Emotion is an inherent part of our condition: our ability to acknowledge, accept and react to emotional indicators is distinctly human. As Descartes famously conceded, "I think, therefore I am". Without our ability to assess and act on our emotions we would be less human and more robotic, with cost-benefit analysis as the only decider of how to act. While decisions that are made based on emotion alone might often lead to poor decision making, it is likely that emotional decisions may yield more sensitive, conscientious results than a decision arrived at purely through deductive logic. This is for several reasons. First, emotions are primal instincts and reliable indicators of what we truly believe is right or wrong, regardless of the capacity of logistical reason in capturing this. Second, decisions based on logic alone may neglect our ability to exercise emotional intelligence and would likely yield hurtful, albeit reasoned, results.
Humans have basic instincts that are triggered in situations where we have to make quick decisions. These primal survival instincts are informed by our emotional capabilities, including fear, guilt, sadness and joy. For example, fear is the emotion that catalyses the decision to remain stationary when presented with a physical threat. In a scenario where an armed assailant threatens someone, it is likely that fear will kick in and the person will give in and not fight. Logic would tell the individual to flee, or perhaps fight, but the emotional reaction that takes precedence is what initially drives the decision. It is difficult to articulate this reaction through logic, as reason often falls short when attempting to define our rash emotionally driven actions. However, this is not to say that the person made a poor decision. Simply because weak inductive logic like "I couldn't help it" doesn't justify the action does not indicate a poor decision. Rather, it just suggests that the decision was more primal and instinctual, and therefore harder to define. This could also explain moments of superhuman strength, such as the proverbial rumour of mothers being able to lift heavy cars to save a trapped child. No logic could explain or justify this, but emotional statements such as "it was instinct" does not do the decision justice.
The ability to anticipate and react to other people's emotional signals is another distinctly human facet. This emotional intelligence is what prevents us from making hurtful, harmful decisions and drives us to act in accordance to social norms and appease our humanity. Decisions arrived at through logic alone would neglect to account for these emotional signals in the pursuit of the logical, least cost action. For example, in a case where an employee is being made redundant by a boss, it is logical for the boss to take the least-time consuming route with a laconic, brief interaction like a text to say "You're a bad worker and I can't afford you." However this is hurtful and fails to account for the emotional impact that it would have upon the other individual. An emotionally driven interaction that is kinder and more sensitive to their emotions would yield a better result despite being less logically sound. For instance it might be better for the boss to take some time out of their day to sit with the employee and explain why they cannot afford them, and to perhaps write out a letter of recommendation to soften the blow. While it may seem less logical and harder to justify in the long term, the emotionally conscious decision is the better decision in this scenario as it yields a more positive result for both parties. For example, it might make little logical sense for a state to take in more refugees given the cost, impact on existing jobs, housing markets and economy, but it is the more humane and emotionally-sensitive decision to do so. This is because we also need to take into account the risk and danger to the other party, and how they would be affected by our decisions. Logic alone would probably derive less costly, but more selfish outcomes, and as such it is not necessarily the best indicator of good decision making.
Regardless of whether emotionally driven actions yield the best result in terms of cost and benefit, emotional actions are likely to yield more sensitive and instinctual actions. It is harder to logically justify emotional decisions in the aftermath but this is not necessarily an indicator of bad decision making.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 521, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...onal decisions may yield more sensitive, conscientious results than a decision ar...
^^
Line 3, column 887, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...cause weak inductive logic like 'I couldnt help it' doesnt justify the action...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 909, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ogic like 'I couldnt help it' doesnt justify the action does not indicate a ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: ', the least'.
Suggestion: , the least
...al signals in the pursuit of the logical, least cost action. For example, in a case whe...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 616, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: You're
...ef interaction like a text to say 'Youre a bad worker and I cant afford you.&apo...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 641, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...t to say 'Youre a bad worker and I cant afford you.' However this is hurtf...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, i think, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 34.0 14.8657303371 229% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 63.0 33.0505617978 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3773.0 2235.4752809 169% => OK
No of words: 741.0 442.535393258 167% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09176788124 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21740502335 4.55969084622 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73177135546 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 329.0 215.323595506 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.443994601889 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1211.4 704.065955056 172% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6519628065 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.766666667 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63333333333 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30352839838 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0925287487298 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0930427317279 0.0758088955206 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223859168848 0.150359130593 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0212070685317 0.0667264976115 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 168.0 100.480337079 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.