issue70

nortromUID: 2591367

issue70 政治
  "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." 在任何领域，商业、政治、教育、政府，掌权者应该在5年任期后下台。对任何公司企业来说，取得成功最保险的途径就是聘用新生的人担当领导。

The speaker asserts that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership and those in power should step down after five years. I concede that in the areas of politics and government, it is a good suggestion to change the leadership after a period of time. However, the length of the circlation should not be fixed. Moreover, I do not agree that this suggestion will work smoothly in other areas such as business and education.

The reason for my agreement in the politics field is mainly because political activities have influence on every one’s life. The decision made by those politicians are closely related to the development of the country and the profits of its people. People care about politics because they care about themselves. We judge a leader by the progress he has made in constructing our society. It is natural for us to vote for a more reliable guy to be the leader of our country. And if he has not done a good job, he should be replaced by another one. Moreover, it is necessary to restrict personal power. It is a kind of autocracy if one is supposed to be a leader for all his life. Without any restrict, he might do something dangerous. And such things would never be allowed to happen in an advanced society.

But should the term always be five years? Take the system of United States as an example. A president’s first term is four years, and if he wins the election, there will be another four years as the second term. This sounds reasonable because an excellent president is encouraged to work longer for the country. And I think that the length of term should be flexible according to various positions. In some professions that change slowly, a longer term for leaders will be suitable, and in those professions that are always related to new information, a shorter term is reasonable.

Now consider the situation in business and education, new leadership is by no means a surest path to success. I still find an illustration in the United States. Greenspan had been the president of federal reserve for nearly tewnty years, and he experienced three different administrations. He was appreciated by different presidents because he has a broad knowledge about economy and has a rich experience about economy crisis. What’s more important, his position has nothing to do with power, so people do not have to worry about their own profits. Actually, leaders in business area will hardly change because of the great risk it might bring. Stability is more prefered than creativity by businessmen. Things are similar in the field of education, there is no need to change the president of a university frequently. The cutrue of a university is formed through the long history. A good president should know deeply about the histroy and spirite of it. Also it takes a long time to plan a new goal and to fulfill it. Maybe it will take ten years or even longer. As an olding saying goes: It takes ten years to plant a tree, and it takes a hundred years to cultivate a person. It is a long term project, so that it needs a long term leader.

In the final analysis, we set up a circlation term in the areas of political and government because it makes the politicians work more efficiently and restrict the power of them. And in those areas that are not related to power and rich experience is needed, it is wiser to keep a leader with a long term.

lafelaUID: 2538110

The speaker asserts that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership and those in power should step down after five years. I concede that in the areas of politics and government, it is a good suggestion to change the leadership after a period of time. However, the length of the circlation should not be fixed. Moreover, I do not agree that this suggestion will work smoothly in other areas such as business and education.
开篇很好，清楚地把要同意的领域和不同意的领域写出来了。
The reason for my agreement in the politics field is mainly because political activities have influence on every one’s life. The decision made by those politicians are closely related to the development of the country and the profits of its people. People care about politics because they care about themselves. We judge a leader by the progress he has made in constructing our society. It is natural for us to vote for a more reliable guy to be the leader of our country. And if he has not done a good job, he should be replaced by another one. Moreover, it is necessary to restrict personal power. It is a kind of autocracy if one is supposed to be a leader for all his life. Without any restrict, he might do something dangerous. And such things would never be allowed to happen in an advanced society.
OK.
But should the term always be five years? Take the system of United States as an example. A president’s first term is four years, and if he wins the election, there will be another four years as the second term. This sounds reasonable because an excellent president is encouraged to work longer for the country. And I think that the length of term should be flexible according to various positions. In some professions that change slowly, a longer term for leaders will be suitable, and in those professions that are always related to new information, a shorter term is reasonable.
OK.
Now consider the situation in business and education, new leadership is by no means a surest path to success. I still find an illustration in the United States. Greenspan had been the president of federal reserve for nearly twenty years, and he experienced three different administrations. He was appreciated by different presidents because he has a broad knowledge about economy and has a rich experience about economy crisis. What’s more important, his position has nothing to do with power, so people do not have to worry about their own profits. Actually, leaders in business area will hardly change because of the great risk it might bring. Stability is more preferred than creativity by businessmen. Things are similar in the field of education, there is no need to change the president of a university frequently. The cutrue of a university is formed through the long history. A good president should know deeply about the histroy and spirite of it. Also it takes a long time to plan a new goal and to fulfill it. Maybe it will take ten years or even longer. As an olding saying goes: It takes ten years to plant a tree, and it takes a hundred years to cultivate a person. It is a long term project, so that it needs a long term leader.
OK.
In the final analysis, we set up a circlation term in the areas of political and government because it makes the politicians work more efficiently and restrict the power of them. And in those areas that are not related to power and rich experience is needed, it is wiser to keep a leader with a long term.

理论论证多于例子，文章平衡结构，语法语句也没有问题，很顺畅。是很不错的文章。加油。