issue70 为我所用小组第十次作业

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

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."
WORDS: 671          TIME: 00:44:57          DATE: 2008-4-4 13:00:32

The author concludes that no matter in any profession, those in power should step down after five years because the surest path to success is to revitalize through new leadership. However, I consider it not always necessary if the original leader is capable of assuming the job and the new leader may have not enough prepared.
To begin with, if a leader is secondly selected, it stands for the outstanding ability of the leader as well as people's credibility for her. Most people admit her capability of leadership and thus there is no need for her to quit. In the history of America, nineteen presidents have renewed their terms of office. Another example is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is famous for his popularity in the people. When he was secondly selected, he said and I paraphrased that people's confidence in him was his best fortune, from which can be seen that if most people believe in the leader, she does not need to refuse to renew her term in office because she actually has the ability to work as a good leader and even more important, she win the belief from people, which is indispensable for a qualified leader.
But it is true that to renew one's term of office is no easy job because people believe her and have high expectation for her. If she lets them down in the second term, she will not be able to keep her original reputation among people. Only eleven of the nineteen American presidents who were selected to renew their terms have successfully sticked to the last moment of their second tenure. They have faced with various kinds of difficulties such as economical crisis, military problems, race issues and many other problems. As for Clinton, who was so popular with the people at his first tenure and thus was selected to continue be in power, met with sexual scandal during his second tenure, which let people down for a certain period of time. Although most Americans consider his behavior forgivable later when compared with his outstanding performance, the scandal has more or less affected his former reputation. What's more, the second tenure often turns to be a challenge because sometimes the crisis which is hidden during the first tenure may tuns out and become trouble for the leader during her second tenure. As for Bush, he has to make efforts to fight with the difficult problems such as how to make up for the excessive expenses for military as well as how to lessen the deficits while considering decrease the taxes. Consequently, the second tenure is a challenge for the leader.
Since the second tenure is a demanding job, is it better to let the new leader step on the stage? In my point of view, if the new leader is not mature enough to be a qualified leader, it is not wise to push her on the stage because the sophisticated leader may have trouble in dealing with the difficulties, not to mention the new leaders without experience. On the contrary, if the original one is actually not capable to work out the problems, it is a wise choice to give the power to a new generation, especially when she no longer wins support from masses.
What’s more, the author claims that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership, which is not necessarily true. Enterprises can also win success through other paths such as carrying out new policies without changing the leaders. So revitalization trough new leadership is not always the way for the enterprise to achieve success.
In conclusion, if the leader is qualified and possesses the ability to deal with various challenges during her second tenure, and is quite popular with masses, it is better for her to continue to be in power because she is needed under the current circumstances. But when she seems not to be qualified and the new generation has well prepared, maybe it is time for her to quit the stage of power.

jenniferganUID: 2443583

The author concludes that no matter in any profession, those in power should step down after five years because the surest path to success is to revitalize through new leadership. However, I consider it not always necessary if the original leader is capable of assuming the job and the new leader may have not enough prepared.
To begin with, if a leader is secondly selected, it stands for the outstanding ability of the leader as well as people's credibility for her. Most people admit her capability of leadership and thus there is no need for her to quit. In the history of America, nineteen presidents have renewed their terms of office. Another example is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is famous for his popularity in the people. When he was secondly selected, he said and I paraphrased that people's confidence in him was his best fortune, from which can be seen that if most people believe in the leader, she does not need to refuse to renew her term in office because she actually has the ability to work as a good leader and even more important, she win the belief from people, which is indispensable for a qualified leader.
But it is true that to renew one's term of office is no easy job because people believe her and have high expectation for her. If she lets them down in the second term, she will not be able to keep her original reputation among people. Only eleven of the nineteen American presidents who were selected to renew their terms have successfully sticked to the last moment of their second tenure. They have faced with various kinds of difficulties such as economical crisis, military problems, race issues and many other problems. As for Clinton, who was so popular with the people at his first tenure and thus was selected to continue be in power, met with sexual scandal during his second tenure, which let people down for a certain period of time. Although most Americans consider his behavior forgivable later when compared with his outstanding performance, the scandal has more or less affected his former reputation. What's more, the second tenure often turns to be a challenge because sometimes the crisis which is hidden during the first tenure may tuns out and become trouble for the leader during her second tenure. As for Bush, he has to make efforts to fight with the difficult problems such as how to make up for the excessive expenses for military as well as how to lessen the deficits while considering decrease the taxes. Consequently, the second tenure is a challenge for the leader.
Since the second tenure is a demanding job, is it better to let the new leader step on the stage? In my point of view, if the new leader is not mature enough to be a qualified leader, it is not wise to push her on the stage because the sophisticated leader may have trouble in dealing with the difficulties, not to mention the new leaders without experience. On the contrary, if the original one is actually not capable to work out the problems, it is a wise choice to give the power to a new generation, especially when she no longer wins support from masses.
What’s more, the author claims that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership, which is not necessarily true. Enterprises can also win success through other paths such as carrying out new policies without changing the leaders. So revitalization trough new leadership is not always the way for the enterprise to achieve success.
In conclusion, if the leader is qualified and possesses the ability to deal with various challenges during her second tenure, and is quite popular with masses, it is better for her to continue to be in power because she is needed under the current circumstances. But when she seems not to be qualified and the new generation has well prepared, maybe it is time for her to quit the stage of power.

