People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterward are poor decision-makers.
Every person has had different life experiences and will therefore react to situations differently, responding with varying combinations of emotion and logic. It is difficult to evaluate exactly what is "poor" compared to "correct" decisions, especially in situations that do not have an obvious, logical answer. While there are many examples of both the pros and cons of basing decisions more emotionally as well as more logically, confirming which decision is best will always be debated.
While we look to our President to make difficult choices for the country, there will always be an element of regret, regardless of what the President chooses. For example, if there is a hostage situation in a country where an American family has been captured, and the belligerents want an exchange for a high-profile war criminal with the US, the President may not wish to make the exchange. This may be the logical decision, but will receive criticism as being a poor decision by some. On the other hand, making the exchange will also inevitably be considered a poor decision by others. Just because a decision was made for the greater good, does not mean it was the correct decision to all.
Further, critics of poor decisions must be placed in the decision makers' shoes. How can one evaluate what decision was poor if they do not share a common background? While many Americans felt disenfranchised with the recent police violence and reacted through the Occupy Wall Street campaign, their response received harsh criticism due to the riots, violence, and other social disruptions. While it may seem logical to protest after such injustices by bankers, the emotional response will inevitably be a factor, and influence the protestors' decisions, especially in aggregate. While protestors may not intend to riot, the circumstances and situation may evolve beyond anyone's control.
Lastly, Donald Trump's presidential campaign is another highly visible example of debatable decision making. He is logically capturing many peoples' attention through emotional arguments, and while many of his statements can be considered poor judgement or illogical, his campaign has been highly successful. Would his strategy be considered poor or smart?
Ultimately, there is no objective way in defining what is right and what is wrong, especially in complex situations where there are a spectrum of participants. Without considering people's experiences and backgrounds, one cannot objectively state that a person's decision was "poor;" what that person believed to be logical could be more of an emotional response to someone else.
- Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little 50
- Some people believe that money should be prioritized over time Do you agree or disagree Give specific reasons and examples to support your opinion 70
- Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterward are poor decision makers 62
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 54
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 619, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... not leave a person with the ailment in the alter of God and hope for his miraculous cure...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 670, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...f God and hope for his miraculous cure. Rather they would find hospitals, an action di...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, moreover, so, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2344.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 441.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31519274376 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81351165283 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528344671202 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 745.2 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.8654537162 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.76 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.64 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.4 5.21951772744 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.437772582416 0.243740707755 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11517503849 0.0831039109588 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.166855653239 0.0758088955206 220% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.289011275065 0.150359130593 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.175852968978 0.0667264976115 264% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.