jaijoshi

People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. Essay: Every person takes myriad decisions in the journey of life. Generally decisions are based upon multiple factors:emotions, logic, consequences of decisions, people involved in the situation. People choose the option with which they feel more comfortable then it may be based on emotion or logic. Let's consider a few examples: Staying away from family for better job opportunities, better education are one of the most important decisions for one's career. One person might choose to stay with the family and leave career opportunities because of emotional attachment with family, sometimes he needs to give emotional support to the family. Another person might choose to leave family and go for his/her dreams. First decision is based on emotions but still there is logic behind it, the person won't be happy after leaving his family. He feels good in his comfort zone. Maybe he does not have courage to go away, stay alone and make new friends, start a new life. For him emotional decision is logical. He has his own reasons. Second person likes to take challenges, explore the world, get out of his comfort zone. His decision is also based on emotions that he wants to grow and improve. He has logic and emotions in his decision. Does it mean that any one of them is a poor decision maker? No. They are good and happy with their own decisions. Both of them are able to justify their decision with logic. Maybe first person has taken decision based on emotions but still it is logical. Moderate amount of emotions are always logical. Let's consider country's important decisions. PM cannot take such decisions based on only emotions, because it will affect entire country. If he takes decisions based on emotions then he won't be able to justify it with apt logic. Even if he generates some logic then it will be fallacious. In this case, PM will be poor decision maker. CEO of a company cannot take decisions based only on emotions. There should be practical reasoning. Emotions should be important part of any decision because our happiness or sadness after decision is also a emotion. The way we will handle consequences of decision depends upon our emotions. If we are able to justify our decision with logic then definitely we are not poor decision makers. But whether we should focus more on emotions or practical approach depends upon the situation, consequences after decision, people involved in decision making.

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 subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet. Essay: Author says government of Tagus should do everything to promote new type of millet to combat vitamin A deficiency. There is vitamin A deficiency in the impoverished nation of Tagus. According to given argument, seeds of new millet cost more so farmers will be paid subsidies for farming them. What if subsidies are not sufficient? We do not have exact numbers of how much subsidy is given to farmers and how much is the cost of seeds. How the farmers will manage with low subsidies? Farmers will have their own farming techniques, which crops they want to farm. They must be doing it since years. Farming land will be same then why would they shift from their regular farming to new type of millet. What if farmers are not ready to farm new variety of millet? Millet is already a staple food in Tagus. Then why people will shift from regular millet to this new variety? It may happen that people won't like taste of new millet. Government is giving subsidies to farmers as seeds of new variety of millet are costly. It means that most probably new millet will also be costly than regular millet. Vitamin deficiency is in the impoverished nation of Tagus. Poor people won't be able to afford new millet if it is costly. Author says to combat vitamin A deficiency, government should do everything to promote new type of millet. Government should find out why their is vitamin A deficiency in people. If there is any solid reason for deficiency then government should spread awareness among the people regarding it. Argument does not provide any evidence of research conducted. It says international development organization has engineered a new breed of millet. Government should conduct research first. They should experiment it on a group of people before promoting it in Tagus. Government should conduct a survey to examine efficiency of the new type of millet. Is it really effective? It should be verified it it is causing any other harmful effects on consumers. There should be proper research about how much quantity of millet should be consumed daily to overcome vitamin A deficiency. It is not even mentioned in the argument that any research is conducted before giving new millet to people. Argument is fallacious in terms of efficiency of new millet, millet will be promoted without any prior experiments, poor people will be able to afford new millet and why would farmers farm new type of millet ? Author has not given valid explanation for above points.

Argument topic: 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 subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. Essay: Author says government of Tagus should do everything to promote new type of millet to combat vitamin A deficiency. There is vitamin A deficiency in the impoverished nation of Tagus. According to given argument, seeds of new millet cost more so farmers will be paid subsidies for farming them. What if subsidies are not sufficient? We do not have exact numbers of how much subsidy is given to farmers and how much is the cost of seeds. How the farmers will manage with low subsidies? Farmers will have their own farming techniques, which crops they want to farm. They must be doing it since years. Farming land will be same then why would they shift from their regular farming to new type of millet. What if farmers are not ready to farm new variety of millet? Millet is already a staple food in Tagus. Then why people will shift from regular millet to this new variety? It may happen that people won't like taste of new millet. Government is giving subsidies to farmers as seeds of new variety of millet are costly. It means that most probably new millet will also be costly than regular millet. Vitamin deficiency is in the impoverished nation of Tagus. Poor people won't be able to afford new millet if it is costly. Author says to combat vitamin A deficiency, government should do everything to promote new type of millet. Government should find out why their is vitamin A deficiency in people. If there is any solid reason for deficiency then government should spread awareness among the people regarding it. Argument does not provide any evidence of research conducted. It says international development organization has engineered a new breed of millet. Government should conduct research first. They should experiment it on a group of people before promoting it in Tagus. Government should conduct a survey to examine efficiency of the new type of millet. Is it really effective? It should be verified it it is causing any other harmful effects on consumers. There should be proper research about how much quantity of millet should be consumed daily to overcome vitamin A deficiency. It is not even mentioned in the argument that any research is conducted before giving new millet to people. Argument is fallacious in terms of efficiency of new millet, millet will be promoted without any prior experiments, poor people will be able to afford new millet and why would farmers farm new type of millet ? Author has not given valid explanation for above points.

Essay topic : 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. My Essay: Every person takes myriad decisions in the journey of life. Generally decisions are based upon multiple factors:emotions, logic, consequences of decisions, people involved in the situation. People choose the option with which they feel more comfortable then it may be based on emotion or logic. Let's consider a few examples: Staying away from family for better job opportunities, better education are one of the most important decisions for one's career. One person might choose to stay with the family and leave career opportunities because of emotional attachment with family, sometimes he needs to give emotional support to the family. Another person might choose to leave family and go for his/her dreams. First decision is based on emotions but still there is logic behind it, the person won't be happy after leaving his family. He feels good in his comfort zone. Maybe he does not have courage to go away, stay alone and make new friends, start a new life. For him emotional decision is logical. He has his own reasons. Second person likes to take challenges, explore the world, get out of his comfort zone. His decision is also based on emotions that he wants to grow and improve. He has logic and emotions in his decision. Does it mean that any one of them is a poor decision maker? No. They are good and happy with their own decisions. Both of them are able to justify their decision with logic. Maybe first person has taken decision based on emotions but still it is logical. Moderate amount of emotions are always logical. Let's consider country's important decisions. PM cannot take such decisions based on only emotions, because it will affect entire country. If he takes decisions based on emotions then he won't be able to justify it with apt logic. Even if he generates some logic then it will be fallacious. In this case, PM will be poor decision maker. CEO of a company cannot take decisions based only on emotions. There should be practical reasoning. Emotions should be important part of any decision because our happiness or sadness after decision is also a emotion. The way we will handle consequences of decision depends upon our emotions. If we are able to justify our decision with logic then definitely we are not poor decision makers. But whether we should focus more on emotions or practical approach depends upon the situation, consequences after decision, people involved in decision making.