People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. I

Should we take risky actions only after we have comprehensively estimated their aftermaths? The answer is loud "yes", however, is it possible to adhere to this idea all the time? As far as I am concerned, the answer on the second question is "no" due to circumstances upon which a decision may be undertaken.

Many of us heartily accept the idea that we should carefully consider consequences of our deeds in particular where our actions are risky. This approach allows us to control output of our activity. For instance, if a country economy is in stagnation, we will need to carefully consider positive and negative consequences of proposed ideas, for instance, if we increase supply of money in the bank system, will it speed up economy or only increase the rate of inflation? In this example it is reasonable to carefully estimate the probability of each possible consequences before one makes a decision. In other words, thoughtful consideration of aftermaths of an action which may have grave consequences is reasonable. However, is it always an option? The answer is certainly "no".

Firstly, sometimes people have not got such luxury as time to think. For instance, a captain of an aircraft receives information that two of four engines in fire during take-off, in such type of situation the chief pilot has not got enough time to comprehensively estimate the result of his actions, but procrastination of actions will lead to inescapable catastrophe, so the person in charge has to act immediately. In other words, in some extreme circumstances it is impossible to stick to the proposed policy and in such situations adopting of the recommendation will be disadvantageous.

Secondly, sometimes the careful consideration of the aftermaths of the risky actions does not lead to a better decision. The reason of this situation is lack of available information which may be used by people. For instance, in Chernobyl disaster, people in charge of the station had a plethora of time to consider consequences of their actions, but unfortunately, they have inadequate information about current situation and thus despite careful considerations made wrong decisions. To be more specific we may take a look at their actions in fist 24 hours after the blast of the reactor. They concealed information, did not warn the people who live in vicinity of the station. Those engineers did not have an adequate representation of a real scale of the calamity and thus despite the available time, they drawn mistaken decisions and careful consideration which was based on flawed information led to worsen situation.

In conclusion, the issue avers that people ought to undertake risky actions only after careful consideration of aftermaths of the proposed actions but unfortunately, this policy is not always an option in particular when we face a shortage of time, which is available to make a decision, moreover, a careful consideration which is based on flawed premises and data may not lead to expected results, therefore, fulfillment of the policy in cases of shortage of time or adequate information may not be advantageous.