Student or Learner
The dominance of conclusions over arguments is most pronounced where emotions are involved. The psychologist Paul Slovic has proposed a theory in which people let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the world. Your political ①preference determines the arguments that you find compelling. If you like the current health policy, you believe its benefits are substantial and its costs ②more manageable than the costs of alternatives. If you are a hawk in your attitude toward other nations, you probably think they are relatively weak and likely to ③submit to your country’s will. If you are a dove, you probably think they are strong and will not be easily persuaded. Your emotional attitude to such things as red meat, nuclear power, tattoos, or motorcycles ④follows your beliefs about their benefits and their risks. If you ⑤dislike any of these things, you probably believe that its risks are high and its benefits negligible.
What does the underlined mean? Does it mean "conclusion can be more easily made when emotions are involved, emotions can affect conclusions greatly?"
It means that people who involve their emotions in their thinking tend to allow their (pre-conceived) conclusions to dominate any arguments which might go against their pre-conceptions. It suggests that if you allow your emotions to get involved when thinking about something, you are less likely to hear/understand (or be swayed by) other arguments.
Remember - if you don't use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spacing, anything you write will be incorrect.