Issue 8，写了1个多小时，600字，请大神批改，感激不尽

foreverv32UID??3547030

【新 8 题】Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.


Whether the people in power should step down after five years or not, that is a question. Answers vary from one person to another. To some extent, I would rather disagree with the claim. Details are as follows.
       
    On one hand, in some cases, for example, when a company or any organization enters into a stasis, there is neither innovation nor vigor within the group; and since longer a power remains, higher the risk of cronyism is, I tend to concede that the claim that a new leadership would lead the company to success, although suffers some obvious drawbacks, has some merits due to its implicit rationale behind it according with common sense and our experiences in daily life.
       
    One the other hand, I have to point out that the claim is in a sense unilateral since it overlooks other important factors that may affect success and overstates leadership’s comparative significance. According to me, the claim is problematic in three aspects.
       
The chief problem with the claim is that it fails to take into account other essential factors that may lead to success, such as economic and social infrastructure, the workforce intelligence and emotional quotient as a whole, and even luck sometimes matters a lot. Even if the incumbent made some mistakes, a single surest path to success never exists. In other words, revitalization through new leadership may not happen. People always seek success but unfortunately there is no easy or certain way leading to success.

For instance, I am obsessed with Inter Milan, an Italian football club. After year 2010, in the recent 5 seasons they have played badly, or terribly we may say, and we've already tried seven different coaches, even the president was replaced by a new one last year, the results are still far from satisfactory. The issue is very complex, a new coach or a new leadership here is not enough to solve all the problems.

    The second argument, the one that I think compelling as well, is that we cannot certainly say that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership, the power in charge now carrying on may be the best choice. Here is a simple example, just imagine, the general economic situation is terrible, and all the companies therefore experienced undesirable performance. Let's say that all else had a twenty percent decrease in their annual sales, but the company in which we are interested only had ten percent decline. Obviously, the company did much better than its competitors in the last year, and its leadership in fact performed pretty well in the recession. There is no reason to blame the leadership, not to mention replacing them. Accordingly, in some certain circumstances, in order to revitalize an enterprise, the leadership should just keep going on, no matter after five years or even longer, serving period is not a major issue under consideration.
       
    Moreover, those in power stepping down may disrupt the ongoing plan. When people work together for a big goal, the project possibly lasts more than 5 years. A new leadership may scrap the original plan, and clearly giving up halfway is a waste of resources and time, it means all the efforts having been made till now, or at least part of them, are worthless.
       
    In conclusion, from what has been discussed above, in my perspective, it is not necessary true that those in power should step down after five years. In order to succeed, people should collaborate with each other and many other factors should be taken into consideration.