issue70 留连接,晚十二点到两点必回拍

peipei_fayUID: 163182

超时7分,大家多多指点,
还有请诚实的回答我一个问题:
我的语言是不是很差啊,句子是不是很别扭啊?
不要安慰我哦, 我接受得打击,谢谢啦

题目
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.

------正文------
Is it necessarily that in any profession, the leader should abdicate after five years, and the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leader? In my opinion, I admit that the fresh force of a new leader indeed, to some extent , can bring the vigor to the success, however, whether people who are in power should step down after five years, is case by case when we face to different fields of profession and the leader's condition and abilities.

In the first place, when examining the political fields, I advocate that in political fields the leader should be changed in a few years, for example, 4 years or 5 years. Such activity is very significant for the development of the democracy, meanwhile it serve as a effective way to avoid the abusing power, to avoid the dictatorship of policy, and to avoid undue satisfying the interests of a certain group, which the leader represents, for a long time. In history, there exist many examples. Leaders become greed, and then seek to the profits for themselves, if they were long term in the center of power. The case of the Chairman Mao in china aptly illustrates this point. Chairman Mao had been elected as the leader for several decades, although he contributed a myriad of achievements for building the Republic China, what a pity in his later life, he launched the Culture Reformation, which breed huge destructs for people and impede the economic development. It is Chairman Mao who long term control the political power, and overlooked the advice from other people and made the arbitrary mistakes. Therefore, we can clearly see that the abdication in the political fields, certainly ensure the success.

Secondly, with respect to the business field, the executives, needn't to step down after five years, if he is always sensitive to the information about the complex free markets, and if he can continually be creative with the effective and latest skills of the administration of a company. Moreover, an experienced leader can solve some problems, while a new one never confronts, because the rich experiences are golden treasure in the heat competition of business. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that if a business leader can not be as efficient as they were five years ago, or did not brought the intended achievement in the five years, and are not as outstanding as the new candidates, he should be dismissed from the post. Therefore, whether business executives should be replaced after 5 years is determined by his capacity and the comparison with the new leader.

Finally, when it comes to the field of education or research, I am inclined to support the statement that the leader should not be changed more often. Firstly, as we all know, several researches can not be accomplished in five years, thus it is inappropriate to dismiss the research leader before the success. Secondly, some giants in science indeed are the most proper people who can correctly design the plan of a research and successfully overcome some baffles in the process of the discovering and inventing. With the profound and plenty knowledge, they are considered as the authorities in some disciplines. 5 years, 10 years, even 20 years, the scholars in a field could not be as insightful and creative as they are. Hence, to ensure the integrality of researches and to according the fact that some leaders are not only competent for 5 years, we should consider more comprehensively and cautiously before we take measure to substitute them.

To sum up, from the evidence discussed above, I can draw my conclusion that whether a leader in any profession, should abdicate after 5 years, is determined case by case, such as the traits of the field, the capability of the old leader, and the conditions of the new successor.

peipei_fayUID: 163182

顶一下,不要沉,不要沉!

combatantUID: 200023

占座

combatantUID: 200023

Is it necessarily that in any profession, the leader should abdicate after five years, and the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leader? （这句照抄原文，是不是太懒了，自己改写一下好一点把）In my opinion, I admit（concede好像这个词用的更贴切） that the fresh force of a new leader indeed, to some extent , can bring the vigor to the success, however, whether people who are in power should step down after five years, is case by case(based on case-by-case analysis) when we face to different fields of profession（s） and the leader's condition and abilities.

In the first place, when examining the political fields, I advocate that in political fields the leader should be changed in a few years, for example, 4 years or 5 years. Such activity(system) is very significant(这里不通) for the development of the democracy, meanwhile it serve（s） as a effective way to avoid the abusing(of) power, to avoid the dictatorship of policy, and to avoid undue satisfying the interests of a certain group, which the leader represents, for a long time. In history, there exist（are?exist的搭配我没有见过） many examples. Leaders become （became注意时态）greed, and then seek to the profits for themselves, if they were long term in the center of power. The case of the Chairman Mao in china aptly illustrates this point. Chairman Mao had been elected as the leader for several decades, although he contributed a myriad of achievements for building the Republic China, what a pity in his later life, he launched the Culture Reformation, which breed huge destructs for people and impede the economic development. It is Chairman Mao who long term control the political power（in long term放在这里）, and overlooked the advice from（of） other people and made the arbitrary mistakes. Therefore, we can clearly see that the abdication in the political fields, certainly ensure the success.
这段论证有问题，证明了长期再位不好，但是没有证明就可以ensure the success，false dilemma

Secondly, with respect to the business field, the executives, needn't to step down after five years, if he is always sensitive to the information about the complex free markets, and if he can continually be creative with the effective and latest skills of the administration of a company. Moreover, an experienced leader can solve some problems, while a new one never confronts, because the rich experiences are golden treasure in the heat (这个用法有吗？觉得有点chinglish啊，也许我不知道)competition of business. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that if a business leader can not be as efficient as they were five years ago, or did not brought the intended achievement in the five years, and are not as outstanding as the new candidates, he should be dismissed from the post. Therefore, whether business executives should be replaced after 5 years is determined by his capacity and the comparison with the new leader.

Finally, when it comes to the field of education or research, I am inclined to support the statement that the leader should not be changed more often. Firstly, as we all know, several researches can not be accomplished in five years, thus it is inappropriate to dismiss the research leader before the success. Secondly, some giants in science indeed are the most proper people who can correctly design the plan of a research and successfully overcome some baffles in the process of the discovering and inventing. With the profound and plenty knowledge, they are considered as the authorities in some disciplines. 5 years, 10 years, even 20 years, the scholars in a field could not be as insightful and creative as they are. Hence, to ensure the integrality of researches and to according the fact that some leaders are not only competent for 5 years, we should consider more comprehensively and cautiously before we take measure to substitute them.感觉这段比前两段语言好的多，论证也有力

To sum up, from the evidence discussed above, I can draw my conclusion that whether a leader in any profession, should abdicate after 5 years, is determined case by case, such as the traits of the field, the capability of the old leader, and the conditions（character更好点吧，人不能用condition吧） of the new successor.
本文按照题目提示按大类case by case当然可以，不过立意还可以从还有别的方法除了领导人更新外还可以复兴企业来说