficial to the organization in many ways, yet it is not necessary to ensure success for an enterprise.

Admittedly, the change of leaders inevitably causes some problems. The problems vary in different fields. In politics, electing a president is a big event in every nation, especially in the United States. Every political campaign consumes a large amount of money which is donated by individuals and companies. Money spent on political campaign does no good to the society except for the president-elected. Besides, people also spend much time to know the situation of the election, ignoring many important things which needs our attentions. Moreover, the rancor between people belonging to different political parties might polarize the country which casues disunity of the entire society.（感觉你这边的驳斥偏题了，你在说的是不同政党会给国家带来什么样的影响，这个问题是不管有没有几年选一次领导人都会存在的问题，因此这段论证跟题目没太大关系） Even in the education field, problems remain. The election of a new principal in a college might serve to change the school greatly; because the new principal will do what he sees fit. （如果照你这么说，那么就变成是根本不该有principal的存在了，不管换不换的，反正principal 都会 do what he sees fit那么这又跟题目无关了。如果你一定要再讲一下education field，这一句话的论证完全没有说明在教育领域5年换一次领导人有什么不妥）

Changing leader always comes at a price, high or low（貌似at a price就是指很高的代价，就已经说明了这个代价是高的了。。。）. （你这句前面必须加一个让步副词，因为整篇看下来你是在讲changing leaders会带来的好处，那么如果你不在这句前面加个admittedly或者indeed之类的话，这句话会变成这段的中心句which doesn’t meet your expound and prove comes next）However, the benefits of changing leaders might well overweigh the loss. According to a fundamental theory in political science, rights surely induce corruption, as well as the abuse of power, no matter how the leader gets the right. Thus we need a mechanism to prevent these from happening. The founding fathers of America have already provided us with answers. （这里出现了整篇文章论证结构的问题，你说the founding fathers of America 已经给我们找出了一条解决leader abuses the power的途径，就是changing leader,那么既然如此，你的上一段论证就应该挪到这段之后去，因为按你的这种写法，应该是现在才刚引出changing leader这一说的，那么上一段存在的那些changing leader带来的坏处，就应该是在引出之后，也就是这段以后再稍微去让步说明一下，最好放body的最后一段）They wrote it into the constitution that one term of a president is four years, and every president should step down after at most two terms. This regulation ensures democracy fundamentally. Thinking of the example of the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. He gained his power illegally, and maintained the leader of the contry since 1980s. What he did is just making him a very rich man while leaving many Zimbabwe people in poverty and struggle. Still he does not want to step down.

Moreover, changing leaders might accelerate the development of an organization. In 1997, the IT giant was in big trouble because of the continuous complaints made by their clients （加个among）all over the world. At that time, Steve took the job of CEO of Apple and started to reform the company greatly. He himself is an inventor, bringing innovation and design to the new apple products. Finally he succeeded; apple products are more popular than ever before. Recently Apple has passed Microsoft as the biggest IT companies in the world. We must keep this in mind that even though changing leader regularly is critical to the success for an enterprise, but this mechanism is far from adequate.  （这个例子是不能支持论点的，题目中一个很重要的问题你没有明确好，题目说的是should step down after five years而不是should step down,你用了一个CEO到如今了都没有换掉的例子来说带来的好处，这不是在支持你赞同题目的观点而是恰恰是在驳斥这种观点，因为leader到现在，远远超过5年了，都没有step down，而公司一样运营的很出色）Success comes when everybody involved in that enterprise work hard together. We should not expect the newly elected leader to do all the things for us.  George Washington, the commander in chief of the Continental Army, did not defeat the British army solely. It was the soldiers he commanded that fought  against the British.这段明明论点是changing leaders might accelerate the development of an organization.可是在结尾处你突然加个We should not expect the newly elected leader to do all the things for us，如果你是想要在结尾处稍稍让步一下，那么你至少加个表让步的副词或状语，否则看的人会觉得很莫名其妙的出现这句话

