新手的第一篇，求拍啊！有拍必回~

robinlijiaqiUID: 2684379

ISSUE 70
Should every leader step down from powerful position after five years, regardless of different professions? While I generally agree that a too long administration will cause serious problems which will hinder the progress of the particular enterprise. I take an exception with the speaker's claim when it comes to an organization whose leader is the soul of it. The first reason why a long administration is troubling involves a common experience. It is often a truth that a chief is likely to loss his or her passion and creativity as the administration goes. That is because upon assuming power, everything is fresh, challenging and exciting. But as time goes by, the novelties inevitably begin to pall and daily issues repeat themselves. Thus the boring daily life diminishes and even spoils the leader's creativity and positivity which are essential to the organization. This reason is often able to explain why in many cases the most significant achievements are made in the early time of an office term. A leader who is in power for too long can also inflict harm on the enterprise by forming a clique with or without intention. A clique is much more likely to appear in an organization which is always led by a same person. That is because it is more tempting to cling to a person who will be your boss for ten years than one who only stay for one month. And as we know, one who is so powerful that he or she can do whatever wanted by whatever means will face the temptation of improper behaviors. Thus a leader who not only possesses the power but also has plenty of advocates can harm the entity by abusing authority and making arbitrary decisions. Lack of leader revitalization may also diminish the staff's positivity, especially those who excel. Admittedly, many people do their utmost not only for they love the job but also for the promotion. A leader who assumes the power too long and has no intention to step down blocks other's path to power. Thus those who are ambitious and competent may lose a vital incentive for working hard. As a consequence, losing some key member's passion may lead to an decreased efficiency and members of the group may become listless and uncreative. However, an exception exists. In some cases the leader is so important to the organization that losing him or her means the collapse of the whole. Take, for example, the Berkshire Hathaway Corporation’s C.E.O-Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet to Berkshire Hathaway is the brain to the person. He makes all the corporation’s investing decision which turn Berkshire Hathaway the most valuable company enjoying an unbelievable capital return of 26% for more than thirty years. This remarkable accomplishment also makes Warren Buffet the richest man in the world. No one can deny that the success of Berkshire Hathaway can only be due to Warren Buffet. It is no doubt that without Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway is just an ordinary company with a considerable fortune. In sum, a too long administration may inflict harm on the organization by diminish both the leader’s and the underlings’ creativity and positivity. Moreover, the consequence may also embrace the possible improper behavior of the leader. However, some corporations whose leader is an integrant part of the whole should be regarded as exceptions. In the final analysis, the speaker’s assertion has considerable merits and the term of office should be limited.

ygjrdhUID: 2684808

ISSUE 70
Should every leader step down from powerful position after five years, regardless of different professions? While I generally agree that a too long tenure will cause serious problems which will hinder the progress of the particular enterprise, I take an exception with the speaker's claim when it comes to an organization which is built on the individual ability and charisma of the leader, namely, the soul of the company. The first reason why a long tenure is troubling involves a common experience. It is often a truth that a chief is likely to loss his or her passion and creativity as the time pass by. Excitement induced by novelty is not eternal, and is easily to be worn off because of the boring routine jobs. This fact can explain why in many cases the most significant achievements are made in the early time of an office term. A leader who is in power for too long can also inflict harm on the enterprise by forming a clique consciously or not consciously. A clique is much more likely to appear in such a stiff system. The unfair gain by forming the personal relationship with the boss lure the fellow workers to act as flatters. And as we know, one who is so powerful that he or she can do whatever wanted by whatever means will face the temptation of improper behaviors. Thus a leader who not only possesses the power but also has plenty of advocates can harm the entity by abusing authority and making arbitrary decisions. Absence of the chance of rotation would also diminish the fellow worker's initiative, especially the outstanding ones for whom the promotion and uplifted social status is the main impetus. Thus those who are ambitious and competent may lose a vital incentive for working hard. As a consequence, it will end up in a decreased efficiency and losing of creativity due to the low morale of the fellow workers. However, an exception exists. In some cases the leader is so important to the organization that losing him or her means the collapse of the whole. Take, for example, the Berkshire Hathaway Corporation’s C.E.O-Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet to Berkshire Hathaway is the brain to the person. He makes all the corporation’s investing decision which turn Berkshire Hathaway the most valuable company enjoying an unbelievable capital return of 26% for more than thirty years. This remarkable accomplishment also makes Warren Buffet the richest man in the world. No one can deny that the success of Berkshire Hathaway can only be due to Warren Buffet. It is no doubt that without Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway is just an ordinary company with a considerable fortune. In sum, an endless tenure may inflict harm on the organization by diminish both the leader’s and the underlings’ creativity and initiative. Moreover, the autocracy will lead to opinionated decision of the leader. However, there are some corporations that don’t have a complete decision making mechanism, so that they have to rely exclusively on the outstanding leader. For them, such a statement favoring the rotation would not hold water.

