1 / Our senses tell us that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we resolve such conflicts?
2 / “...we will always learn more about human life and human personality from novels than from scientific psychology”. (Noam Chomsky) To what extent would you agree?
3 / “Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean there is no such thing as truth?
4 / Are some ways of knowing more likely than others to lead to truth?
5 / Does language play a role of equal importance in the different areas of knowing?
6 / “Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean there is no such thing as truth?
TOK ESSAY EXEMPLARS
These are the “Prescribed Titles” for the Examplars sent…
Detailed marks for each of the essays are on the following pages!
Exemplar #1:
Examiner comments
Grade awarded: A
Criterion A / 10Criterion B / 10
Criterion C / 9
Criterion D / 9
Total / 38
This is an outstanding essay with clear personal voice and a detailed and fresh analysis. Consistently clear, relevant and engaging, it critically draws on concepts of truth, language, authority and reason in a sophisticated manner. The student’s approach largely follows the lead given in the prescribed title (clashes between science and sense perception, using the table as an example). Although most excellent essays would go beyond an example given in the title (in this case, that would mean examining other potential conflicts among ways of knowing and areas of knowledge), the student’s decision to focus heavily on this one is justified by the depth and sophistication of the treatment.
Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 10
The essay is entirely focused on the prescribed title and issues of perception are identified from several perspectives: the everyday (for example, lines28-29, line45); the scientific (for example, line63); the linguistic (for example, lines33–44); and the philosophical (for example, lines76–79 with references to Descartes and line106). The student applies a related knowledge issue, the degree to which science is seen as an authoritative area of knowledge (lines45–72), in order to enrich the discussion. As a result the essay makes effective links and comparisons, and the multifaceted approach shows clear evidence of sophisticated understanding of knowledge issues.
Criterion B: Knower’s perspective
Mark Awarded: 10
Much evidence of independent thought can be seen in the way the essay plays with important distinctions (for example, line28, “reducing our conception…”; line32, “The title question seems to…”; line115 “a thorough….”). The shaping of the essay, in drawing on and developing a range of ideas, indicates reflective exploration, as shown by the one extended example (lines45–72), which is explored in detail and with a clear sense of purpose and inquiry. Self-awareness as a knower is clear overall and specifically in line77 (“However, since…”) and lines90–101 in the discussion of myopia.
Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 9
The inquiry into knowledge issues shows a high degree of insight, exploring distinctions in an open but coherent and compelling manner (for example, lines28–29, lines39–40, and lines105–106). The overall argument (that the conflict is more apparent than real) is convincing and shows an ability to question the assumptions of the prescribed title. Implications are mentioned at the end of lines77–79 (“however…”). The discussion of the microscope in lines84–89 does, however, feel somewhat contrived and perhaps is better described as a straw man than a serious consideration of a counterclaim. In the context of this example, the uses of the terms “fabrication”, “fraud” and “fake” seem overblown and unjustified.
Counterclaims are explored and evaluated throughout the essay, mainly by dissolving the tension between scientific and sensory knowledge either by explicit linguistic analysis, as mentioned above, or by appeal to pragmatic issues. The student appeals to the use of reason as the way forward in reaching some resolution on several occasions (lines22–24, 56–60, 106–109, 110).
Criterion D: Organization of ideas
Mark awarded: 9
The essay is very well structured and organized, especially conceptually. Concepts are well explained and refined as the essay progresses. However, certain structures are not entirely well used (for example, the three truth criteria in line18), and there are areas where the language used is open to question. In line4, for example, it might be argued that the juxtaposition of science and empiricism is a category error—comparison of an area of knowledge and a position about knowledge. However, in the holistic context of the essay, the student deserves the benefit of the doubt and line4 is understood as contrasting “scientific knowledge” with “empirical knowledge”. The use of “necessary” in line9 is similarly suspect; while some scientists have indeed claimed that a theory of everything might be “necessary” it is not clear that this is what the student means. These issues prevent the award of the top score here in terms of the conceptual clarity strand of this criterion.
