colourlesslight

Hello! Do you know if there is a good website to check my writing sample (for free)? Thank you in advance

Here are my two writing section samples. This is the first time I've tried a timed writing section. If you have a moment and would like to provide some feedback, I thank you in advance 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. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. Oftentimes, our society is lead to believe that change always implies something good. However, change that occurs too often, and without direction, may lead to disasterous results. I argue that those in power, whether it be in business, education, politics or government, should not have to step down after five years. First of all, leadership does not always need to be renewed in order for an institution to be successful. Although the renewal of leadership may lead to some systematic changes that result in an overall positive outcome for an institution, oftentimes there is no method to prove that these results will occur. However, there is one conclusion that usually can be agreed upon: with new leadership comes new rules, or at least a slightly different ones than with the previous leader. New rules do not automatically entail a successful paradigm. The rules of the new leadership might lead a company, university, or whole country into complete chaos. Although changing the leadership might give a fresh start to an organization, choosing a new leader is not always the most reliable way to create positive change within a system. Secondly, a leader that is in power for longer than five years isn’t always past his or her prime. The current person of power might actually be in the process of instigating change within a system and that change would be stunted or even completely destroyed due to the new leadership. Having a policy which forces the leadership to change every five years would mean that each leader, no matter the situation, would have to fit their plan for a system into a mere five years; this is absurd. Understandably, five years is too short for many leaders, especially those who prove to be competent at their job. However, there are some cases in which having the leadership change every five years might prove effective. In the United States, the president changes every four years; this allows for other political parties and, perhaps, minority positions, to have a chance at a position of power, rather than having one ruling party. The same goes for some businesses: in growing fields, such as IT or any other technology-related area, there is always a massive growth rate. Having a veteren within a technology-related field wouldn’t be as useful as in other more stable categories, such as at a University. However, even in these fast-growing field cases, having a limit of five years seems too short – if a person of power is doing well in their position, they should have the ability to continue their leadership. Taken from the example given above – even the president of the United States is allowed a second term. In conclusion, I have aruged that those in a position of power – whether is be in business, education, politics, or government – should not have a five-year cap on their leadership. A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."" Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument. The argument that an experiment with eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual’s levels of stimulation is flawed for numerous reasons. First, the argument makes the assumption that rhesus monkeys and humans have almost identical physiologies. Also, the argument uses confusing language that could lead to equivocation of terms, as well as unreliable numbers. Finally, the argument assumes a causal relationship between cortisol and stimulation within the mother and the child, when we have little or no reason to believe this claim. The main problem with this experiment is the fact that humans and rhesus monkeys do not have identicial physiologies. Small physiological differences can take a huge toll on a body; cortisol, although present, might have a different effect on the human physiological system than on the monkeys. The argument mentions that there is a relationship between stimulating situations, which “primes the body for increased activity levels” but does not clarify if this also applies to the human body. If the argument were to include information on the effect of cortisol on the human body, the study would have a stronger argument but not quite solid since monkeys and humans are innately different. Another problem with the argument this study makes is about the vagueness of the language, as well as the statistics. The report of the study relies on the term “stimulating situations.” However, the study does not provide a through account of the meaning of the term. In such cases, if the definition were to be too broad (i.e. simulating situations could be seeing a new object, or watching the death of ones mother), then the results of the experiment would be much less significant. If the argument were to clarify narrow and precisify the unclear terms, then the thesis would be much better supported – perhaps a better comparison between the stimulation in the mother and child. As for the statistics, there is an issue with the number of participant monkeys – only 18! This small sample wouldn’t be representative of any results within scientific literature; furthermore, there were no statistics taken from humans. The argument would be stronger if the statistics were taken from a much larger sample group, as well as a human sample group. The last issue with this argument which I will address is related to the casual assumption between cortisol in mothers and children. Although the argument provides examples of when cortisol and stimulation are connected (i.e. an encounter with an unfamilar money; return of a parent) there isn’t a strong connection established between the levels of cortisol present within the mother and the effect on the infant, as the first-born. Perhaps the high levels of cortisol were not caused by the fact that the infant was first-born, but that the mother was experiencing a new situation for the first time. If the argument were to make clear that there are no other factors causing the change in cortisol, as well as some more experimental evidence which supports the relationship between cortisol present in the mother on the child, then the argument would be much stronger. In conclusion, the argument that an experiment with eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual’s levels of stimulation is flawed for numerous reasons, and should be investiaged further before making any strong claims.