<p>Question: Is making a bad decision better than making no decision at all?</p>
<p>When faced with a decision which has two deleterious outcomes, it is much better to refrain from making one. This can be seen in Voltaire's Candide, Arthur Miller's The Crucible and in my own personal experience with the SAT's.</p>
<p>When I began preparing for the SAT's a few months ago, the first lesson I was taught was when to guess on a multiple choice question. If you are unable to eliminate any of the answer choices, then it is more sagacious to leave the answer blank. When a student chooses to make an uneducated decision, they are very likely to relinquish valuable points.</p>
<p>Another example is in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The protagonist, John Proctor, is accused of witchcraft. The only way he can live is by choosing to name another villager and by allowing his name posted upon the wall of the village church. By doing so, he would ruin his family name and integrity. In this situation, there is no benefit of making any type of decision; his life will be destroyed either way.</p>
<p>In Voltaire's Candide, the protagonist, Candide, believes that everything in this world is for the better. The church considers this belief to be heresy when Candide claims that even rape and murder are for the better. For this he subjected to punition. He is asked to choose between two cruel options; he is questioned as to whether he would prefer receiving 150 lashes, which would most likely kill him, or if he would prefer to be shot in the head. Neither, one of these options holds any promise for him, and so, in this situation, it would be meaningless for him to make a decision.</p>
<p>Being decisive in situations where the two results are both negative is unnecessary. One must simply accept that he or she will be subjected to unfortuneate events and prepare oneself.</p>