HOW TO STRUCTURE THE TOK ESSAY

The following structure is a foolproof, step-by-step method you can use on any ToK essay to get very high marks. It really works.Before you can begin your real/final essay, you’ll need to take the title (something like:“What is it about mathematics that makes it convincing?” and come up with a KI that turns the title into a question of knowledge. For example, “To what extent is math more reliable than other areas of knowledge?”).At CI we encourage you to begin the KI with words like: “To what extent…”,” “How do we know that…,” “How reliable is…,” “How certain is…” These kind of open questions allow you to pull in multiple perspectives (AoK’s and WoK’s, as we’ll talk about), so you can show your TOK thinking. Also make sure that your question is directly related to knowing–that it is a question about knowledge.Second, take your KI and choose three aspects of knowledge you’re going to relate it to: any of the Areas of Knowledge (Mathematics, Human sciences, Natural sciences, the Arts, Ethics, and History) or the Ways of Knowing (Sense perception, Reason, Emotion, Language). Then you can explore these in your essay.Each body section will look at another area of knowledge or way of knowing. To explore the KI we came up with above, let’s use Mathematics, Natural Science and Ethics as our three aspects. Each of these parts can be thought of as arguments you’re making. Think of a court case. Your lawyer will make the case that you can’t be guilty of robbing the bank (her thesis), by using several arguments (claims); she’ll show that A-you weren’t there, B-you’re are a moral person and C-you don’t have the technical knowledge to pull off a job like that. However if your lawyer was a ToK student they would also be explaining 3 reasons why you might be guilty (the counterclaims). A-someone said they saw you there, B-you did lie to your mom about candy one time and C-you are pretty good at computers.The formula has  5 sections and 9 paragraphs overall and specific aspects need to go in each.

Section 1: The Introduction 150-200 words

-Give your KI. For example, “To what extent is math more reliable than other areas of knowledge?”-State your thesis. What is your short answer to the KI (your question of knowledge).“While looking at mathematics, natural science and ethics, we will see that mathematics isn’t necessarily more reliable; however, we will see that knowledge is different in different fields.”

-Give us a roadmap, a sentence that gives us a preview, showing us what you’re going to do in your body paragraphs. Make it clear how you are going to explore the KI, which ways of know-ing and/or areas of knowledge you’re going to use. This will make it easy for the marker to know what to look for. An example: “Mathematics can be seen as more reliable because it uses reason. Natural science can be less reliable because it relies on observation. And ethics can be less reliable because it is related to the norms of a person’s society. ” 

Section 2: Two paragraphs totalling 400 words-Claim. A claim a topic sentence that outlines your argument about the about the KI. For example you could claim that, “Mathematics can be relied on because it is a purely logical system.”-Explain. Elaborate and clarify your claim. “Mathematics is axiomatic and independent of subjective experience.“-Example. A real life example, to clarify and support the claim from your own experience. Examples should be personal, specific, precise and real. Did something happen in your Science class? Did you have a conversation with your or hear a story from your grandfather? These are evidence from your own life rather than examples from Darwin or Lincoln. So you could talk about how, “In mathematics we learned that the inside angles of a triangle, in Euclidian space, sum up to 180 degrees.”-Counter-claim. Argue against your claim above. “However, it is possible to come to different conclusions using different systems of mathematics.”-Example. An example that supports your counter claim. “There are different It is not possible to demonstrate that the interior angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees in Euclidian space, this cannot be proven within other systems, such as spherical geometry or hyperbolic geometry.”-Link to KI. Quickly sum up the (complicated) insights of this section. “It is therefore clear that mathematics is reliable to an extent, but often it can only show something to be true within one fixed system or approach.”

Section 3: Another two body paragraphs, looking at your second AoK or WoK. Write these using the same approach you saw in paragraphs 2 and 3. 400 words

-Claim.-Explain.-Example.-Counter-claim.-Example.-Link to KI.

Section 3: Another two body paragraphs, looking at your third AoK or WoK. Write these using the same approach you saw in paragraphs 2 and 3. 400 words

-Claim.-Explain.-Example.-Counter-claim.-Example.-Link to KI.

Section 5: Conclusion with two paragraphs totalling 200-250 words

-Implications and significance. Why is it important that we know about this?-Perspective. Explain another view that someone may have (i.e. an older person, someone who’s had different life experiences than you)-Sum up the argument. The thesis again, in short.

HOW TO MEET ALL OF THE TOK ESSAY REQUIREMENTS

As you write (before and during your writing, and then again when you edit) touch base with the grading criteria. You can find that document here, a. Make sure you understand them and then make an effort to adjust your essay so they match the criteria.

ToK expert Richard van de Lagemaat  has done a really great job of summarizing the criteria with this table:

and to remember these, he has also created a mnemonic, “the 4 C’s”: A, B, C, and D roughly stand for Content, Creativity, Critical thinking and Clarity. Let me expand on these:

CONTENT (A): Show thinking about the knowledge issues

CREATIVITY (B): Show individual/personal insights, that you can think for yourself

CRITICAL THINKING (C): Show thinking about arguments and counter-arguments, that you not only understand the theory involved, but also the weaknesses of these theories.

