In either case, the use of literal discourse appears to have minimal effect on the rational choice of individuals.
Emphasising on logic and reason appeals to cognitive behavioural therapy where people peg their decisions on rationalized thoughts conjured in the subconscious mindset. As opposed to focusing on the figurative language use, individuals will rely on numerical facts. The predisposition that metaphors alone suffice in making judgment discredits behaviourist theory in decision-making. For instance, right-minded individuals would appeal to imagery and pictures to determine the gravity of a given scenario. In fact, right-minded people do not rely on mathematical or numerical logic because they perceive it as exaggerative.
Consequently, right-minded fellows would rely on metaphor in making decisions. Therefore, the article is not entirely correct to attribute the effect of literal discourse like metaphor usage in decision-making. Human beings rely on both data and figurative expression to offer empathy to a situation and make rational choices (Salah, 2010). A logical and numerical approach used in defining options lacks a holistic view of human behavioural tendencies. Instead, a sophisticated mix of the role of metaphor and statistical assertions often form the basis for making decisions.
The article offers an additional perspective upon which people deal with complex problems. The concept of lexical framework appears to form the basis of emphasizing on the metaphor usage. For instance, the terms beast and virus associated with known elements that are detrimental to human well-being. By virtue of their infamous earthly attribution, a scenario associated with the terms will gain prejudice. Lexical Framework amplifies the effect of the metaphor pushing people to make covert decisions. Apart from the lexical structure, there are no alternative solutions