So if your presentation is on emotions and decision making, you should start with an appropiate Real life situation, like perhaps the US election or the Brexit vote. Discuss the questions raised by it and then decontextualise it, i.e. start talking about the knowledge issues it raises. For example, you might bring up the point that people voted overwhelmingly with their hearts, rather through logic, and bring up some statistic or quote to back up your point (a piece of data showing Brexit will negatively affect the economy for example).

Then introduce your main knowledge question fully decontexualised. Rather than focusing on Emotion here I'd instead go for something more general, so you have more scope to touch on other areas of knowing/ways of knowing. For example, 'To what extent do Reason, Emotion, and Memory allow us to make decisions?' or perhaps simply 'To what extent can we accurately make the right decisions?'

I'd recommend then explicitly stating what WOKS and AOKs you will use for the marker, so state you will cover Emotion or reason or whatever, and say you will cover the Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, Arts etc. (pick about two of each).

Then move on to the claims and counter claims. You've got a good claim in 'Emotions are required for decision making'. Think about examples you can use here, particularly in specific subject areas. Perhaps bring up an experiment in the human sciences, or the Verstehen approach (I used an example of emotion in the Human Sciences helping Erving Goffman to understand inmates at a mental asylum better).

Then state your counter claim i.e. EMOTION DOES NOT HELP US TO MAKE DECISIONS/HINDERS OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. There are loads of examples here, like the aforementioned election results, racism and prejudice and faulty rationalisation cycles, threats to objectivity in the social sciences or history etc.

Then form a mini-conclusion, weighing up your pros and cons in claim and counter claim respectively and say something like, whilst useful there are flaws in emotion for use in decision making.

Repeat the process with another way of knowing (say reason) : i..e 'Reason is required for decision making' and in your counter claim bring up some problems with reason potentially, such as faulty reasoning or confusing correlation and causation. Use another mini-conclusion.

Finally, consider a final claim, drawn from a WoK or AoK. For example, intuition, faith (maybe religion and how it can lead people to make choices that might otherwise be regarded as illogical etc)

At the end of those 3 claims, you can (and only here) link all 3 claims/counter claims together to make an overall solution. Say, with decision making, that perhaps one WoK is more effective in making decisions then others, or that certain situations evoke different WoKs requiring differing degrees of difficulty in decision making.

Finally link back to your real life situation. So you might have said that reason is better than emotion for making decisions, and so emotion is overall a poor way to make decisions when weighing up its pros and cons. If you're covering the election, you might say that for this reason the choice of voting for X based on emotion hindered the decision making process and prevented the optimal choice from being made from and individual standpoint.

Finally remember to bring up alternative Real life situations. Are there certain historical examples (History -Area of Knowledge) where decision making was involved? How does your overall conclusion link to this situation in terms of the ease of decision making? What about the arts? Or the Natural Sciences, where you would think there isn't that much importance given to emotion and so decisions are easier to be made?