Issue70 【Persisitence 小组】第13次作业

vinnieUID: 2104933

According to this statement, author suggests the surest path to success in any profession is to change leadership every five years. Although author’s point is a little ex parte, I still agree with it in general.

First, we all know what Sir Acton said that absolute power leads to absolute corruption. If the leader handles the power too long, it is natural that he may lose the sense of crisis. There are many examples when we look back in the history. When in the feudalistic society, the king always owned the right to dominate his land unless he was dead. We can find an interesting rule in it. When a king inherited the right from his father at first, he usually did a lot of wise decision which could bring profit to the people. However, when in one’s late years, he began to have enjoyment and did not care about the country any more. Why this happened again and again? That was because he was not afraid of losing power whether he did a good job or not. So changing leadership every five years can give the leaders the sense of crisis and stimulates them to do better as they only have five years.

Second, when new leader takes control of profession, they may realize the faults of last leader more clearly. In 1930s, the whole America was in the economic crisis. The president H had no idea about that. It occurred ridiculously that the factory was wasting food but citizens were in hungry. But when President L won in the vote and became the new president of USA. He soon realized the key problem of economic crisis and did a lot of thing to deal with it. Under his leadership, the economic of America recovered in soon. It is human’s nature that one can not detect his mistake by himself while others can see the mistake clearly. Changing leader in time can avoid mistake lasting too long.

Additionally, I want to mention that although changing leadership can brings a lot of advantages, but there is no need to force the leader to step down after just five years. If the leader now can prove that he is still much better than other candidates, it is not reasonable to find somebody else to replace him. In china, when leader has worked for 4 years, he still can be a candidate to participate the vote and possible to become the leader again. We can not ask a good leader to step down simply only because he has worked for 5 years. Citizens also can benefits a lot under a long time leadership when the leader is really the best. He may have adequate time to finish his plan and give more advantages to the people.

In sum, I appreciate that the suggestion which leader should be changed in five years in all profession is wise. The change can give the leader more sense of crisis and stop the error in time when it exists. But the most proper way is to vote for the best leader in every five years so as to ensure that everyone have the equal right whether he has been a leader or not.

iamstoicUID: 2294314

According to this statement, author suggests the surest path to success in any profession is to change leadership every five years. Although author’s point of view is a little ex parte, I still agree with it in general.

First, we all know 这个论断有点太绝对,有些人比如我就没听说过这个人 what Sir Acton said that absolute power leads to absolute corruption. If the leader handles the power too long, it is natural that he may lose the sense of crisis. There are many examples when we look back in the history. When in the feudalistic society, the king always owned the right to dominate his land unless he was dead. We can find an interesting rule in it. When a king inherited the right from his father at first, he usually did made a lot of wise decision which could bring profit to the people. However, when in one’s late years, he began to have enjoyment and did not care about the country any more. Why this happened again and again? That was because he was not afraid of losing power whether he did a good job or not. So changing leadership every five years can give the leaders the sense of crisis and stimulates them to do better as they only have five years.这段的例子不错,如果再具体点,比如指明是哪个皇帝就更有说服力

Second, when new leader takes control of profession, they may realize the faults of last leader more clearly. In 1930s, the whole America was in the economic crisis. The president H 可以这样缩写吗?had no idea about that. It occurred ridiculously that the factory was wasting food but citizens were in hungry. But when President L won in the vote and became the new president of USA. He soon realized the key problem of economic crisis and did a lot of thing to deal with it. Under his leadership, the economic of America recovered in soon. It is human’s nature that one can not detect his mistake by himself while others can see the mistake clearly.这个是强调句吗? Changing leader in time can avoid mistake lasting too long. 这段的例子不错啊

Additionally, I want to mention that although changing leadership can brings a lot of advantages, but there is no need to force the leader to step down after just five years. If the leader now can prove that he is still much better than other candidates, it is not reasonable to find somebody else to replace him. In china, when a leader has worked for 4 years, he still can be a candidate to participate the vote and possible to become the leader again. We can not ask a good leader to step down simply only because he has worked for 5 years. Citizens also can benefits benefit a lot under a long time leadership when the leader is really the best. He may have adequate time to finish his plan plansand give more advantages to the people.

In sum, I appreciate that the suggestion which leader should be changed in five years in all profession is wise. The change can give the leader more sense of crisis and stop the error in time when it exists. But the most proper way is to vote for the best leader in every five years so as to ensure that everyone have the equal right whether he has been a leader or not.

这篇essay不错,小v同学进步不小