Graduate / True leader knows how to stand up for what he believe. Cooperation can't exist without competition. [4]

Hey! I'm writing GRE in two days and I'd love some feedback on the essay I've written. On a scale of 1-6, where would it be? I know there are A LOT of spelling mistakes. Any advice would by most appreciated. Thanks!

Prompt: The best way for society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.

In a utopian world, everyone agrees with one another, there are no melees, quarrels or wars, and people coexist peacefully. However in reality, this is not the case. Everyone is guided by their own set of ideals and lead their lives based on what they believe in. Many a times, this may clash with someone else's ideals. Thus when grooming future leaders, it is not only important to teach them how to work with eachother, but also how to stand up for what they believe in, even if it requires them to go against someone else.

While it may be true that cooperation is the key to success, it must be realized that agreeing to what every other person says is not an ideal quality for a leader to possess. A leader must be able to convince others to follow him and instill in them a sense of veneration for said leader. A leader must be able to overcome all adversitites and come out on top. Competition between people allows others to decide for themselves who they wish to lead them.

A leader, when in office, has to deal with a myriad of problems and issues. Only through conflict and opposing view points can a solution be set forth that will satisfy everyone. In such cases, cooperation comes through competition. A middle ground between two opposing parties will be able to satisfy the general public better. A leader must be able to incorporate a variery of viewpoints and represent them correctly.

Also, healthy competition brings out the best in people. When they are under pressure to perform, they tend to work harder in order to keep their position as leader. Competition lets us know who the better man is, who is the one who can keep his head cool in a time of crisis. Someone who is cooperative and noncompetitive may make some questionable decisions related to foreign policy. This issue is seen prevalently in the Middle East. If the United States government decided to support Assad, they would be depricating ISIS, and vice versa. Yet both sides of the spectrum are easily bad. If our future leaders were only cooperative, such situations would be extrememly precarious for them.

On the other hand, if the leader becomes extremely careless with his actions and refuses to cooperate with anyone, he must be held accountable. If they were not held accountable for their actions, it would lead to chaos. For example, Hitler, excluding the fact that we was a maniac dictator, was an excellent leader. He convinced many that what he was doing was justifiable, yet because his ideals were far too discriminatory, he was overthrown. The reason he was able to rise to such a position in the first place was because of his strong belief that what he was doing was right.

In conclusion, doing away with competition and only instilling a sense of coorperation would prove to be for more detrimental than beneficial. A leader must possess a varitey of qualities and only through competition can we determine who embodies these qualities the best.