People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
A popular saying goes "look before you leap and think before you speak". The lesson it conveys is that careful thought must precede all our actions and utterances. Decisions taken should be based on careful contemplation rather than whimsical notions. Our emotions should not govern our decision making as they have a tendency to cloud our better judgement. Hence, good decision makers do not seek logic after making decisions purely on the basis of emotions.
Good decision makings comprises a proper understanding of the context of any situation, evaluation of the possible options as well weighing in the pros and cons of each. When we let our emotions take hold of us we lose the power of thinking rationally and undergoing the due process necessary to make a logical decision. We can be driven by negative emotions of envy or hatred as well as positive emotions of love or deference. In either case, we make decision which are heavily prejudiced. This delays the employment of logic. We make precarious decisions and then try to justify the same by using faulty and self serving logic.
It is not an easy task to stay absolutely unaffected by emotion before making a decision. But it is highly recommended as can be illustrated in the trial proceedings of the judicial system. For high profile cases which get good media coverage it is advised to the jury to limit their exposure to media stories of the case. The highly opinionated editorial pieces or television discussions can seriously hamper the ability of a jury member to make a rational decision pertaining to the case. The best way to make a decision is to look at the bare facts of the case. Nowadays even while a case is under trial in a court of law a parallel media trial aims to impart a decision of its own. Exposing oneself to such a clearly biased and ill informed proceeding can color one's judgement immensely. Therefore, jury members are advised to stay well away from such stories in case their judgement gets biased.
Another example is the Gulf War which saw the invasion of Iraq by the US army under the Bush administration. on the hunch that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. After thousands of lives were lost and an entire country ravaged, it was found that the claims of Iraq hiding weapons of mass destruction were based on at best very flimsy evidence. But since the war came at such a huge cost it was justified by claiming it was a fair war as it led to the captivity and ultimately hanging of the tyrannical ruler Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, this windfall of the war seems like a weak justification for a decision which was driver more by emotion and less by logic.
Any good decision's hallmark is the basis on which it is being made. A disinterested level headed approach to arrive at any decision is required in order to make a fair decision. Our emotions can obstruct our thinking and lead to poor decisions which can negatively affect one or more individuals. Instead of looking for logic after taking whimsical decisions, a good decision maker strives for logic beforehand.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 767, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...d and ill informed proceeding can color ones judgement immensely. Therefore, jury me...
^^^^
Line 7, column 110, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
... US army under the Bush administration. on the hunch that Iraq is hiding weapons o...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, look, so, then, therefore, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2567.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 534.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80711610487 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7356986911 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514981273408 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 839.7 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.592990453 60.3974514979 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.6785714286 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0714285714 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.35714285714 5.21951772744 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.283426655402 0.243740707755 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781663528933 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060641807392 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164968979361 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0577728515296 0.0667264976115 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.1392134831 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.