please take a look at this issue task

[dicapino]

In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.

 

Before stepping down from power, Nelson Mandela, was pleaded with to seek reelection for a second term of five years, he simply said “young people should be allowed to bring in new vigour into governance”. While some persons argue that people in power should rule for more than five years so as to ensure stability, others believe that leaders should step down to allow for renew zeal. I believe in government leaders should step down after five years, but in businesses leaders should stay longer to ensure stable enterprise.

 

Firstly, Nelson Mandela and South Africa is a lucid example why leaders should step down. After leading his people out of apartheid, he became the first black president of the country. He did not seek reelection after his first tenure, he pass power to a younger Thabo Mbeki, who was able to bring in new and modern ideas on how South Africa was to be relevant in the 21^st century. Today, south Africa can boast the most buoyant economy in Africa and low poverty level in a continent were penury is rampant and other Africans see the rainbow country as the United States of Africa.

 

 

In contrast with South Africa, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been in power for over 40years and has not changed the fortune of the country. Zimbabwe has the highest inflation rate in the world, venality thrives in that country and he has not been able to solve these problems even with the amount of time he has spent in power. This all shows that there is a dearth of new ideas available in leadership when politicians stay too long in power.

 

 

Business leadership should stay longer in power so as to allow for stability. In the business world changing power frequently is a sign of weakness. A change in leadership in such organization may lead to structural changes that may affect business negatively as new employees are hired and there might be a time lag for there to be understanding. For example, Microsoft plans to change its CEO in 2014 after over 20 years at the helm of affairs. This shows that stability is taken seriously by large corporations.

 

 

In conclusion, leaders in government should step down after five years, but those in business should be allowed to stay longer. Examples like Mandela, Mugabe and Microsoft aptly illustrate my views. Politicians should not stay too long in power as this may lead to impunity, but business leaders should stay longer, so that the longevity of such corporations are assured.

[ratlab]

Your argument using Nelson Mandela is very weak, and on the whole the essay is too short.  Nelson Mandela could have stayed in office for another five years and done the same things Thabo did, maybe even better because he had the tremendous experience and support of the people behind him. When I say that, I counter your argument way too easily.  Your language also gets a bit muddled (ie. "United States of Africa" sentence).  I'll come back to this thread when I have more time to offer more in-depth feedback.

Edited December 31, 2013 by ratlab

[dicapino]

Your argument using Nelson Mandela is very weak, and on the whole the essay is too short.  Nelson Mandela could have stayed in office for another five years and done the same things Thabo did, maybe even better because he had the tremendous experience and support of the people behind him. When I say that, I counter your argument way too easily.  Your language also gets a bit muddled (ie. "United States of Africa" sentence).  I'll come back to this thread when I have more time to offer more in-depth feedback.

 

thanks. well @ratlab for that sentence i gooffed, i shouldn't have used that. i wrote this essay under a timed situation, i was seriously rushing to meet 30mins. but please won't i get a 3.5 or 3 on these essays. for that statement it was rubbish, sorry for that. thanks again for looking through, hope to get a reply back

[katethekitcat]

As ratlab said, your essay needs to be much longer. Longer essays get higher scores. Multiple test-prep companies have studied this.

 

Your argument of "political leaders should step down, but business leaders shouldn't" is weak - I don't buy why the fields require these different stances. In addition, you've addressed two areas - politics and business - but making the distinction (yes in one, no in the other) leaves me wondering your position on education, which the question also mentioned. You're not taking a position on the main idea of the prompt so much as specific examples presented by the question.

 

Be careful with your grammar throughout the essay. There were several errors, and this is going to make it difficult to bring your score up. Yes, you wrote the essay under a timed situation - but the GRE is also timed.

[dicapino]

As ratlab said, your essay needs to be much longer. Longer essays get higher scores. Multiple test-prep companies have studied this.

 

Your argument of "political leaders should step down, but business leaders shouldn't" is weak - I don't buy why the fields require these different stances. In addition, you've addressed two areas - politics and business - but making the distinction (yes in one, no in the other) leaves me wondering your position on education, which the question also mentioned. You're not taking a position on the main idea of the prompt so much as specific examples presented by the question.

 

Be careful with your grammar throughout the essay. There were several errors, and this is going to make it difficult to bring your score up. Yes, you wrote the essay under a timed situation - but the GRE is also timed.

thanks. i make my essays longer and state a clear position and avoid vacillating. take these two points seriously

[Human_]

Don't start off right away with the example. Your first paragraph should state in a general sense why you agree or disagree with the premise, and provide an outline of your argument. Each following paragraph should correspond to one of the points in your argument. At least that's how I wrote it and scored a 5. 

[dicapino]

Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

 

Is government funding of the arts necessary for it to flourish or does it threaten its integrity? While some persons would argue that public funds are necessary in the arts so that artworks are accessible by the public, others argue that such funds affect the impartiality of the arts and allow political interest to overshadow its candidness. I believe government funds affect the arts objectivity, artist's creativity; also, illegitimate regimes can use it as a means for propaganda.

 

 

Firstly, government could make artist eschew objectivity and impartiality from their work. Artworks should among other things depict society; its character, problems and aspirations. If its leaders fail to meet the expectation of the citizens, it is the job of the artist to speak out with their art works. But this won't be the case when majority of the funds that artist realize for their works are from government coffers, artist may have to be biased in favour of their benevolent patron to the detriment of the public. Political involvement in arts surely threatens the integrity of the arts. For example, in North Korea, were government is in charge of everything, artworks are in favour of the regime in contrast to the real suffering of the masses, imagine Kim jong un unveiled a painting of a prosperous country.

 

 

Furthermore, government can use such opportunity to spread propaganda to the citizens. The arts imaginativeness and abstractness is able to pervade through the populace and send messages that can affect their outlook on various topics like: culture, racism, slavery and the rest; most of these evil were abolished by art works that enlightened the public. Therefore, putting the apparatus of art in the hands of a despotic government, it may be used to send propaganda to the public. For instance, Hitler's Mainz Kempt that exuded his virulent Anti-Semitism to many Germans and the works of other Nazi artists during this period was an important prelude to World War two.

 

 

Proponents against my idea argue that such funds will make the arts flourish since it will help subsidize art works, museums, galleries and the rest. But still I argue that such magnanimity can come from private hands that have the means and good intention towards the arts. For instance, during the Medieval Age powerful Italian families help artists like Di Angelo and his contemporaries in carrying out their craft.

 

 

In summary, government funding of the arts threatens its integrity and objectivity. Funding of the arts should be put in the hands of private individuals, so as to retain the objectivity and impartiality of art works.