issue70 请拍！

queeniezUID: 2203712

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."

观点：不同意
1，优秀领导人不应该换
2，换领导人有时会影响长期计划的实施
3，五年限定期不合适
（字数不够，议论也不深刻，反思中）

What is a surest path to success for any enterprise is a problem can not be settled down by a sentence or two. I concede that the revitalization is one of the critical factors to the success of an enterprise. However, new leadership dose not ensure revitalization and sometimes even causes lost.

Generally speaking, those in power are appointed to the present positions owning to their ability and intellect, while this ability and intellect are not possessed by every one. Take the world famous entrepreneur Bill Gates as an example, his corporation has been among the most profit ones for decades of years with still the same leader---Bill. Actually, it is the Bill's exceptional ability in management as well as the insight of the market trend makes his corporation in such a successful condition. If Bill has been changed just after five years of being the leader of the corporation, such prosperity of the Microsoft might never be achieved. Sometimes the ability of those in power is hardly for others to be compared with and if a change is made the lost of the enterprise might be much greater than the gains.

What's more, the long-running development of enterprise needs directors, which might not be carried out completely with the frequent changing of those in power. For instance, a mayor makes out a program to turn the city into a tourist attraction for this beauty natural scenery. Parks are built and trees are planted. However, if this mayor is changed after five years, another one with the opinion to turn the city into an industrial certain of the nation might enact complete different regulations. And the trees which have not grown up and parks in construction, will thus be changed into a power plant or some thing alike. That would be a great waste to the city and none designs of the city from them can ultimately realized.

Admittedly, for the reason that the change of those in power can bring revitalization to the enterprise, the change is still needed in some case, especially when the leader is not an effective one. While whether the time limitation is determined as five years is somewhat unreasonable, cause different conditions require different consideration. A leader shows lack of ability in handling serious problems in the first year after he or she is appointed and the condition has not turned well in the following years, the leader should be changed instead of waiting five years. In other conditions if the leader acts fairly well in his or her position, he might be reappointed, such as the present of America George W Bush.

To sum up, the claims that to restrict of the term of official for those in power as five years is somewhat unreasonable and can hardly be of any practical value.

xupeng66UID: 2193287

What is a surest path to success for any enterprise is a problem can not be settled down by a sentence or two. I concede that the revitalization is one of the critical factors to the success of an enterprise. However, new leadership dose not ensure revitalization and sometimes even causes lost.

Generally speaking, those in power are appointed to the present positions owning to their ability and intellect, while this ability and intellect are not possessed by every one. Take the world famous entrepreneur Bill Gates as an example, his corporation has been among the most profit(profitable) ones for decades of years with still the same leader---Bill. Actually, it is the Bill's exceptional ability in management as well as the insight of the market trend makes his corporation in such a successful condition. If Bill has been changed just after five years of being the leader of the corporation, such prosperity of the Microsoft might never be achieved. Sometimes the ability of those in power is hardly for others to be compared with and if a change is made the lost(loss) of the enterprise might be much greater than the gains.

What's more, the long-running development of enterprise needs directors, which might not be carried out completely with the frequent changing of those in power. For instance, a mayor makes out a program to turn the city into a tourist attraction for this(the) beauty natural scenery. Parks are built and trees are planted. However, if this mayor is changed after five years, another one with the opinion to turn the city into an industrial certain of the nation might enact complete different regulations. And the trees which have not grown up and parks in construction, will thus be changed into a power plant or some thing alike. That would be a great waste to the city and none designs of the city from them can ultimately realized.(这里说得有点绝对)

Admittedly, for the reason that the change of those in power can bring revitalization to the enterprise, the change is still needed in some case, especially when the leader is not an effective one. While whether the time limitation is determined as five years is somewhat unreasonable, cause different conditions require different consideration. A leader shows lack of ability in handling serious problems in the first year after he or she is appointed and the condition has not turned well in the following years, the leader should be changed instead of waiting five years. In other conditions if the leader acts fairly well in his or her position, he might be reappointed, such as the present of America（US president） George W Bush.(这里小布什的例子有点不恰当，毕竟有很多人批评他)

To sum up, the claims that to restrict of the term of official for those in power as five years is somewhat unreasonable and can hardly be of

感觉文章的思路很清晰，但例子举得有些肤浅，其实可以多一些推理，希望再接再厉。