<p>Hi! I'll be taking the SAT this Saturday and thus am really uncertain about my prospects for the essay section, and frankly, a bit anxious :( No one has really graded mine in the past, so I'd really like to know where I stand on the scale out of 12. The following are two separate essays I've just written.</p>
<p>I am forever grateful for any responses. Please feel free to be as honest as possible in grading and giving feedback on my writing, my organization, any annoying habits you notice, or anything that comes to mind! I really really need harsh (yet constructive!) criticism. Thank you!</p>
<p>ESSAY 1
Question: "Can knowledge be a burden rather than a benefit?"</p>
<p>Speaking of the Holocaust, Nelson Mandela once said that it is in a way a good thing that we are at times blind to the sufferings of others. To experience the suffering of the millions of Jews who had perished at the hands of Hitler's brutality would indeed be too much to bear. Tragedy is terrible and should be avoided. But in the case that we must only stand there and are unable to do anything about it, the knowledge of it is certainly more of a burden than a benefit.</p>
<p>That was the exact experience felt by the Canadian general Romeo Delaire as he was dispatched to the small African country of Rwanda as it underwent a genocide that had killed more than a million people. Though he was accompanied by a sizable peacekeeping contingent, the United Nations commanded that they could not interfere with the genocide that surrounded them, as it apparently was against international law. Forced to follow orders, Delaire could only stand aside as quarreling tribes, Hutus and Tutsis, massacred each other sparing not even pregnant women and their stillborn children who were denied the joys of life. Clearly, Delaire was placed in an unenviable situation. His knowledge of the genocide that most others at home were conveniently oblivious of had turned into a living nightmare. All this was simply for having opened his eyes to the truth.</p>
<p>Yet such tragedies (as well as their helpless bystanders) are not incredibly rare. The renowned American writer, Kurt Vonnegut, was visiting the small break-away region of Biafra in 1970 just as their own genocide was being unleashed upon the population. At the airport, he was greeted by men who had lost everything in the days prior, unaccompanied by their families because their families had been among the butchered. As in Delaire's case, Vonnegut could do nothing but lose his faith in humanity. He was but one man who had come from a country that in fact supported the brutal Nigerian government that was responsible for the genocide which killed approximately 3 million Biafrans. As a writer, he could do nothing. His audience would not listen. They chose to shut themselves off from images of the tragedy, knowing too well that knowing too much can be a burden rather than a benefit.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate to conclude that knowledge is sometimes undesirable. Indeed, that is a tragedy in itself. Our job thus, as concerned citizens, is to ensure that this does not happen againfor the good of the victims of genocide and those who lie awake at night, aware of the ongoing suffering, as the rest of society is peacefully asleep.</p>
<p>ESSAY 2
Are people better at making observations, discoveries and decisions if they remain neutral and impartial?</p>
<p>There is a time when silence means betrayal, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once so aptly said. In such a case that one considers neutrality and impartiality in a truly grave situation, one is effectively opting for surrender and defeat. Neutrality does not yield the best decisions as it often leads to both indecisive and a lack of empathy that is essential in many cases. The examples of Neville Chamberlain's indecisive Britain and the movement for an independent Filipino nation in the 19th century both illustrate this pointthat rarely is neutrality truly neutral in effect.</p>
<p>Most historians agree that the actions (or lack thereof) of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler in the years preceding World War Two had indeed contributed to its outbreak. Furthermore, his indecision had almost cost the allies the war. It was not until Winston Churchill had taken over that their outlook had truly improved. Far more decisiveand bent on defeating and not coexisting with fascismthan his predecessor, Churchill's resolve was unparalleled. He famously proclaimed on a radio broadcast to the British public that they We will fight them on the beaches, and practically anywhere Nazis cold be found. History shows us, unequivocally, how that decisiveness, as contrasted to Chamberlain's prudent impartiality, had served the interests of all.</p>
<p>Just the same can be said of the critics of the Filipino Independence movement as of Neville Chamberlain. To an extent, they had reason on their side. The Philippines was too unprepared to be its own nation, at least economically, in 1898. Yet those critics were blinded by their impartiality. They did not realize that economic welfare was not the Filipino's only concern. He wanted political rights, freedom above all. And so he fought for it. As Gandhi said similarly of the Quit India movement against British imperialism, I would much rather live under a nation poorly run by my own people than one efficiently run by the British. And thus it must be said that to make a truly comprehensive and accurate judgment on the pros and cons of Filipino independence, one would have to have felt the pulse of the people, immerse oneself, in which case, neutrality is impossible.</p>
<p>These two examples show us that despite the good intentions of Neville Chamberlain as well as the critics of Filipino independence, there are things that a detached observer cannot account for. The world is far too complex for anyone to advocate absolute neutrality in all cases, and these two are but among the many exceptions. More often than not, even when making decisions, we should take a stand.</p>