思路清晰，论证有力

rienziUID: 2402391

The author concludes that no matter in any profession, those in power should step down after five years because the surest path to success is to revitalize through new leadership. However, I consider it not always necessary if the original leader is capable of assuming the job and the new leader may have not enough prepared.
To begin with, if a leader is secondly selected, it stands for the outstanding ability of the leader as well as people's credibility for her. Most people admit her capability of leadership and thus there is no need for her to quit. In the history of America, nineteen presidents have renewed their terms of office. Another example is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is famous for his popularity in the people. When he was secondly selected, he said and I paraphrased that people's confidence in him was his best fortune, from which can be seen that if most people believe in the leader, she does not need to refuse to renew her term in office because she actually has the ability to work as a good leader and even more important, she win the belief from people, which is indispensable for a qualified leader.
But it is true that to renew one's term of office is no easy job because people believe her and have high expectation for her. If she lets them down in the second term, she will not be able to keep her original reputation among people. Only eleven of the nineteen American presidents who were selected to renew their terms have successfully sticked to the last moment of their second tenure. They have faced with various kinds of difficulties such as economical crisis, military problems, race issues and many other problems. As for Clinton, who was so popular with the people at his first tenure and thus was selected to continue be in power, met with sexual scandal during his second tenure, which let people down for a certain period of time. Although most Americans consider his behavior forgivable later when compared with his outstanding performance, the scandal has more or less affected his former reputation. What's more, the second tenure often turns to be a challenge because sometimes the crisis which is hidden during the first tenure may tuns out and become trouble for the leader during her second tenure. As for Bush, he has to make efforts to fight with the difficult problems such as how to make up for the excessive expenses for military as well as how to lessen the deficits while considering decrease the taxes. Consequently, the second tenure is a challenge for the leader.
Since the second tenure is a demanding job, is it better to let the new leader step on the stage? In my point of view, if the new leader is not mature enough to be a qualified leader, it is not wise to push her on the stage because the sophisticated leader may have trouble in dealing with the difficulties, not to mention the new leaders without experience. On the contrary, if the original one is actually not capable to work out the problems, it is a wise choice to give the power to a new generation, especially when she no longer wins support from masses.
What’s more, the author claims that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership, which is not necessarily true. Enterprises can also win success through other paths such as carrying out new policies without changing the leaders. So revitalization trough new leadership is not always the way for the enterprise to achieve success.
In conclusion, if the leader is qualified and possesses the ability to deal with various challenges during her second tenure, and is quite popular with masses, it is better for her to continue to be in power because she is needed under the current circumstances. But when she seems not to be qualified and the new generation has well prepared, maybe it is time for her to quit the stage of power.


实在挑不出什么太大错误,
只不过原题提出了商业,政治,教育等几个方面,
楼主要不要分开谈一下

iamshenglongUID: 2427161

怎么都是her?