GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Please review my essay. My second AWA attempt.
[#permalink]
29 Jun 2019, 06:29
29 Jun 2019, 06:29
Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
A political leader can be said to be effective if his actions direct a nation toward a goal of development. The issue at hand tries to find out whether a leader should give in to public opinions or keep his grounds on his principles and goals. Although working as per people's opinions might make them happier, yet a leader must always be committed to his principles and strive towards his ultimate objectives because a developed nation will help people prosper in the long run.
Yielding to what a nation is saying is beneficial in certain cases and can avoid disasters. People look at problems from a different perspective and might offer better and pragmatic solutions. For instance, after the tie in the 2014 elections in India two times in a row, two opposing parties BJP and Congress had to join hands to form the government. Although they were adament that a third election should be held, the public voiced against the proposition. Both had to find a middle ground for their clashing principles and work hand-in-hand to steer a country's policies. During their term as government, India saw one of the largest boost in GDP, hence showing that public opinions are sometimes more effective than the principles of leaders. However public mixes emotions with clear thinking and that is a reason for big problems like the Civil war in SriLanka. People wanted to destroy certain parts of society that followed a contrasting sect, hence leading to Civil wars.
However, remaining committed to working on a fixed goal would make a nation progress towards a objective on a well thought out plan. Political leaders work day and night coming up with plans to steer a nation towards prosperity. For example, American Presidents worked day and night to bring an end to slavery inspite of extrinsic challenges. Staying committed to a particular objective and being guided by a set of principles helps to grow a nation as a whole.
Unyielding to the public opinion might not be taken in a well spirited manner by the people and there might be revolts, however, in the long run the nation moves steadily towards development. Mixing of public ideas with a well crafted plan developed for years definitely impedes it's efficiency. For instance, in 2001, Pakistan wanted Kashmir, a state in India, that led to violent wars and terrorist attacks. Although people opined to get rid of the state, the government stood steady on it's principles and finally won the battle. Kashmir still remains a part of India. Had the ministers given in to the public sentiment, India would have lost a state that brings in 20% of the revenue earned by the tourism industry.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
A political leader can be said to be effective if his actions direct a nation toward a goal of development. The issue at hand tries to find out whether a leader should give in to public opinions or keep his grounds on his principles and goals. Although working as per people's opinions might make them happier, yet a leader must always be committed to his principles and strive towards his ultimate objectives because a developed nation will help people prosper in the long run.
Yielding to what a nation is saying is beneficial in certain cases and can avoid disasters. People look at problems from a different perspective and might offer better and pragmatic solutions. For instance, after the tie in the 2014 elections in India two times in a row, two opposing parties BJP and Congress had to join hands to form the government. Although they were adament that a third election should be held, the public voiced against the proposition. Both had to find a middle ground for their clashing principles and work hand-in-hand to steer a country's policies. During their term as government, India saw one of the largest boost in GDP, hence showing that public opinions are sometimes more effective than the principles of leaders. However public mixes emotions with clear thinking and that is a reason for big problems like the Civil war in SriLanka. People wanted to destroy certain parts of society that followed a contrasting sect, hence leading to Civil wars.
However, remaining committed to working on a fixed goal would make a nation progress towards a objective on a well thought out plan. Political leaders work day and night coming up with plans to steer a nation towards prosperity. For example, American Presidents worked day and night to bring an end to slavery inspite of extrinsic challenges. Staying committed to a particular objective and being guided by a set of principles helps to grow a nation as a whole.
Unyielding to the public opinion might not be taken in a well spirited manner by the people and there might be revolts, however, in the long run the nation moves steadily towards development. Mixing of public ideas with a well crafted plan developed for years definitely impedes it's efficiency. For instance, in 2001, Pakistan wanted Kashmir, a state in India, that led to violent wars and terrorist attacks. Although people opined to get rid of the state, the government stood steady on it's principles and finally won the battle. Kashmir still remains a part of India. Had the ministers given in to the public sentiment, India would have lost a state that brings in 20% of the revenue earned by the tourism industry.
Re: Please review my essay. My second AWA attempt.
[#permalink]
11 Nov 2019, 12:34
11 Nov 2019, 12:34
can sb rate my essay ?
“Some people believe that in order to be effective. political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. “
Concerning what political parties must to use as a basis to make important decisions in order to be effective in the society, people do not see eyes to eyes. Many people believe that leader must listen to the publics’ opinions and change ideas. On the contrary to the first communities, others have strong belief that successful leaders are who, well-established their words. I strongly contend that political members should be deep-rooted in their own strategies without altering their words which I buttress my position by augmenting meticulous assumptions.
The first reason is that this approach would make trust among general publics as political leaders are consistent towards their established arguments and they are confident that their discussion will produce positive outcomes. In addition, ample people react to sensitive situations emotionally and they are not adroit to make proper decisions. To clarify this position, people may have pathetic reactions to issues related to the war. However, political communities have apropos knowledge and experience about protecting countries from the hostility arguments and they may hold strong opinions that the solely option to protect country from interfering other nations is to be contentious toward each other.
