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.
The famous baseball player Yogi Berra once said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is". Actors in movies, or heroes in archaic novels, who confess heroically that they followed their hearts surely wins a great fan following. But they, unlike in real life does not have to face consequences of the decisions that they make. History has proven this right innumerable times. However, we do not have to look back so much into the past to see how decisions, that are made purely put of knee jerk reflexes or to appease a temporary conflict has proven detrimental in the long run.
In contemporary international politics, we see how a Trump or a Merkel have made statements appealing directly to the emotions of their citizens. While Trump justified a travel ban on citizens from Muslim countries by an incredibly flawed logic that Islam preaches terrorism and that the people from Islamic countries are dangerous, Merkel went a step further in banning the illegal immigrants and refugees from the war stricken nations of Syria and Yemen, justifying her decision by portraying the refugee situation as a threat to the changing demographics of Germany.
There might be some substance to these actions taken by these leaders. However, even to the most common observer, it won't escape his notice, that the immediate motive of these decisions are rather personal, as Trump has always been an advocate of the anti-Islam movement and the America first movement. Hence, they defended their actions, which have purely made as a result of personal vendetta, by picturing at as doing a great good for the nation. If these are the kind of policy makers, who let emotions get the best of them while making crucial foreign policy decisions, then the nations are surely doomed.
Additionally, what is more upsetting is how successful these leaders were, in convincing a vast majority of their supporters regarding the necessity of their decisions and how, the people swallowed their bull and cock logic. This strengthens my view point that, when a nation, with its leaders and citizens, who are susceptible to emotions, become involved in decision making, they can go to any extent to defend their actions by giving the most absurd reasons as to why such an action might was taken.
But, we don't necessarily have to talk about international politics to put light on the argument. Just look at ourselves. Be it a new year resolution that we make, or a wish to diet or start exercising and how successfully we are able to put off ourselves from actually doing any of these by convincing ourselves with absolutely fool proof logic!
Unless we are all pragmatic and start making decisions wisely from our heart, with logic verifying our decisions and not being used to defend our actions, we must be ready to face the consequences of these actions - whatever they may be!
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 9, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...h an action might was taken. But, we dont necessarily have to talk about internat...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, regarding, so, then, while, as to, kind of, as a result, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2436.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98159509202 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67933924855 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578732106339 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 704.065955056 108% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 121.834620451 60.3974514979 202% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 143.294117647 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7647058824 23.4991977007 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.17647058824 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171028246055 0.243740707755 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0411192263231 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411859641128 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.08538286914 0.150359130593 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334544603478 0.0667264976115 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.2 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.