寄托天下
查看: 1494|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[i习作temp] 【issue111】change of leadership after 5 years【请多指教】 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
145
注册时间
2013-7-27
精华
0
帖子
21
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-8-15 02:37:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览
【111】In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
自己改了一下,求好心人指点~

    Many countries all over the world change their leaders every 5 year, as well as many giants substituting their CEOs every 5 years. Is 5 really a magic number of year for the replace of leadership in any profession among business, politics, education and government?

     No one will deny that a healthy institution or organization, will not allow the leadership remaining unchanged for a long time. And many choose 5 years to be the most suitable time to make some difference, firstly because, 5-year is a watershed in many aspects. In this 5 years, we overcame a lot of problems, but also making new and annoying troubles. Meanwhile the usual regulation may not fit in for the current world. This five years, therefore, we need new blood to refresh the leadership, creative thoughts to maneuver the overall situation, and ambitious change to get to a new world. Chinese government, For example, realizing the importance of sharp difference in 5 years, strongly practice a policy called "five-year plan", which means make significant plans for the country every 5 years, and convene the People's Congress (CPC) every 5 years to vote for the main leaders for the country.

     The world nowadays is admittedly different from what it was five years before, however, still many principles for the leadership remains consistent. If we change to the extent to which we need to deprive of most what the ex-man have done and stretch out, we need to spend another 5 years to endeavor a new regulation or principles, which means not only to waste of time and energy, but also to take on the risk for the failure of the new thought. For government or companies, some principles are symbol of the spirit of the company, derived from the foundation period. The best way to make fully use of them is to pass on but not cast away.

      Therefore, not any profession should say no to the maintenance of the leadership. Take education for example, what one school would be if the headmaster change a lot? Experience is indispensable and hardly easy to accumulate in the field of education, so are the other fields such of industrial manufacture and agriculture.
Let's dig deep into the questions about leadership. Leadership means the power to lead us for a goal, which just means a spirit symbol, a delegate of the citizens or whole employees. We can also   get everything along well if we don't have the president, or the CEO, as long as the principle remains erect in our mind, though things will get through a little tougher without a leader. Leaders are just servants for the citizens and the companies. Thus, it's unnecessary to pay so much heed to the change of lead, but we need to think deeply for the main principle of our nation, our school, our company, because that's the source and reason for our well-being.

      To conclusion, let put the magic 5 aside and accept that leadership is not mighty. We need leadership to keep fresh in some professions, but the interval of the “metabolism” can be flexible because it is the principle that matters.
回应
0

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
120
寄托币
867
注册时间
2012-9-14
精华
0
帖子
124
沙发
发表于 2013-8-17 17:04:15 |只看该作者
本帖最后由 穆言 于 2013-8-17 17:05 编辑

Manycountries all over the world change their leaders every 5 year, as well as manygiants substituting their CEOs every 5 years. Is 5 really a magic number ofyear for the replace of leadership in any profession among business, politics,education and government?

     No one will deny that ahealthy institution or organization, will not allow the leadership remainingunchanged for a long time. And many choose 5 years to be the most suitable timeto make some difference, firstly because, 5-year is a watershed in manyaspects. In this 5years, we overcamea lot of problems, but also makingnew and annoying troubles. Meanwhile the usual regulation may not fit in forthe current world. Thisfive years, therefore, we need new blood to refresh the leadership, creativethoughts to maneuver the overall situation, and ambitious change to get to anew world. Chinese government, For example, realizing the importance of sharp difference in 5years, [url=]stronglypractice[/url][a1] a policy called "five-year plan",which means make significant plans for the country every 5 years, and convenethe People's Congress (CPC) every 5 years to vote for the main leaders for thecountry[url=].[/url]
[a2]

     [url=]The[/url][a3]  world nowadays is admittedly different fromwhat it was five years before, however, still many principles for theleadership remainsconsistent. If we change to the extent to which we need to deprive of most whatthe ex-man have done and stretch out, we need to spend another 5 years toendeavor a new regulation or principles, which means not only to waste of timeand energy, but also to take on the risk for the failure of the new thought.For government or companies, [url=]some principles[/url][a4]  are symbol of the spirit of the company,derived from the foundation period. The best way to make fully use of them isto pass on but not cast away.


      [url=]Therefore[/url][a5] , not any profession should say no to themaintenance of the leadership. Take education for example, what one schoolwould be if the headmaster [url=]change a lot[/url][a6] ? Experience is indispensable and hardly easyto accumulate in the field of education, so are the other fields such of industrial manufactureand agriculture.


Let's dig deep into the questions aboutleadership. Leadership means the power to lead us for a goal, which just meansa spirit symbol, a delegate of the citizens or whole employees. We canalso get everything along well if we don't have the president, or the CEO,as long as the principle remains erect in our mind, though things will getthrough a little tougher without a leader. Leaders are just servants for the citizensand the companies. Thus, it's unnecessary to pay so much heed to the change oflead, but we need to think deeply for the main principle of our nation, ourschool, our company, because that's the source and reason for our well-being.

      To conclusion, let put the magic 5 asideand accept that leadership is not [url=]mighty[/url][a7] . We need leadership to keep fresh in someprofessions, but the interval of the “metabolism” can be flexible because it isthe principle that matters.


[a1]不明白strongly在这里修饰是什么意思,我在google上没有搜到这种用法。而且对于”policy”,这里用carry out代替practice应该更好吧


[a2]例子除了简单罗列事实外最好还有进一步的阐发,和前面的抽象论证形成对应。在你的这个例子中只有“中国领导人就是五年一换”这个事实,没有为你前面的正面论证提供有效支持。为了增强说服力,这里应该进一步阐述中国这种领导轮换带来了怎样的好处,比如你可以谈谈中国的新总理Li Keqiang上台后,大力推行去杠杆化de-leveraging(要是有术语障碍的话直接就说economic reform),解决了前任领导人过度经济刺激政策带来的许多问题(虽然实际上还没有…= =),这就体现了新领导带来新思路这个特点。这就和你前面那一段“new blood to….creative thoughts…”论证对应上了。


[a3]这一段里你的态度实际上已经转为反面了,所以段首最好加一个承接句来明确提示这种转变,比如However这种非常强烈的转折词。要不然读者从上一段顺着读下来还是以为你在赞同原论点。


[a4]这里论证比较模糊,甚至有一点偏离主题。“principles for leadership”具体指的是什么?领导人的行事风格?处事逻辑?没有说明。而且这一段的论证你的重点是“领导人的principles”应该传承下去,但是领导人本身(which is the main thesis of this essay!)该不该继续留在位置上呢?在这一段也没有说明。


[a5]所以这个Therefore乃至以它领起的整段是否成立就变得很可疑了。因为你谈论的主体已经发生了变化(又变回leader本身了),所以上一段没法给这个therefore以支持。


[a6]“Change a lot”是“变化很大”,我觉得这里谈的是个频率的问题,应该用“change too frequently”


[a7]从你想表达的意思看这里似乎应该用almighty



使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
120
寄托币
867
注册时间
2012-9-14
精华
0
帖子
124
板凳
发表于 2013-8-17 17:09:43 |只看该作者
附上word修改,小的语法错误我用黄色标注出来了。
总体而言我觉得LZ最好把整篇文章的逻辑理一理,感觉在反面论述的时候有一些混乱。
一点浅见,仅供参考。
附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?立即注册

使用道具 举报

RE: 【issue111】change of leadership after 5 years【请多指教】 [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
【issue111】change of leadership after 5 years【请多指教】
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1622960-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部