*not a reference* Young leaders in the government. Discuss both views and give opinions

Young Leadership

Some people think young people are not suitable for important positions in the government, while other people think it is a good idea for young people to take on these positions. Discuss both views and give your own opinions.

(I need a feedback, thanks)

The debate surrounding whether or not youngster has the ability to play roles in making the right national decisions is one of the most charged in the context of civilization and globalization. While the proponents postulate that the youth is the key to innovation and open - minded ideals, the others take a dim view of young people's maturity so as to embrace the tremendous responsibility handling the role of bureaucrats. This essay will shed lights on both views along with personal advocacy of propelling youngster's enthusiasm in tackling national issues.

As for old flames, carrying special burden of responsibility of being the national representatives, though arduous, is their pride and considered as a sense of achievement after years of gaining experience. Thus, older leaders excel owing to a multitude of rationales. Outstandingly lies in themselves unswerving loyalty to their jobs. The elderly have been working for the most of their lives, thus they do not actually aspire to open more doors to greater achievement and have tendency to stay stable while a young member would rush to achieve own targets. According to a report published by the BLS, 'the length of time a worker remains with the same employer increases with the age at which worker began the job', which means the young are more prone to change their jobs, especially when they are under pressure of working in the government.

In addition, the more people work, the more relationships they form, especially in diplomats. Justifiably, the elderly have strong network preferably to younger generations. A study conducted by the Center on Aging and Work at Boston College pointed out that 46% of employer respondents reported to have better - built professional and clients network compares to the rest are above 40 years old. Advantageous as it seems, letting young people work at national departments, in fact, is a great decision. In contrast to the elderly's calmness and tolerance, youngsters dare to raise their voice and are willing to be 'uncomfortable'. It is stepping out of their comfort zones that clarifies the issues existing in nations, it is something older folks have missed. Understanding that they have the privilege to exert impacts, the youth know they have to take on those daunting tasks including pointing out unraveled issues in every corner of the society or having tough conversations against what they assume atrocious to the community, etc.

Born in the digital era, teenagers these days are open - minded as well as having more profound insights into solutions towards national problems which previously might have been ignored or superficially solved. Astonishingly, it is their way of thinking and solving problems that makes the country more civilized and developed, both in society and in technological aspects. It has been seen through recent years when people witnessed young leaders speak up for folks, putting their efforts into unravelling novel values, breaking the assumptions and connect with one another to built organizations that support their answers to gender inequality, discrimination, racism, etc such as AIESEC, UNICEF, the Sanitation Army, etc.

To encapsulate, youngsters are able to work in the government as they are innovative, sharp and brave to face the issues. Should the young be trained more in the future, nations will stand chances of witnessing rapid development in every aspects.

I take it that the writer is reviewing for the IELTS test alone. Something that I surmised because, instead of writing a simple 4 paragraph response paper, he wrote a 2 page opinion paper instead, as if submitting the paper in a classroom setting. That is an error in judgement on the part of the author. The test wishes to do a simple, written conversation type of English test. It is not something that needs to be over informed, nor over presented. It only needs to have sufficient information to prove the English comprehension and writing skills of the exam taker. There are only 40 minutes allotted to write the best quality essay during the test. That is not accomplished by simply writing a long essay. That normally results in a failing essay test due to scoring deductions that could possibly be applied.

The test will already fail due to exaggerated word usage, incorrect usage of terms, and often confusing references. All of which stem from the effort the writer is making to impress the examiner with his word usage. That is exactly where the long writing errors come in. This is not a mere vocabulary test. It is a test of language usage accuracy for the most part. Something this essay clearly fails to do.

Unless the writer learns to write less, but with more meaning, he will not be able to pass the test. Consider all the scoring considerations and write accordingly, within no more than 300 words. Then, maybe, the author will have a chance to pass the test. As of now, that is not possible.