To sum up, changing leaders according to certain rules is crucial to the success of an enterprise（又是enterprise? enterprise是指企业，我还没查到这个词能代表所有，包括政治在内的领域）, and every incumbent leader step according to the rules.  Also, when we have a right leader and the mechanism to replace leader from time to time, we still need courage, hard work, team spirit etc. to achieve great  accomplishments.你是在全文最后一句突然又说we still need courage, hard work, team spirit etc. to achieve great  accomplishments这样另一个论点吗？

句子写得挺不错的，但是，这篇文章的论证有点混乱。首先，在第一段你说Indeed, the change of leaders is beneficial to the organization in many ways, yet it is not necessary to ensure success for an enterprise.因为整段能找到的你明确观点的句子只有这一句了，因此这句应该是你的总立场，然而在后面展开的论证中看来，你应该是在让步支持题目陈述的观点的，这与你在用来明确自己态度的第一段写的是不相符的。其次，你的文章结构不清晰，没有循序渐进，一步一步加强你的论证的感觉，对于各个论点，你没有好好安排先后顺序，没有一个整体的规划，就显得论证不强有力了。最后，对于这道题的理解，你有点偏差，你说得比较多的是换领导，而不是定期换领导，要知道换领导是不等于定期换领导的，换领导可能就是某次把人换掉了然后就一直保持着不变了。这道题其实是有两个内容在里面的，一是在各种领域中是否应该隔五年就换另一个领导人；二是这种方法是不是任何机构获得成功的最好方式，两样都应该在文章中谈到的。

总之，你愿意的话，可以QQ上找我细说

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 608          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2010/8/7 23:02:55

The limiting of the term of those in power in many fields is a quite effective way to impede some unethic behavior. However, revitalization through new leadership is not definitely be the surest path to success for any enterprise, while the most reliable way is to adjust to the mode that is mostly appropriate to the enterprise.

To begin with, the limit of the term of those in authority can effectively prohibit the possibility of bribe and abuse of power. As the British Historian said, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Those who are sitting at the stern have established themselves as the highest authority, in whose hand there is absolute power. After a period of time, they get familiar with the management and the pattern in the field and build a great social net, which will probably increase the possibility of the bribe and abuse of power. In the United States, the Constitution specifies a four-year presidental term, and every president could only get one reappointment which contains eight years. Under this institution, every president will make the best effect of their work in their short terms.

However, when in favor of the limiting term, we cannot ignore the disadvantage of that method: the exchange of the rulers may disturb the former pattern. For example, the need for steady leadership during World War II (1939~1945) made it possible for Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt to break the tradition by winning four successive elections between 1932 and 1944. It is not only because of the great achievement that Roosevelt had gained during his terms, but also because in the restless world, an steady and effective leadership is the most important strategy in the United States. Thus, the succession of Roosevelt must be the best way to keep the good political environment. In business field, changing the supervisors in a short period will probably destroy the culture of the company and disturb the working habit of basic workers, which will certainly call for another period to establish the new culture. These changes such as depressed emotion in basic workers, unstable society and so forth are inevitable, but there must be some way to decrease the influence of those.

Thus, it reminds us that it seems that there is a delicate balance between abdication and adding new blood into the enterprise. Revitalization always has these merits: creative, energetic, full of power of action. Because after newborn forces entering the fields, the unique notion and attitude will also be brought to the institution and basic workers will face new order and requirement so as to they will work even harder. Of course, these advantages will be realized at the cost of old bellwether. Thus, the surest way to get success for any enterprise is not the revitalization but take most appropriate measures in the company, government or other institutions according to the contrete situation. For example, in business field, it will be unreasonable to change the highest manager within 5 years, but sometimes promotion and decreasing of some supervisor will add more competitive atmosphere which leads to higher productivity. While in politics, limiting term is an effective measure to oversee the officials about ethic and moral standards. As a result of that, every enterprise, after overall consideration and comparison, is bound to find the surest way to get success.