红宝没背好。用词问题很大。Administration 和 positivity就明显不当。

语言罗嗦，不要把一句话说上好几遍。常规主谓宾顺序句子过多，从句过多，有的地方本来一个形容词就可以解决问题的。堆长句子也要注意点变化。

最后的“反”，只是泛泛的说soul不可替换，论述缺乏。实际上“soul”的特例可以从机制缺陷的角度论述。

ygjrdhUID: 2684808

ISSUE 70
Should every leader step down from powerful position after five years, regardless of different professions? While I generally agree that a too long tenure will cause serious problems which will hinder the progress of the particular enterprise, I take an exception with the speaker's claim when it comes to an organization which is built on the individual ability and charisma of the leader, namely, the soul of the company. The first reason why a long tenure is troubling involves a common experience. It is often a truth that a chief is likely to loss his or her passion and creativity as the time pass by. Excitement induced by novelty is not eternal, and is easily to be worn off because of the boring routine jobs. This fact can explain why in many cases the most significant achievements are made in the early time of an office term. A leader who is in power for too long can also inflict harm on the enterprise by forming a clique consciously or not consciously. A clique is much more likely to appear in such a stiff system. The unfair gain by forming the personal relationship with the boss lure the fellow workers to act as flatters. And as we know, one who is so powerful that he or she can do whatever wanted by whatever means will face the temptation of improper behaviors. Thus a leader who not only possesses the power but also has plenty of advocates can harm the entity by abusing authority and making arbitrary decisions. Absence of the chance of rotation would also diminish the fellow worker's initiative, especially the outstanding ones for whom the promotion and uplifted social status is the main impetus. Thus those who are ambitious and competent may lose a vital incentive for working hard. As a consequence, it will end up in a decreased efficiency and losing of creativity due to the low morale of the fellow workers. However, an exception exists. In some cases the leader is so important to the organization that losing him or her means the collapse of the whole. Take, for example, the Berkshire Hathaway Corporation’s C.E.O-Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet to Berkshire Hathaway is the brain to the person. He makes all the corporation’s investing decision which turn Berkshire Hathaway the most valuable company enjoying an unbelievable capital return of 26% for more than thirty years. This remarkable accomplishment also makes Warren Buffet the richest man in the world. No one can deny that the success of Berkshire Hathaway can only be due to Warren Buffet. It is no doubt that without Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway is just an ordinary company with a considerable fortune. In sum, an endless tenure may inflict harm on the organization by diminish both the leader’s and the underlings’ creativity and initiative. Moreover, the autocracy will lead to opinionated decision of the leader. However, there are some corporations that don’t have a complete decision making mechanism, so that they have to rely exclusively on the outstanding leader. For them, such a statement favoring the rotation would not hold water.

红宝没背好。用词问题很大。Administration 和 positivity就明显不当。

语言罗嗦，不要把一句话说上好几遍。常规主谓宾顺序句子过多，从句过多，有的地方本来一个形容词就可以解决问题的。堆长句子也要注意点变化。

最后的“反”，只是泛泛的说soul不可替换，论述缺乏。实际上“soul”的特例可以从机制缺陷的角度论述。

robinlijiaqiUID: 2684379

十分感谢！！一针见血，学到很多！
P.S. 不过wear off 是主动的吧？