Grade me please

<p>What is your opinion of the claim that knowledge does not automatically lead to wisdom?</p>

<p>Being knowledgable and well informed is highly valued in today's society. However, this knowledge does not necessarily lead to wisdom. In order to be wise, one must not only have knowledge, but also understand the importance of this knowledge, and be able to use this knowledge for good. There exist several examples that demonstrate this distinction between knowledge and wisdom; one is a robot, and another is the wizard Devister, in James Whitman's The Struggle.</p>

<p>A robot clearly exemplifies knowledge without wisdom. A robot, machine, and many other technological creations can be mad to store a vast amount of knowledge. In fact, a simple machine is capable of knowing more than any human being could possibly hope to. However, because these robots do not have minds, they do not have the awareness to understand what their knowledge means. And although robots may benefit society because of the vast knowledge they can store, they do so only as a trash can helps the environment; without wise men creating and operating it, it would have no function. Robots, though capable of being extremely knowledgable, are not wise.</p>

<p>Another example of knowledge without wisdom is Devister, the evil wizard in James Whitman's The Struggle. Devister is a brilliant analyst, an accomplished scholar, and has more knowledge than almost anyone else. Furthermore, unlike robots, he understands that he has this knowledge, and what it is capable of achieving. However, Devister is not wise, because he does not use his knowledge for good. Instead, he uses his knowledge to manipulate others, and eventually attempt to overthrow the existing democratic government. Had he decided to use his great knowledge and understanding to help the government and the people, he would have been a wise man. However, because he did not, Devister, like a robot, is an example of knowledge without wisdom.</p>

<p>In conclusion, knowledge is not necessarily accompanied by wisdom. If one does not understand the significance of knowledge and use it for good, as a robot does not, one is does not have wisdom. And if one does not use knowledge for good, as Devister does not, one is not wise. </p>

<p>What do you think this would get out of 12? What can I do to improve it? I know 3 examples would be better, but I usually mismanage my time somehow or cannot come up with enough examples (I had to make up The Struggle above). Plus, I am taking the March 1 SAT, so I don't know if it would be best to try to start writing 5 paragraphs instead of 4 now. If you disagree, your opinion is appreciated if helpful. Thanks a bunch.</p>

<p>I this is a pretty good essay. The paragraph about the robot is good, except I didn't get the reference to a trash can. The second example is pretty good too (are you saying that you made up the book and the author?)
Consider that you can use personal or fairly mundane examples--for example, you might point out that a young child might know how to drive a car from observation or games, but lacks the maturity--and wisdom--to understand how to drive it safely.</p>

<p>Your use of language is very good.</p>