Issue-8.（和111、149一篇文章)
Claim: In any field (business, politics, education, government) those in power should step down after five years because the most certain path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Modern democratic nations have mostly established systems of government that require leaders to step down after several years in office. I think this is an effective practice because those who are in power may be tired and unable to bring new things to their work. Regarding the argument above, although I agree that leaders should step down after a certain amount of time, a 5-year fixed time period is too inflexible. For revitalizing an enterprise, changes of its leaders and other powerful positions needs to be more carefully considered.
Even the most intelligent and passionate leader may tired of his or her role and begin making mistakes. Mao Zedong is a striking example of just such a case. Mao was regarded as an outstanding and powerful leader. During his early years, Mao won the wars against Japanese and other enemies. Then he built an effective economical system for his country. But as time went on, Mao became unable to offer sufficient consideration to the people he was governing and began making bad decisions. These bad decisions resulted in disasters from which China and the Chinese suffered immensely. I think this is because Mao became too comfortable and complacent in his position. His fixed ways of thinking and the fixed ways of thinking employed by the individuals around him created a stagnant situation, one that could have been avoided if leadership were periodically changed.
There is another advantage that enterprises can enjoy if they change their leaders periodically. New people can bring new ideas and policy to the enterprises. Since a person's thoughts are limited, after his intellectual ability is tapped, a company should turn to others. A person, no matter how hard he studies and keeps abreast with developments, is likely to run out of creativity and be restricted in his own perspective. For instance, the famous Japanese architect, Tadao Ando, had designed many creative buildings in last century. However, he failed in several competitions in some recent projects. His failure can be attributed to his single-mindedness, a lack of creativity. As claimed in his new book, Ando benefited from his assistants, who are mostly students and new members in his group. After working more closely with new minds, Ando managed to design with a totally new form. His new designs won him a project of a museum in the United States in 2003. It seems to me that people can only change their perspectives fundamentally when they are required to consider others. And for enterprises, leaders and managers can change their stagnant old ways by being required to cooperate with new minds.
Nevertheless, in the argument above, it is stated that a fixed period of five years should be mandated. In my view, that period is too fixed. As we know, the voting period of the president of the United States is four years, and a president cannot hold on his position for more than 8 years. But in many business enterprises, leaders may take longer time to realize his or her plan. In order to provide enough time to allow for the realization of a reasonable plan, the period—5 years—needs to be extended. Bill Gates, for instance, had worked as the CEO of Microsoft for almost twenty years, during which time the company grew from a small one to one of the world's biggest companies. If Gates had not worked for so long in Microsoft, it would have been hard for him to develop so many operating systems, including DOS, Windows 3.0 and so forth, which made Microsoft what it has today. A consistent ideal for an enterprise is important and can be effectively maintained when one or several people maintain power.
To sum up, since individuals are often limited in their capacities and may be restricted by fixed thinking, it is important for any enterprise to keep an open mind to all competitive members and allow them access to leadership positions through the regular changing of members. As long as the enterprises are willing to revitalize by accepting new blood, and as long as they properly maintain an effective tradition, they will develop and prosper.
- His fixed ways of thinking and the fixed ways of thinking employed by the individuals around him created a stagnant situation, one that could have been avoided if leadership were periodically changed. 本句的后半部分的非限定性定语从句修饰a stagnant situation，使用了虚拟语气，注意were…和could have…的呼应。因为这是对过去事情的假设，因此有了本句的用法。
- A person, no matter how hard he studies and keeps abreast with developments, is likely to run out of creativity and be restricted in his own perspective. 这一句中的亮点是keep abreast with，生动形象地表示了与…齐头并进的意思，abreast一词也是GRE考生应该掌握的词汇。
- It seems to me that people can only change their perspectives fundamentally when they are required to consider others. 本句是主语从句。It作为本句的形式主语，代替了that后引导的内容，即本句的真实主语。主语过长的情况下，有时会采用it作为形式主语保持句子平衡。
本题要求考生发表对题中主张和原因的看法。作者对题目的分析比较准确和全面，其论述涵盖了题干的两个方面，并且对这两个方面分别表明了立场。作者同意定期更换领导者是保持任何事业繁荣发展的必要条件，但对题目中提到的5年周期表示了异议。作者的论述逻辑是，在总分总的结构框架下，先论证第一方面：从未定期更换领导者的弊和定期更换领导者的利两个角度，完整地支持了他/她的第一方面立场；再论证第二方面：5年周期过于死板，实际上有效的周期既可以短于，又可以长于5年。例证素材的选取也比较得当。最后的总结收尾也很简洁，但很清晰。