Five years is so accurate that no one will do actually as it rules, but this institution will definitely come into usage in society. No matter how many significance that revitalization will give, we must see clearly the present situation and decide the best method leading to the final success.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

喵呜~

czlilacUID: 2842584

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."
WORDS: 435
TIME: 00:47:38

DATE: 2010-8-7 15:14:46

Will the leadership undoubtedly help to revitalize the enterprise? Is it necessary for any profession to change the leader every five years? I fundamentally agree with the author’s assertion in some tune, but several other fields which the new leadership maybe not as effective as the old ones should be considered and ruled out.

However, I concede the importance of the new leadership at fist. With the rapid development of our society, almost every profession has experienced the drastic change. In order to keep abreast of the stream of times, it is, perhaps, necessary to instill some new power to drive the development in any field, as the result of the new one will be likely to dedicate to reform the old habits. There are ample of examples to illustrate it. For example, the tenure of most of the Presidents and Chairmen in the world are 4 or 5 years. And the Olympic Games are held every 4 years. The main reason is that if a person serves as a position to long, he/she will possibly lose the innovation, as well as impede the development of new power.

Especially, in the political filed, if a leader in power to long never means a good thing. Although it will result in stability, the countries will complete possible always develop in just one road, what's more, the longer the authority in power, the less he/she will likely to strive, as result of without the pressure of being transferred, the corruption will be leaded. For example, China ever under the lead of Mao Zedong for 37 years, although society was quite stable, but the economic was not prosperous. And Louis XIV served as the sovereign of France for 18 years, instead of resulting in social development, what he had brought to France was deep suffering and even the regression of economic and society. It is, therefore, necessary to regulate the leader's tenure.

While, in certain profession, such as business and law, the new leadership is likely to be less effective as the experienced one. It is primarily because the experience and the profound comprehension in these areas usually very important. For example, Lenovo, a famous Computer Corporation, transferred the power to Yang Yuanqing several years ago, but its profit drastically declined after merging with the personal computer department of IBM, especially the abroad business fell in dilemma ever. However when it reinstated the disposition of Liu Chuanzhi, its former CEO, its business have steadily recovered.

In sum, whether a profession is needed to step down its leader every five years, the crucial determinant hinges on what area is the profession. Meanwhile, before any enterprise making significant decision, especially changing the leadership, many foreseeing consequences should be well assessed. In all, new leadership possibly can make ensure revitalization, but revitalization is never the patent of new leadership.

------------------------------------------------------------------------1改--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the leadership undoubtedly help to revitalize the enterprise? Is it necessary for any profession to change the leader every five years? I fundamentally agree with the author’s assertion in some tune, but several fields which the new leadership maybe not as effective as the old ones should be considered.

Admittedly, I concede the importance of the new leadership at fist. With the rapid development of our society, almost every profession has experienced the drastic change. In order to keep abreast of the stream of times, it is, perhaps, necessary to bring some new power to drive the development in every field, as the result of the new one will be likely to dedicate to reform the old habits. There are ample of examples to illustrate it. For example, the tenure of most of the Presidents and Chairmen in the world are 4 or 5 years. The main reason is that if a person serves as a position to long, he/she will possibly lose the innovation, as well as impede the development of younger leaders.

Especially, in the political filed, if a leader in power too long never means a good thing. Although it may result in stability, while it also possibly lead the country to lose vitality. The longer the authority in power, the less he/she will likely to strive, as result of without the pressure of being transferred, ultimately the corruption and abuse of his/her power will be leaded. For example, China ever under the lead of Mao Zedong for 37 years, although society was quite stable, but the economic was not prosperous. And Louis XIV served as the sovereign of France for 18 years, instead of resulting in social development, what he had brought to France was just deep suffering and even the regression of economic and society. It is, therefore, necessary to regulate the leader's tenure and always keep them in pressure.

