Call Support +91-85588-96644
TCY online

Login

Sign Up

Please enter a Username or Email ID
Please enter a password
Keep me logged in
Please enter your name
Please enter your mobile number
You can't leave Captcha Code empty
By submitting this form, you agree to the Terms & Privacy Policy.
OR

Sign Up via Facebook

Sign Up via Google

Sign Up via Twitter

Download Software
Tests given

Download TCY App

OR
App Image

SAT Essay

(57 Posts)

Post and discuss tips and tricks for building assertive and convincing arguments

Question should not exceed 100 characters.Use add options for multiple choice questions and "Uploadimage/Add related data" for passage text papers.
Question should be at least 10 characters long.
+
Add Options | Community Guidelines
Cancel
Prabhapaar Batra
Posted on 02 Aug, 2015 5:19 PM

Are many leaders necessary for a group of people to function effectively?

Please type your answer before submitting.
Prabhapaar Batra
Posted on 02 Aug, 2015 5:21 PM

Are many leaders necessary for a group of people to function effectively.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely! And that is what happens if there is a single leader of a group. This can be inferred from instances like WWII when Hitler led his country in the wrong direction and when Napoleon Bonaparte lost everything he had won for France.
One leader of a group means that all the in the hands of one man. The decisions taken would only have one perspective and that may not help the group one perspective and that may not help the group work efficiently .The only reason democracy is considered as one of the best forms of government is because in democracy the best forms of government is because in democracy the power does not lie in the hands of one person but there are a lot of leaders who have their own responsibilities.
The past has quite evidently shown us how a single leader can ruin the future of his group .The Nazis may have been the best and the most competent race in the world but their leader; Adolf Hitler did not let them function effectively and forced them into destruction. Only if there had been some more people to lead the group, then may be the difference of opinion would not have let this happen and there would have been no World War II.
After the execution of King Louis XVI Napoleon emerged as the new of France as he helped France win more territories and increase its influence in Europe. But power corrupted him and Napoleon became the king of France. In his conquest of gaining more territories, he lost the support of many and consequently lost all the territories he had won.
This proves that many leaders are necessary for a group of people to function properly. Both the history and the present show us how more leaders can effectively lead the group. This shows that absolute power in the hands of one is like giving him a ‘burning arrow’ so that he can burn the people of his own group.
-Prabhapaar Singh Batra















































Are many leaders necessary for a group of people to function effectively.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely! And that is what happens if there is a single leader of a group. This can be inferred from instances like WWII when Hitler led his country in the wrong direction and when Napoleon Bonaparte lost everything he had won for France.
One leader of a group means that all the in the hands of one man. The decisions taken would only have one perspective and that may not help the group one perspective and that may not help the group work efficiently .The only reason democracy is considered as one of the best forms of government is because in democracy the best forms of government is because in democracy the power does not lie in the hands of one person but there are a lot of leaders who have their own responsibilities.
The past has quite evidently shown us how a single leader can ruin the future of his group .The Nazis may have been the best and the most competent race in the world but their leader; Adolf Hitler did not let them function effectively and forced them into destruction. Only if there had been some more people to lead the group, then may be the difference of opinion would not have let this happen and there would have been no World War II.
After the execution of King Louis XVI Napoleon emerged as the new of France as he helped France win more territories and increase its influence in Europe. But power corrupted him and Napoleon became the king of France. In his conquest of gaining more territories, he lost the support of many and consequently lost all the territories he had won.
This proves that many leaders are necessary for a group of people to function properly. Both the history and the present show us how more leaders can effectively lead the group. This shows that absolute power in the hands of one is like giving him a ‘burning arrow’ so that he can burn the people of his own group.
-Prabhapaar Singh Batra















































Are many leaders necessary for a group of people to function effectively.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely! And that is what happens if there is a single leader of a group. This can be inferred from instances like WWII when Hitler led his country in the wrong direction and when Napoleon Bonaparte lost everything he had won for France.
One leader of a group means that all the in the hands of one man. The decisions taken would only have one perspective and that may not help the group one perspective and that may not help the group work efficiently .The only reason democracy is considered as one of the best forms of government is because in democracy the best forms of government is because in democracy the power does not lie in the hands of one person but there are a lot of leaders who have their own responsibilities.
The past has quite evidently shown us how a single leader can ruin the future of his group .The Nazis may have been the best and the most competent race in the world but their leader; Adolf Hitler did not let them function effectively and forced them into destruction. Only if there had been some more people to lead the group, then may be the difference of opinion would not have let this happen and there would have been no World War II.
After the execution of King Louis XVI Napoleon emerged as the new of France as he helped France win more territories and increase its influence in Europe. But power corrupted him and Napoleon became the king of France. In his conquest of gaining more territories, he lost the support of many and consequently lost all the territories he had won.
This proves that many leaders are necessary for a group of people to function properly. Both the history and the present show us how more leaders can effectively lead the group. This shows that absolute power in the hands of one is like giving him a ‘burning arrow’ so that he can burn the people of his own group.
-Prabhapaar Singh Batra

















































TCY
Posted on 15 Jul, 2014 1:24 PM

Read the following article and post your responses in comments. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 Cheers Team TCY

Please type your answer before submitting.
Noorinder Singh
Posted on 16 Jul, 2014 9:03 AM

We humans assume that there is an evolutionary advantage to our larger brains. But we haven't been around long enough to know if that is true. The bee problem is one more sign that we may be outsmarting ourselves in the long run.

TCY
Posted on 08 Jul, 2014 2:19 PM

Please read this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/should-germans-read-mein-kampf.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Please type your answer before submitting.