In terms of referencing, the ideas of Descartes and Plato do not count as “common knowledge” and as a result need a reference. The essay does not, however, hinge on these ideas, so no major penalty is appropriate. However, the essay does as a result slightly fall short of the top score in the referencing strand of this criterion.
Exemplar #2:
Examiner comments
Grade awarded: A
Criterion A / 8Criterion B / 9
Criterion C / 7
Criterion D / 7
Total / 31
This is a very good essay. It explores the prescribed title with originality and insight, drawing on a wide range of examples to support the view that the holistic nature of novels allows them to yield better insights than a reductionist psychology. The student, writing in a second language, is not always completely clear, and the ideas are not always tied together lucidly. For example, what are the links between the “subjective” nature of novels (line1) and the “objective” approach of psychology (line17) if they both “affect human experience” (line12)? Despite this room for further in-depth analysis, the essay explores the ideas well and has an unusual freshness.
Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 8
While the essay concentrates on “personality” at the expense of “life”, the student consistently addresses relevant knowledge issues (whether or not we can know the meaning of a novel (lines1–16), the limits of psychology (lines18–27, 73–90, 91–106), fallacious reasoning (lines40–52), scientific method (lines53–69), reductionism/holism (lines70–90), what it means to “learn" (lines38–39, 51–52, 70–90)). Some other knowledge issues are left implicit, but are alluded to (such as the difference between asking “how” and “why”, and the degree to which causal relations can be established through the two media). The comparison between scientific psychology and literature, though uneven throughout the essay, is at times effective (for example, lines70–90 and also lines104–106) and best described, overall, as good.
Criterion B: Knower’s perspective
Mark awarded: 9
The essay is shaped in a way that shows much evidence of independent thinking, particularly through the varied and effective examples. The examples of the baby (lines18–26), the John Gray book (lines40–47), Romeo and Juliet (lines70–71), the homosexual argument (lines73–86), Milgram’s experiment and the Holocaust (lines91–106) show a fine ability to link the ideas of the prescribed title to a broad range of academic and everyday situations in an independent and personal way. The personal stand is especially evident in lines100–106 where a self-aware moral commitment is brought to bear on the “explanation” of the Holocaust, and in the final few lines where the author clearly understands the personal nature of the search to understand others.
Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 7
The analysis of knowledge issues is less effective than their identification and exemplification. The central claim, that the “clinical perspective” of psychology “disrupts the true understanding” (line111) is explored with some insight in lines70–106, but there is certainly room for more detailed inquiry. While the essay certainly explores the issues, the exploration is uneven; for example, the discussion of personality development (lines30–39), while made relevant, is only weakly linked to the narrative of the essay. Counterclaims are implicitly explored throughout the essay by the juxtaposition of the two areas (for example, “explicit terms and definitions” (line8) versus “complex words and experiments” (line49)).
Criterion D: Organization of ideas
Mark awarded: 7
The essay is generally well structured. It starts by applying ideas of objectivity/subjectivity to the two areas of knowledge (lines1–29) and goes on to look at how science explains things in general and personality in particular (lines40–69) before considering two cases where it is argued that science does not give us as much insight as novels (lines70–106). Concepts are generally, though not always, used clearly and while some issues are linguistic (for example, the inaccuracy of the statement “Novels as a form of art are subjective” (line1)), other cases require further development (lines11–12, line103). Facts are all correct and all sources are acknowledged. While precise links from appropriate points in the text to the bibliography are missing, and a page number is required for lines77–79, these are not significant deficiencies.
Exemplar #3:
Examiner comments
Grade awarded: B
Criterion A / 6Criterion B / 7
Criterion C / 6
Criterion D / 7
Total / 26
This is a good essay. Despite some localized difficulties (for example, lines10–11, confusion with the truth tests, line76, error with “a priori”) there is some sense of personal engagement and the essay does consistently identify relevant knowledge issues.
Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 6
The essay is consistently relevant to the title and there is evidence of real ambition and some attempt to use profound ideas (specifically Gödel’s ideas (lines20–26) and the evolutionary ideas of lines96–97). However, the ideas are not always used effectively; there is clearly some understanding but it falls short of a “good” understanding. In particular, there is awareness that the idea of “truth” is problematic (for example, the introduction and lines18–19) and its meaning is explored in different areas of knowledge (mathematics, art, history, ethics, religion) and everyday events (the Iraq war, the table), but the handling of the issue is uneven and at times inconsistent.