While, in certain profession, such as business and law, the new leadership is likely to be less effective as the experienced one. It is primarily because the experience and the profound comprehension in these areas usually should be given precedence over vitality. For example, Lenovo, a famous Computer Corporation, transferred the power to Yang Yuanqing several years ago, but its profit drastically declined after merging with the personal computer department of IBM, especially the abroad business fell in dilemma ever. However when it reinstated the disposition of Liu Chuanzhi, its former CEO, its business have steadily recovered.Another example is also not far to get, in order to keep the law just, most of the country’s Justice of the Supreme Court does always change frequently. We can be given some clues that the old leadership may more sensitive to the changing and demands of his field, and more appropriate to guarantee the sustainable development of it.

In sum, whether a profession is needed to step down its leader every five years, the crucial determinant hinges on what area is the profession. Meanwhile, before any enterprise making significant decision, especially changing the leadership, many foreseeing consequences should be well assessed. In all, new leadership possibly can make ensure revitalization,but hardly guarantee prosperity.

czlilacUID: 2842584

In most cases, limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiatives(prevent corruption可以，但是prevent lack of initiatives好像不太好). But what not so exact is that, government-those in power are not so necessarily to stepped down while the elections for the new session are needed absolutely(这个句子不是很理解，为什么用while?). And I agree that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new session as I will discuss below.

First of all, see(ing) from the view of those in power, to set elections once a five years(every five years) would prevent the leaders from corrupting and thus encourage them to put more energies in their works. In government, politics had better exam whether the old(old is adjective) could continue his or her possession or change another new one. Because when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power and that is why the term of each American President is four years. For instance, Nixon, who abused his power to spy the meeting of Democratic Party in order to maintain his position for a longer period of time, has came up with the incidence of Water Gate scandal. This eventually led to his resignation from the presidency and destroyed the image of government in the mind of its citizens that(that 指代有问题，会让人误解成citizens) aroused significant distrust in the government work. In addition, the old ones’ thinkings(thinking 不可数) sometimes to be too modeling to some extent, we call it a kind of lacking of creativities. Therefore, under the policy of changing leaders four years a time would make the leader do more creative benefits and won't abuse power at random during his or her administration in order to build up political capital.

Secondly, see from the newly emerging forces, they could bring in more new thoughts and better concepts of administration which pours new activities in the collective group. Those in power would inevitably generate a(去掉) certain inertia while they have had a long time in office. Under this circumstance, to change a new leader appropriately becomes an effective way of staying motivated. Especially for enterprise or institution, they should fulfill the young powers constantly(they 指什么？). Thereby they can adjust their own, continuous improvement(adjust improvement好像不太好) and introduce new ideas according to the environment of the markets. For example, if the business doesn't hold a re-generation, then the future of this undertaking would hard to be predicted. It is not to say that those old leaders are conservative while it can't be denied that their abilities of accepting news are not so good as the new blood and their self-regulations occurred on the changing of environment are lower which are totally bad for the enterprises.(句子这里太复杂了好，又是转折，又有几个从句)


论述不够有说服力，第一段说换届可以防腐，第二段说可以防懒散，但是感觉或多或少有些重复的意思

However, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems, therefore, they need a period of time for an adaptation while they may probably have to leave the jobs the moment they just get well up in the jobs(建议这种句子别这样写，又是while又是that，转折不是很好). To change frequently would occur vanity projects(不懂??) in which the old leaders ignoring the benefits of the leaders afterwards and ignoring the goals in a long run. There are still some positions call for a stability such as U.S(这个句子放这里是什么作用？). Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Lifelong jobs, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the like. Therefore we can conclude that the elections for new session are needed to be held a certain years a time. But it doesn't mean that the old couldn't have the re-election. What we need to choose is someone who holds creativity, work ability, good morality and mature character at the same time.
论述不必要换也没有什么说服力

In sum, the surest path to success for any enterprise is indeed the policy of changing leaders a certain period a time. But the olds should always get the right to join the election. In other words, people who are recognized to be creative, competent, moral and mature are qualified for elections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------改1---------------------------------------------------------------
Those people in power can be defined as the people who are in charge of the interests in certain area. In USA, the judge and professor can be tenure(be tenure好像不行，tenure是名词不能作表语吧, be offered life-long tenure), which is a great crown that can inspire youth to fight. Although in these two professions, the tenure have some negative effect, when it comes to the profit of a whole nation as the leader in politics, the tenure's bad effect is more obvious.


