ISSUE70 五年必须更换领导层【求拍，有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

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: 558
TIME: 00:45:00

DATE: 2010-3-16 11:25:58

Is it necessary that leadership should be revitalized through certain short period of time for any profession? In my view, this is merely a possible solution rather than the surest path to success as the speaker claims. The success in any profession cannot all be attributed to those in power, such as managers in business corporations, presidents in political party, and principals of colleges and prime ministers of governments. After all, there are other factors like institution and macro environment influence whether we can achieve our goals.

Revitalization through new leadership does bring opportunities to succeed. We should admit that new leaders always bring in new ideas to solve long-lasting problems, and their former experience may give some inspiration to their co-workers, which will benefit the whole group. Consider the situation in colleges. When a new principal of Business School, who has been abroad working and teaching for years, was in accession, it is likely that he or she will come up with enlightening solutions for effective instruction provided for their students. The solutions may be a new way to attract students’ attention, a new scheme for vocation intern or something else that would prepare the students better for the competitive business world. Thus, by revitalizing leadership, the Business School in college gains some opportunity in favor of improving its education quality.

However, such case is not the representative of all possible outcomes of revitalization in leadership. As with opportunities, it also brings in challenges, or even risks, against their original desire. In the world of politics, each election for leaders will probably cause unrest in public psychology, especially in those countries where conflictions between different parties are fierce. Or in some countries suffering from financial crisis, any changes in the board of leadership will possibly worsen its economy, for their trade partners fear the trade policy will be altered by the new leadership. Under such situations, the revitalization in leadership is more like a potential harm rather than benefit, no matter to its own citizens or to its economy.

Besides, the speaker suggests that five years should be the normal term for those in power in any profession. In my view, this is neither desirable nor practical to apply. For example, the policies aimed at boosting economy may not receive certain effects until five or more years. If the leaders are revitalized before the positive effects are obtained, the new leaders would like to change the policy due to the public pressure. However, the new policies may take longer time than the previous one that it can not achieve goals in the term of new leaders. Education is similar since it takes much more than five years to test the effectiveness of certain education system. Even if we account only from the primary school to college graduation, it takes at least sixteen years, which cannot be determined in any term less than five years. Revitalization in leadership is likely to break the consistency of policy, which will hurt the final goals.

In sum, to achieve success in any profession, revitalization is not the surest path but only a possible solution. Considering the risk it contains in damaging public trust and consistency of policy, we should be more discreet when we want to revitalize the leaders to attain our goals in a short period of time like five years.

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

Is it necessary that leadership should be revitalized through certain short period of time for any profession? In my view, this is merely a possible solution rather than the surest path to success as the speaker claims. The success in any profession cannot all be attributed to those in power, such as managers in business corporations, presidents in political party, and principals of colleges and prime ministers of governments. After all, there are other factors like institution and macro environment influence whether we can achieve our goals.
Revitalization through new leadership does bring opportunities to succeed. We should admit that new leaders always bring in new ideas to solve long-lasting problems, and their former experience may give some inspiration to their co-workers, which will benefit the whole group. Consider the situation in colleges. When a new principal of Business School, who has been abroad working and teaching for years, was in accession, it is likely that he or she will come up with enlightening solutions for effective instruction provided for their students. The solutions may be a new way to attract students’ attention, a new scheme for vocation intern or something else that would prepare the students better for the competitive business world. Thus, by revitalizing leadership, the Business School in college gains some opportunity in favor of improving its education quality.
However, such case is not the representative of all possible outcomes of revitalization in leadership. As with opportunities, it also brings in challenges, or even risks, against their original desire. In the world of politics, each election for leaders will probably cause unrest in public psychology, especially in those countries where conflictions between different parties are fierce. Or in some countries suffering from financial crisis, any changes in the board of leadership will possibly worsen its economy, for their trade partners fear the trade policy will be altered by the new leadership. Under such situations, the revitalization in leadership is more like a potential harm rather than benefit, no matter to its own citizens or to its economy.（猫猫，这个例子还是有问题，因为经济危机所以说明原先的leadership不管用了，要换啊，奥巴马上台就说明了这个吧。要不从另一个角度，比如说经济正繁荣着呢，用不着换？）
Besides, the speaker suggests that five years should be the normal term for those in power in any profession. In my view, this is neither desirable nor practical to apply. For example, the policies aimed at boosting economy may not receive certain effects until five or more years. If the leaders are revitalized before the positive effects are obtained, the new leaders would like to change the policy due to the public pressure. However, the new policies may take longer time than the previous one that it can not achieve goals in the term of new leaders. Education is similar since it takes much more than five years to test the effectiveness of certain education system. Even if we account only from the primary school to college graduation, it takes at least sixteen years, which cannot be determined in any term less than five years. Revitalization in leadership is likely to break the consistency of policy, which will hurt the final goals.
In sum, to achieve success in any profession, revitalization is not the surest path but only a possible solution. Considering the risk it contains in damaging public trust（这个观点很好啊，但是你没有用在body里面，或者没有充分说明） and consistency of policy, we should be more discreet when we want to revitalize the leaders to attain our goals in a short period of time like five years
总的来说写的不错，思路清晰，语言流畅。以限时来说很不容易了，如果我像你这样就不用发愁了~
Body第二段再考虑下吧，从trust的角度来说试试。

subtleUID: 2754799

可能犯了2个国家产食品的错误, 见AWINRO三分范文

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

2# sunflower_iris

对哦，我当时光考虑证据稳定了，没想到奥巴马这一说了~~~谢谢提醒

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

可能犯了2个国家产食品的错误, 见AWINRO三分范文
subtle 发表于 2010-3-21 10:45

什么叫国家产食品错误？

碎碎syUID: 2784070

~我是来借鉴经验的…只是我的第一篇题目~
觉得LZ写得很好O(∩_∩)O