People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.
Poor decision making often leads to irreversible damages. There are no second chances in life. Once a critical decision has been made, then there is no going back. Taking the right decision is a vital part in any situation. Sometimes our decision making skills can adversely be affected by our emotions. At those situations, one cannot precisely calculate the outcome or reason the logic behind that because it is the emotion that drives us.
The statement clearly undermines the people who take decisions based on their emotions. Even though sometimes emotionally driven decisions can end up in disasters, it is not the case at all times. It is wise to say that you need not be always right but at times be kind enough so that people are not hurt by your actions or decisions. The logical decisions may not be the most humane in all cases. For example, if a person is found stealing food because he was hungry, it is logical to fine him or give him the right sentence because stealing is always a crime. But, if we look at this from the emotional perspective, we can understand that it is the current world order that has lead to him to steal food as he has no other means to live. At situations similar to this, if we take an emotionally driven stand and set him free, I believe it is not a poor decision but a very humane one and is also logically not wrong.
One can argue that the issues that require humane thinking are and emotionally driven decisions are just a fraction of what real life puts towards and that emotionally driven decisions can have precarious outcomes as well. Yes it is true that it is only a fraction of the cases one deals with in his life, but the statement that badges people who make decisions based on their emotions as poor decision makers can never be fully justified. It all depends on the outcome of the decision and in that case, stereotyping such decision makers may hold absolutely no value. Logical decisions cannot guarantee the harmonious co-existence of human beings. At times we definitely need to be emotionally driven.
We can never brand a person who justifies his emotionally driven decision with a logic afterwards as a poor decision maker. Perhabs his decisions may have bought what is kind to the world than what may be logically right. Again, we can only judge the value of the decision by its end result.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-28 | AC1990 | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | lcosenza | 54 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | mrigimunjal | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-25 | likhithae | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-22 | yashincontrol | 50 | view |
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- The best way to tach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 50
- Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society. 58
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... skills can adversely be affected by our emotions. At those situations, one canno...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, may, second, so, then, well, for example, in all cases, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 58.6224719101 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1947.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 420.0 442.535393258 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.63571428571 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55705307105 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483333333333 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4679423737 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7142857143 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14285714286 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.476671720243 0.243740707755 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.159643737553 0.0831039109588 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118081843438 0.0758088955206 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.333018762542 0.150359130593 221% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066621251062 0.0667264976115 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.63 12.1639044944 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.22 8.38706741573 86% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 100.480337079 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.