GRE作文5.5分轻松备考：ISSUE习作范文（12）

　　TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
　　WORDS: 609 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2007-8-7
　　According to the title of the statement, if a profession want to gain success it must obtain revitalization through a five-year change in leadership, without exception either from business to politics or from education to government.
　　Undeniably, it is quite appealing staying at a normative position, and I consent insofar as regularly changing leaders can surely bring in enterprise revitalization. Nevertheless, whether to change leaders every rigid five years should be discussed before a case-by-case analysis.
　　It's true that the speaker's assertion that letting those in power step down after a period of time can bring progression to every profession has many merits.
　　Actually, many countries have already set certain regulations for regularly changing potentates no in the realm of politics or in other organizations.
　　USir Acton once said: "Absolute power will surely lead to absolute corruption." Consider in a corporation or in a prestigious university, only if its leaders be changed regularly, can problems such as abusing power, appropriating money or setting up strategies irresponsibly be avoided. Also, in the realm of politics, autarchy will come out when there is not limitations on a leader's power. A case in point lies in Napoleon, a hero who emancipated the French from the shackle of feudalism and defended them from the invasion of neighboring countries, but it is also his absolute power that entrapped France in the war with Russia and brought the French total pandemonium after the collapse of the empire of France. In the contrary, President George Washington refused to run for the third term as the president for the USA exactly because he feared to bring autarchy. Such regulations benefit both the country and the mass public, for their freedom is ensured. In addition, new leadership can bring in revitalization and creativity.
　　UThe fact that person can be elected indicates he/she possesses certain ability or at least potential to lead such a group and he/she will surely bring in some new ideas and interpretations which …
　　Beyond this concession, however, I still cannot totally agree on the statement because it seems to recommend that every profession must strictly obey this "five-year" rule, at any time, or else it will suffer failure. But this is not always the case. Firstly, a five-year time frame is not necessarily fit for any enterprise.
　　The election for president in America is held every 4 years, which fit the United State quite well; a private coal mine in our province (Shanxi) has changed 3 executives only in 4 years, which is acknowledged as a dramatic success.
　　Therefore, how long should a potentate stand in power should vary in different professions. What's more, this rule should be flexible when some special events come out. UFor example, we should reelect our president but a war sets up; we plan to change the leader of our research group next week but the old one just get an significant subject and its fund; we will meet our new executive tomorrow but he/she suddenly suffer an accident … Should we determine our changing routine? Apparently not.
　　To sum up, I concede the speaker's claim that the surest path to success for any profession is revitalization through new leadership and thus those in power should step down after a proper time span. Nonetheless, the speaker rigidly claims that those potentates must be changed every five years. In the final analysis, the appropriate attitude towards this issue, in my appreciation, should be a balanced one that each profession must has its own regulations for the period one leader in power and this decision should be made before an through investigation of the character of the enterprise itself and the status in quo.