Admittedly, new leaders bring their characterized thought to institutes and change some policies which might result in significant improvement. For example, in the political world, the most typical example is the four years term of the American president, which is a defining method to ensure the new policy could be put into force. On one hand, in one's premiership, the pressure is that he should create something new and using new policies to solve the immediate problem, like one of Obama's primary goal that relieve the financial crisis(例子不错). Under high pressure, new leaders always bring a nation some new blood and method. On the other hand, those in powers to steps up ensure the fairness to be the top officer of the government and nation, which is called the democratic. The groups hold different opinions with each other debate and people vote for them. Consequently, the group on the stage must represent of most people's interest. Therefore, having a term in the political word is a highly effective method to promote the process of democracy.
政治领域 保证民主，新政

However, there exists an uncomfortable period for both leaders and subordinates to adapt to new changes, if either one cannot adapt, the leader is not competence or the subordinates are tired of adapting new leaders, this exchange may bring some negative effect (感觉这个句子表达得比较复杂，是否可以分作两个). One organism’s development is tightly related to the ability of leaders. On the other hand, frequently changing the CEOs, which holds dispute about the management, can not lead employees efficiently. They will be puzzled with which one to obey. Hence, changing leader need take into account of some negative effect.
这个应该再论述详细一点，再加点例子什么的，比如经常改变又会怎么样


The last is a lifetime employment. In the area of education, in USA there is one kind of specialists called the tenure professor, which is regard as high reputation in the academic field. The tenure inspires young people to work hard and helps establish a culture of excellent in the university. The primary purpose of accepting the tenure system is to attract talent to the academic field and ensure them a life time academic freedom. However, one cost of the tenure system is that some professors do not use their academic freedom to be good. They become unproductive, shoddy, or irrelevant. The university pays a lifetime employment to those people who prove unworthy of it. Hence, the tenure assures academic freedom but also diminish academic productivity. People hold different opinion towards the tenure system resulting in a fierce debate.
tenure professor到底是好还是不好呢？不好，为什么不好呢，为什么会导致那些不好的呢？

All in all, within different areas, the answer to whether the peoples in powers step down is various. Generally speaking, the tenure of someone in the government ensure a life time power which is definitely not help people, while the tenure in other field is controvertible today.

sharonyeUID: 2862009

"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."

After three industry revolutions, the science and technology, as well as our life have been developing in an unprecedented speed. Thus, people all over the world are increasingly concerned the importance lies in revitalization. Also, for any profession, such as business, politics, education, government etc., to instill new vogur for better development is no doubt a significant task. However, it is not available in any situation to gain this vogue by changing leaders of this enterprises. After all, different company or other the like in its different times has different advancing strategy and mode.

As a newborn, no matter it is a company, or education system, even a government, it must have some original goals. And in order to achieve these goals to asure its long-term viability, it needs a relatively stable envrionment to grow up. In this process, the leader must be persistent enough to attach on its purposes, although he can absorb some modern factors and other variety thoughts, properly change a little bit of its plan, the main idea of the golds should not be changed. Too many revolutions can not be good to a newborn, even may be counterproductive. And how long the process would be also depends on the reality of each enterprise. Five years? Ten years? A long or a short period? I am not sure.