Another equally important reason is that political parties analyze both advantages and disadvantages of strategies before disseminating the news to publics, so leaders should not react emotionally to news in order to attract the attention of general people. It is conspicuous that publics believe the specific leader’s principles after voting to choose him, so the governors should not apply any methods in order to intrigue people by modifying views. In addition, it may hamper people’s trust by altering beliefs because people felt confident towards the first strategies and assumptions, so changing the first argument may result in discrediting and chaos among people. It is more likely individuals try to organize disparate communities in order to change country’s situations and it may produce disorganized status. To illustrate this case, evaluating the situation of one of developing counties such as Turkey where the power of social people is more established than that of political leaders in 2016, heretic people who was iconoclastic towards Erdogan and Islamic people tries to change county’s position by being more robust parties.
However, what I stated above. myriad people believe that political groups should make decisions in accord with listening to publics’ views in order to be prosperous. It is not duplicity to adopt their positions in the different periods and it is apparent old principles may not apply to the modern times as the conditions and rules are not comparable. Governments should consider publics claims in order to solve their problems and abandon any kinds of turbulence conditions. But I personally believe that governors should not answer all of the acclaims immediately and they have responsibility to evaluate pros and cons, analyze their cooperated and opposition parties’ discussions at the same time and try to find a stable answer which deals with publics’ problems and ameliorate the whole situation of the society. By following these steps, leaders can seize opportunity to accurately set new standards. However, establishing fresh strategies needs to consider many consecutive years.
To sum up, there are different views about defining and denoting the leadership. Many people argue that political people should emphasize their own assumption in order to be a successful group. On the other hand, Others think that political parties have responsibility towards people’s difficulties and the rules must be changed which focusing on public’ attitudes. I personally agree that governments should have deep-rooted beliefs towards their own tale stories, However, it is wrong to assume that governors should ignore and nullify general people’s considerations.
“Some people believe that in order to be effective. political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. “
Concerning what political parties must to use as a basis to make important decisions in order to be effective in the society, people do not see eyes to eyes. Many people believe that leader must listen to the publics’ opinions and change ideas. On the contrary to the first communities, others have strong belief that successful leaders are who, well-established their words. I strongly contend that political members should be deep-rooted in their own strategies without altering their words which I buttress my position by augmenting meticulous assumptions.
The first reason is that this approach would make trust among general publics as political leaders are consistent towards their established arguments and they are confident that their discussion will produce positive outcomes. In addition, ample people react to sensitive situations emotionally and they are not adroit to make proper decisions. To clarify this position, people may have pathetic reactions to issues related to the war. However, political communities have apropos knowledge and experience about protecting countries from the hostility arguments and they may hold strong opinions that the solely option to protect country from interfering other nations is to be contentious toward each other.
Another equally important reason is that political parties analyze both advantages and disadvantages of strategies before disseminating the news to publics, so leaders should not react emotionally to news in order to attract the attention of general people. It is conspicuous that publics believe the specific leader’s principles after voting to choose him, so the governors should not apply any methods in order to intrigue people by modifying views. In addition, it may hamper people’s trust by altering beliefs because people felt confident towards the first strategies and assumptions, so changing the first argument may result in discrediting and chaos among people. It is more likely individuals try to organize disparate communities in order to change country’s situations and it may produce disorganized status. To illustrate this case, evaluating the situation of one of developing counties such as Turkey where the power of social people is more established than that of political leaders in 2016, heretic people who was iconoclastic towards Erdogan and Islamic people tries to change county’s position by being more robust parties.
However, what I stated above. myriad people believe that political groups should make decisions in accord with listening to publics’ views in order to be prosperous. It is not duplicity to adopt their positions in the different periods and it is apparent old principles may not apply to the modern times as the conditions and rules are not comparable. Governments should consider publics claims in order to solve their problems and abandon any kinds of turbulence conditions. But I personally believe that governors should not answer all of the acclaims immediately and they have responsibility to evaluate pros and cons, analyze their cooperated and opposition parties’ discussions at the same time and try to find a stable answer which deals with publics’ problems and ameliorate the whole situation of the society. By following these steps, leaders can seize opportunity to accurately set new standards. However, establishing fresh strategies needs to consider many consecutive years.
To sum up, there are different views about defining and denoting the leadership. Many people argue that political people should emphasize their own assumption in order to be a successful group. On the other hand, Others think that political parties have responsibility towards people’s difficulties and the rules must be changed which focusing on public’ attitudes. I personally agree that governments should have deep-rooted beliefs towards their own tale stories, However, it is wrong to assume that governors should ignore and nullify general people’s considerations.
gmatclubot
Re: Please review my essay. My second AWA attempt. [#permalink]
11 Nov 2019, 12:34
Moderators:
