Claim: In any field-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
The author of the issue claim that the people in charge of business and politics,education ,etc should step down after short period of five years, the writer further reason that the surest path to success for any enterprises is revitalization through new leadership. I don't agree with this claim in some extend .in what follows I will first discuss my opinion about claim and then explain what I think of the reason on which the reason is based .
I think the author might overlook the fact that the people in power in any company are the most adept an important person, and they reach to this position because of their merit and wisdom ,and by forcing them to abdicate ,the company will be deprive of knowledge and experience which has been accede in the context of the business . so by replacing the leaders after 5 years , its like to put away a lot of experience and risk the company status to be improved or at least stay the same in the other's hands .to illustrate ,we all know what happened to apple company after replacing Steve Jobs, and then after re assigning him.
At my discretion, there is another persuasive point that admits the claim,normally it takes time for any leader to get used to new situation, and analyze the company performance sufficiently .eventually new leaders make some mistakes. So by altering the leaders every 5 years, which is a short period, companies error will augment.as soon as the new leader get control over the situation ,he has to relinquish his position ,and again the new leader will need time to make any progress and he will make some mistakes too, an so on. This is what happens in Tehran government, the mayor is in charge for such a short period that he cannot plan any long run activity and usually the next mayor does not approve the previous decision and tries to change the whole system, so it just a huge waste of budget with negligible conclusion.
As far the reason is concerned I do not think the surest path to success is revitalization through new leadership, I admit that changes will make any enterprise more dynamic and prosper and its even vital in some extend, and a long leadership might end up to be dictatory and diminish democracy, like what happens to leader of Libya Mohamad Ghazafi who had almost established his own monarchy. But this changes can happen throw changing high rank employee or using new strategy. Like what Nokia did after Microsoft bought the whole company, they decided not to change the manager and only make some new strategy which worked very well.
In final analysis, I should say that although changes will revive a company sprite, it better to occur in other part of an enterprise rather than leader ship in order to prevent errors and mistakes because of experience lacking.
You responsed the claims with strategy that first claims your position and then draw detail supports. You make it clear how your idea developed with examples and persuation. However, I think you should really pay more attention to your minor grammar, like captle, its--it is, "be deprive"--"be deprived" and so on.
I agree! It's wasteful to replace competent people who have already spent a few years improving their game. You made a great, thoughtful argument here.
I don't agree with this claim in some extend .
It's better to say:
I disagree to some extent.
That's better because it has 'extent' ('extend' is not correct here).
At my discretion, In my opinion, there is another persuasive point ...
So by altering the leaders every 5 years, which is a short period, companies error will
augment. increase. ---I agree! The new leaders will repeat old mistakes! And this is a well-constructed sentence.
Anyway, that is just a small grammar tip. Overall your argument is great.