But for a mature company or the like, revitalization is a necessity. It needs to replace some of its outdated managing system by some fashion ones to ensure keeping pace of the society, espescilly in our fleeting-developing world-----everything is changing so rapidly that we must be sensitive enough to avoid being eliminated. That can explain why Steven Jobs------ an amazing man in Amerian history who create Apple, becoming the most whelthy man when he was 25, eventually was fired by his own company, as well as lost 2.5 billion in a night. At that time, Apple had already grown up and eager for a modern system of management, however, Jobs remained stubborn and arbitrary. When the manager of coca-cola took place with Jobs, although he only known little about computer, he still created a splendid epoch for Apple. As the secioty changed, the situation of Apple changed, too. Jobs came back, then made i-phone, i-pod and so many fantastic products, put Apple to another acme.

New leadership bringing revitalization has brought Apple unbelievable benefits, to a certain extent, reflect the importance of revolution. However, granted
revolution is necessary, whether the leadership must be taken place is remaining doubtful, even in every five years, too short for a leader to make full use of his potential. After all, old leaders may also be aware of the need of their enterprise, they know clearly about the details of the company( or the like), so that more efficient decisions con be made to improve the condition of the certain enterprise. So what I think of the statement-------- In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years, is too arbitary. As far as I am concerned, a better solution to make suer if it is necessary to change the leadership is selection, just as for choosing presidents, which is fair and can bring the best manager.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
zigai
After three industry revolutions, the science and technology, as well as our life have been developing in an unprecedented speed. Thus, people all over the world are increasingly concerned the importance lies in revitalization. Also, for any profession, such as business, politics, education, government etc., to instill new vogue for better development is no doubt a significant task. However, it is not available in any situation to gain this vogue by changing leaders of this enterprise. After all, different company or other the like in its different times has different advancing strategy and mode. I will discuss in my following paragraphs.
As a newborn, no matter it is a company, or education system, even a government, it must have some original goals. And in order to achieve these goals to assure its long-term viability, it needs a relatively stable environment to grow up. In this process, the leader must be persistent enough to attach on its purposes, although he can absorb some modern factors and other variety thoughts, properly change a little bit of its plan, the main idea of the goals should not be changed. Too many revolutions can not be good to a newborn, even may be counterproductive. Bill Gates is now still the real CEO of microsoft, he absorbed so many modern factors and make his company follow his ideas, now, Microsoft is still successful in the world. Too many revolutions can not be good to a newborn, even may be counterproductive. And how long the process would be also depends on the reality of each enterprise. Five years? Ten years? Should be a long or short period? I am not sure.
But for a mature company or the like, revitalization is a necessity. It needs to replace some of its outdated managing system by some fashion ones to ensure keeping pace of the society, especially in our fleeting-developing world-----everything is changing so rapidly that we must be sensitive enough to avoid being eliminated. That can explain why Steven Jobs------ an amazing man in American history who creates Apple, becoming the most wealthy man when he was 25, eventually was fired by his own company, as well as lost 2.5 billion in a night. At that time, Apple had already grown up and eager for a modern system of management, however, Jobs remained stubborn and arbitrary. When the manager of coca-cola took place with Jobs, although he only known little about computer, he still created a splendid epoch for Apple. As the society changed, the situation of Apple changed, too. Jobs came back, then made i-phone, i-pod and so many fantastic products, put Apple to another acme.
New leadership bringing revitalization has brought Apple unbelievable benefits, to a certain extent, reflect the importance of revolution. However, granted revolution is necessary, whether the leadership must be taken place is remaining doubtful, even in every five years, too short for a leader to make full use of his potential. After all, old leaders may also be aware of the need of their enterprise, they know clearly about the details of the company( or the like), so that more efficient decisions can be made to improve the condition of the certain enterprise. So what I think of the statement-------- In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in powers should step down after five years, is too arbitrary. As far as I am concerned, a better solution to make sure if it is necessary to change the leadership is selection, just as for choosing presidents, which is fair and can bring the best manager.

To sum up, for any profession, what we want is it to be better. We should depend on the real situation of a certain enterprise to find a fittest mode for further development.


To sum up, for any profession, what we want is it to be better. We should depend on the real situation of a certain enterprise to find a fittest mode for further development.