People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.
Our world revolves around choices. It is the foundation of our society, culture, and economy. The results of our choices are reflected in either the deterioration of our envirnoment or the rise in our surroundings. Many of these decisions are based on both emotional and pragmatic approaches and therefore have a myriad of results. The author deems that emotional decision makers who follow their choices with the portrayal of logic are poor decision makers. I strongly agree with this perception and advocate that such decision making can be precarious for two reasons.
Human nature builds its tower on the premises of emotions. In a recent local news article, the psychology behind the individuals' minds were depicted and it portrayed that many emotional decisions leading to disastrous results. For example, a person who quit his job might have made that decision in a split-second due to a leading uproar in his professional life. This person may have been in a quarrel with his boss or a tiff with a specific co-woker and due to the negative emotional state he was currently in, he opted to leave the firm. He later justifies this decision by stating that he would have not wanted to work for a company where he was not happy in anyway. While this justification can many times be deemed reasonable, was his choice really pragmatic? Was this reason truly why he vanquished from the corporation? A practical method of going on about this situation would have been giving ample time to disparate between his emotional state of mind and his practical perceptions.
The law and society does not work on emotional foundations. If the judicial, executive, and legislative branch were to base the laws on the premises of psychology and mentality, then there would be an abundance of pores in the world. For example, thieves are considered miscreants despite their social and socio-economical status. According to the legal officials, they would be persecuted as a detriment for future crimes. However, what if the law decided to exculpate a thief just because he was a penure orphan? If the law had exonnerated the miscreant due to his impeccunious status, that would be exemplified as an emotion-based decision. If they had reasoned that this choice was logical due to various other facts, then it undermines the law as a whole and attenuates the legal system. This is why the branches of the government follow practical solutions rather than fully absorbing into emotional state and insinuating logical methods.
Many could aver that decisions based on emotions which later can be reasoned with logic could truly lead to a sanguine liifestyle, such as college majors, marriage, or even a purchase of a vehicle. However, even these decisions cannot be fully based on emotions, but rather pragmatic aspects. In marriage situations, the question of live with that person for the remaining life apprises, the budget needed to purchase a car is essential, and the job prospect while choosing a college major is an essential inquiry. Therefore, those who think emotionally and follow their decisions by implying logical factors tend to be more prone to mistakes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 661, Rule ID: IN_ANYWAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in any way'?
Suggestion: in any way
...rk for a company where he was not happy in anyway. While this justification can many time...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, but, however, if, may, really, second, so, then, therefore, while, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2651.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 521.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08829174664 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85829607159 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510556621881 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 846.9 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8037361852 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.961538462 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0384615385 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65384615385 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.301506574773 0.243740707755 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0812451895533 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107518519988 0.0758088955206 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200911637359 0.150359130593 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109496022612 0.0667264976115 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 100.480337079 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => 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.