Hello! I am looking to swap essays with those of you who have answered the below Manhattan prompts. I would love to evaluate your writing (as well as hear your opinion about my writing). Thanks in advance!

Prompt 1: 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.

Answer 1: People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterward are indeed poor decision-makers. Decisions based on emotion are subject to passion rather than logic. There are several reasons as to why only poor decision-makers make decisions based on emotion and later justify these decisions with logic.

Firstly, emotion-based decisions that depend on logic after the fact seriously hinder our nation's ability to hold constructive political discussions. A good example is the outrage culture that is prevalent in the United States today. Our political spectrum is dominated by the two extremes, both of whom are obstinate in winning the political argument. This leads to flawed public debates dominated by personal attacks rather than policy critique. In the 2019 Democratic debates, for example, the discussion was more polemic than it was productive. Constant arguing rather than constructive discussion portrayed many Democratic leaders as inadequate leaders and poor decision-makers.

Furthermore, justifying decisions based on emotions with logic leads to violence and anarchy. One need only to look at the current protests centered around the unjust death of an African American man. Though police brutality and systemic racism are a serious issue both in American and the rest of the world, one should not seek vindication through violence and vandalization. Some protestors in East San Jose have shut down interstate freeways and run around smashing car windows. The protestors are doing this out of anger and justifying their actions by way of the unjust death. This is not appropriate and demonstrates flawed decision making due to an overeliance on emotion rather than fact.

Nevertheless, emotion is at times a worthy tool in decision making. During the Cold War, the United and Soviet Union acquiesced to each others' demands only after the lives of the entire world were taken into consideration. Though it would have benefitted the Soviet Union to continue expanding its nuclear arsenal, the country chose peace over war. The discussions were most likely filled with fear and anxiety, and these emotions pushed the two countries to reach an agreement as quickly as possible. Today, both Russia and United States justify their past amenability and emotions with logic. In this case, emotion led to good decisions.

By and large, one should be wary of making decisions based on emotion and then justifying those decisions with logic after the fact. This method of thinking limits constructive political discussion and leads to violence and anarchy. Though at times emotion-based thinking may prove useful, it is overall something good decision makers should eschew.

Prompt 2: 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.

Answer 2: The international development organization recommends that the Tagus government should promote a new vitamin A enriched millet to combat vitamin A deficiency among its citizens. Though the organization's argument may prove reasonable, the recommendation will remain tenuous until several actions are answered.

Firstly, are there other sources of Vitamin A Tagus can implement into the diet of its citizens without the high cost of subsidies? If not, then perhaps the vitamin A enriched millet is the best solution. However, perhaps the government can instead enrich other less expensive products with vitamin A such as salt. Salt was once successfully enriched with iodine in the United States to combat iodine deficiency. By observing what other countries have done in the past, Tagus should search for more affordable means of enriching its citizens' food with vitamin A.

To continue, how will Tagus afford the subsidies? If no other foods aside from millet can be enriched with vitamin A, how will the government afford to subsidize its farmers? The nation is already impoverished, thus there is no guarantee this plan will come to fruition. The expensive seeds may pose too great of a burden for the Tagus government. This in turn may lead to an economic depression, hurt the agricultural industry, and lead to even more vitamin deficiencies.

Nevertheless, even if the Tagus government can afford to subsidize its farmers, there is no guarantee its citizens will readily consume the new millet. Will the new millet taste the same as the vitamin A enriched millet? If so, Tagus citizens may not notice the difference and readily adopt the new millet. However, if the new breed of millet has different characteristics such as bitter taste or more tedious cooking requirements, citizens may refuse to consume the vitamin A enriched millet, leaving the farmers and government bankrupt and the vitamin A deficiency issue unsolved.

Lastly, the recommendation assumes farmers will readily agree to farm vitamin A enriched millet. Do Tagus farmers have other incentives to farm more profitable crops? Regardless of the subsidy, farmers may choose to reject the government's offer and opt for more profitable foods such as potatoes. As a result of its impoverishment, the government's subsidies are limited and the millet itself may not be profitable enough for farmers to abandon their other crops. It is thus important to know whether or not farmers will even agree to farm the new millet.

All in all, there are many questions one must consider before accepting the international development organization's recommendation. The questions above are the most pertinent, and once answered, will attest to the validity of the recommendation.


Looking forward to reading your essays!