Criterion B: Knower’s perspective
Mark awarded: 7
The essay has a clear student voice, starting with an engaging introduction which understands—but is not prepared to countenance—total skepticism; despite the clumsy formulation (lines4–5) one senses an awareness of alternative perspectives and a personal stand.
The examples are appropriate, varied and reasonably effective (for example, lines31–33, the gamelan; lines20–26, a brave, if not entirely successful, attempt to concisely explain Gödel’s ideas; lines51–55, Texan law; lines56–75, Iraq; lines 39–41, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The quality and quantity show that the student can independently link the ideas to personal, academic and real-life situations, and are a strong feature of this essay.
Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 6
The analysis of issues is weaker than their identification, and the precise links between “context” and “truth” are not specified (for example, the examples of the gamelan and Dawkins are both potentially rich but undeveloped). While there is a sense of exploring the idea of truth in different contexts, the inquiry lacks depth and detail, and some conclusions are not adequately supported (for example, line 18, the conclusion “However... contexts” is supported by examples from non-mathematical contexts; line 13, “make four because…” is an apparently unaware argument from authority; lines 20–26, Gödel’s ideas are not used adequately; lines 28–30, “Perceptions… view and place” is asserted rather than argued for).
It might be argued that the extensive treatment of the Iraq war, while certainly showcasing the student’s perspective on the issue, might be somewhat polemical rather than carefully argued. Claims of “emotive language, colourful… fallacies" (lines67–68) are not elaborated upon and, in the overall picture of the essay, this example seems to contradict the overall conclusion that “Margaret Atwood was right when she said that context is all” (line101).
Criterion D: Organization of ideas
Mark awarded: 7
The essay has a clear overall structure, with progression from area to area. Some concepts are explained, even if just locally (for example, “truth” in the opening paragraph, appearance/reality in lines87–89). The essay is generally easy to follow, despite moments of confusion (for example, “perceptions” in line28 does not seem to mean “sense perceptions”; lines46–47, “this demonstrates … events” refers to understanding of truth, which is not the same thing as truth itself; lines74–75, “we see… viewpoint” suffers from the same problem). The bibliography is adequate (the claims about Iraq may be taken as common knowledge), but references from the text to it (for example, lines76–97 referring to the TED video) are not adequate, and the footnote on page2 does not appear in the bibliography. However, the referencing requirements are less stringent than those for the extended essay and, as the sources are all traceable, this is not considered a significant problem.
Exemplar #4:
Examiner comments
Grade awarded: C
Criterion A / 5Criterion B / 4
Criterion C / 4
Criterion D / 5
Total / 18
This is a reasonable essay that attempts to anchor ways of knowing to areas of knowledge and is partly successful in doing so. The student, clearly writing in a second language, has a clear thesis and the structure of the essay is easy to follow. Overall the essay lacks depth and detail, and has a superficial account of many areas (for example, lines36–46, lines88–89).
Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues
Mark awarded: 5
By examining the roles of the four ways of knowing in the six areas of knowledge in turn, the essay is consistently relevant. There are some effective links between areas of knowledge and ways of knowing (for example, lines13–15, lines17–19, lines84–85) but some are tenuous or undeveloped (for example, lines28–29, lines67–70). As a result, there is some understanding, but not a good understanding, of knowledge issues.
Criterion B: Knower’s perspective
Mark awarded: 4
By attempting to cover all areas of knowledge and ways of knowing, the essay feels rather mechanistic and lacks an original, personal thread. This approach means, in addition, that there is little space in any given part of the essay for the student to demonstrate independent thinking or personal engagement. Some evidence for the latter can be seen in the choice of examples (for example, lines15–16, lines32–35, line43, “partisans of the caliph Ali”, and lines88–90), though these are only partially explored, and the reader is left with too much work to do to fully understand the points they are supposed to make. The latter two of these examples provide some evidence of awareness of different perspectives, though this aspect is not explored.