issue70 我们的九月小组 第十六次作业

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

There are officials regulating the whole in any profession, such as business, politics, education, government. The speaker claims that those individuals in power should be called off after five years.  It is tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that a limited term in power may prevent corruption and now leader often bring in initiative. However, I disagree with the assertion in two aspects. First, those in power might have more experience in the field and work more efficiently. Second, whether a leader should step down depends on his capability and contribution.

To start firstly, limitation in term is often a good way to prohibit corruption. As I quoted, "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Good man is always bad man. There is no heresy worse than the officials sanctifying the leader." When power is granted to individuals too long, it is inclining to engender a community of benefits and profits, which is harmful to society. Aristocracy is a typical instance. How can a group of people who concern only with themselves' interests contribute to the whole society?  Besides, new leaders always bring in new initiative and strategic judgment, which is promptive to the profession. The fact than American laws prescribe one term of presidentship is four years is self-evident. Limitation in term about power can keep departments active.

On the other hand, a proper period of time in power gives rise to experience accumulation, which is beneficial to the products efficiency. In some profession, especially those traditional industrial fields, experience is extremely important in efficacy, which is hard to get in a short time. More experience means more knowledge about the working procedure and high efficiency in association with different departments. Besides, many huge beneficial projects need constant support in policy and finance from the government. A long term steadfast regime is the precondition to accomplish these projects. For instance, the designing and construction of Three Gorges Dam in China has been about fifty years. If supervised austerely, a long term regime can also be beneficial to society.

Finally, whether a individual in power be called off should depend on his characteristics and contribution. It is not reasonable to change a management only because the "deadline" is upon when he is doing well in career.  It is not proper to keep a manager who is incompetent either only because he is in the power-term. Sometimes we need to promote a leadership outside the convention and regulation. Napoleon is promoted from lieutenant to general, creating more opportunities for him to exert his genius. The rigid time should not be an impediment for progress.

In conclusion, according to what has been recounted above. Whether those in power should step down after five years should never been determined indiscriminately. The speaker should make such a decision on a case-by-case basis. After all, it should be the individual's characteristics and contribution in all kinds of aspects than determine the leadership.

maggie-leeUID: 2220892

There are officials regulating the whole in any profession, such as business, politics, education, government. The speaker claims that those individuals in power should be called off（说实话，感觉用这个词，有贬义） after five years.  It is tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that a limited term in power may prevent corruption and now（new吧！） leader（s） often bring in initiative. However, I disagree with the assertion in two aspects. First, those in power might have more experience in the field and work more efficiently. Second, whether a leader should step down depends on his capability and contribution.
题目是说：在所有领域，有权力的人在为时间不应该超过五年。
你说的是：官员会管制所有的领域To start firstly, limitation in term is often a good way to prohibit corruption.（感觉你直接用limitation in term，意思表达不明确） As I quoted, "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Good man is always bad man. There is no heresy worse than the officials sanctifying the leader." When power is granted to individuals too long, it is inclining to engender a community of benefits and profits, which is harmful to society. Aristocracy is a typical instance. How can a group of people who concern only with themselves' interests contribute to the whole society?（感觉这个例子不恰当，贵族是一个家族几代人的争取来，或者贵族是血统决定的。）  Besides, new leaders always bring in new initiative and strategic judgment, which is promptive to the profession. The fact than(that) American laws prescribe one term of presidentship is four years is self-evident.（感觉这个例子也没有说服力。请问创造力体现在哪里？？ ） Limitation in term about power can keep departments active.

On the other hand, a proper period of time in power gives rise to experience accumulation, which is beneficial to the products efficiency （products就不要了，显得很生硬）. In some profession, especially those traditional industrial fields, experience is extremely important in efficacy, which is hard to get in a short time. More experience means more knowledge about the working procedure and high efficiency in association with different departments. (此处可以添一个例子) （下面是另一个观点）Besides, many huge beneficial projects need constant support in policy and finance from the government. A long term steadfast regime is the precondition to accomplish these projects. For instance, the designing and construction of Three Gorges Dam in China has been about fifty years. If supervised austerely, a long term regime can also be beneficial to society.
一段里面两个观点，感觉第二个被藏起来了。不如一段一写一个，然后说理透彻些
Finally, whether a（an） individual in power（should） be called off should (去掉should) depend on his characteristics and contribution. It is not reasonable to change a management only because the "deadline" is upon when he is doing well in career.  It is not proper to keep a manager who is incompetent either only because he is in the power-term. Sometimes we need to promote a leadership outside the convention and regulation. Napoleon is promoted from lieutenant to general, creating more opportunities for him to exert his genius. The rigid time should not be an impediment for progress.

In conclusion, according to what has been recounted above. Whether those in power should step down after five years should never been determined indiscriminately. The speaker should make such a decision on a case-by-case basis. After all, it should be the individual's characteristics and contribution in all kinds of aspects than determine the leadership.

以下是你给出的支持论点的三个理由！
1.To start firstly, limitation in term is often a good way to prohibit corruption.
2.On the other hand, a proper period of time in power gives rise to experience accumulation, which is beneficial to the products efficiency
3.Finally, whether a（an） individual in power be called off should depend on his characteristics and contribution.
感觉文章缺乏足够的例子，名言等论据来加强你的观点，而且，每个理由都论证的很薄弱。
文章的开头，可以参考一下ETS的范文，感觉他们的开头很简洁。
其实，我也在改这些毛病 。建议多研究一下范文。