<p>Prompt: Should people change their decisions when circumstances change, or is it best for them to stick with their original decisions?</p>
<p>People should change their decisions when circumstances change, since sticking to original decisions would not accommodate for the change in situations. Several examples from a novel, current event, and history clearly demonstrate this claim.
Through the actions of Rodney Mullen, the world's best skateboarder, one can see the need for changing decisions when situations change. Rodney Mullen was originally far from skateboarding; in fact, he was on the other side of the spectrum. He played team sports like basketball as opposed to skateboading - an individual sport. Although he was talented in the team sports, he realized that he was not having fun. After this epiphany, he picked up a skateboard and began his career ever since. He practiced persistently daily and achieved the success today. Mullen's changing his decision to begin skateboarding shows that sticking with original decisions is not wise.
In the novel Farenheit 451, the actions of the protagonist, Montag, further reinforces the claim. Montag is a firefighter, whose job is not to extinguish fire, but to burn books. The novel takes place in the future, and the technology is improved in such a way that books are considered immoral. Montag, who was originally loyal to his duty as a firefighter, changes his decision to burn books after meeting an old man, who gives Montag an epiphany that books are valuable. This lesson allows Montag to preserve books, which is a major crime. It also allows him to be the few who do not succumb to technology. Therefore, when circumstances change, one should change his/her decision.
As demonstrated by the 18th amendment, it is necessary to change decisions when situations change. The temperance movement was one of the largest reform movements in the US history. Its advocates had genuine goals of preventing alcoholism, increasing efficiency, and reducing violence. Their dream came true with the passage of 18th amendment, which outlawed alcohol; however, soon the 18th amendment had to be repealed. It was simply impossible for people to consider drinking as a crime because they had been doing it for so long. The 18th amendment only had a side effect of creating more violence through gangsterism, bootlegging, etc. This increase in violence and people's demand for alcohol led the legislators to change their decision to repeal the 18th amendment. Thus, one must change his/her decision when circumstances change.
After careful analysis of Rodney Mullen, Farenheit 451, and the 18th amendment, one can clearly see that change in decisions must follow the change in circumstances. It is not wrong to stick with original decisions; however, this would not accommodate for the change in circumstances and could lead to a disaster.</p>
<p>Im not a native speaker, so it may contain several flaws and may not flow smoothly.
But still i tried..</p>