CLARITY (D): Show that you have done a great job editing your essay; you have structured it so well that it’s easy to understand and accurate

Top 10 tips for getting to top marks on your Theory of Knowledge essay.

1. All ToK essays are cross-disciplinary; they are never just about one way of knowing (perception, language, reason, emotion) or one areas of knowledge (mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, ethics, the arts). In general you’ll want to include at least 3. But be careful about which ways of knowing and/or you’re going to include. Review all of your notes to refresh your understanding and make sure you’re seeing the relevant connections and make sure (after you’ve done your research) that you have interesting points to make (claims and counter claims).

2. Make an outline first. The outline is your road map and it’s where you make a lot of your major decisions. It will also help you to develop an argument, with each paragraph building on the one before.

3. Research in a lot of different ways: websites, your class notes, talking with people (parents, classmates, your teachers). Find arguments which support both sides of (for and against) your thesis and examples that support your claims and counterclaims. As you develop insights you can use, make sure to record them.

4. Make sure you have clarified the scope of your essay. Make it clear, in your introduction, which AOI’s and/or AoK’s you’re using. And define your key terms carefully, in ways that are useful to your argument. Dictionary definitions rarely do this.

5. It’s easy to forget that ToK is about developing your ability to think for yourself. Give yourself some time away from your outline, to reflect before you begin your real essay. And then try to give yourself a few breaks from your essay as well, so you can come back to it with fresh eyes. It’s hard to see the weaknesses of your thinking while you’re busy trying to get it done (i.e. in a hurry). Come up with your own ideas.

6. Read at least 3 examples of excellent ToK Essays written by other people. Here is one.

 

7. Keep editing. Each of your paragraphs should show opposing viewpoints concisely. Compare two opposing ideas about how natural science might relate to your knowledge issue.

8. Use specific and qualified language. Rather than writing that “all science always provides useful insights,” instead say that, “chemistry often provides useful insights.” Words like often or sometimes (instead of always), might or could (instead of should) help to keep from overgeneralizing or saying more than you can actually support in your essay.

9. To prove your essay’s thesis you’ll need to rely on evidence. Various types of facts are fine (quotations, statistics, … In all things, avoid using clichés and common examples. If you can use examples that the marker hasn’t heard before this will show that you are thinking for yourself.

10 Read it out loud, after you have finished it. This will help you to find mistakes and areas that don’t flow as well as you thought.

Q1: Disagreement and knowledge

People generally do not like disagreements. They would prefer to have others agree with what they say. Imagine  then  how the world would  be  if there were no disagreements? Nice right? Peace, calm and order throughout.

Thomas: You know, you said the other day that a = Fm. I think it should be F = ma, but it’s okay, I will agree with you.  

Hardy: Yeah, I guess you’re right. Let’s keep it with a = Fm.

Thomas: What about the theory that the sun orbits the earth? I really think it is the other way around, that it is the earth that orbits the sun.

Hardy: There you go again Thomas. Stop rocking the boat will ye? Just agree with the existing theory.  

Thomas: I guess so…and yet, I wonder…what will the future be like? Will we always agree with one another? Will the day come that someone boldly disagrees?

Hardy: Watch it man! They’ll have you burned at the stake if you keep talking like that…

Conclusion – disagreements have a wonderful way of aiding the pursuit of knowledge.

 

Q2: Of general patterns and particular examples

This is the real story of how Newton discovered gravity.

Newton loved resting under trees. That was his time for day dreaming before taking a nap. He  would rest under a pear tree. Now the thing is, trees don’t like humans resting against their trunk. Would you like moss to grow on you while you sleep? Same argument right? You be rooted somewhere long enough, somebody gets smart and decides to rest there.

How does a tree teach a human a lesson? Sooner or later, he would get an unwelcome pear landing on his head. Angry at the tree, he would sulk and continue napping there. The tree, of course not understanding the human nature of sulking, couldn’t care less. So he got hit again, and again, and again…. And then Newton began to see a pattern – when you sit under a pear tree long enough, you get hit by pears, especially when you are asleep. So he decided to get away from the danger.

Newton went to rest under a peach tree, hoping for peace and quiet. The peach tree, being a close friend of the pear tree, and sharing the same sentiments, did not take long before it started punishing Newton. Now Newton was getting smart – this time  it only took him 3 peach attacks (compared to 8 pear attacks) before he saw the general pattern. As you can guess, he moved promptly to the next tree, a good 800 metres away (the earlier distance was a mere 50 metres). He figured if he moved far enough, the curse of the attacking fruits would stop.   

This was the apple tree. This time, he was ready. He DID NOT day dream; he DID NOT nap. He kept watching the apples, waiting to catch the culprit in action. As luck would have it, the apples refrained from attacking, that it, until Newton dozed off for just a few minutes. Wham! Newton awoke with a queer feeling. He knew he had discovered something great. But what was it? Yes, the realisation that all fruit trees have an human repellent mechanism. It didn’t matter what type of tree. This was the general pattern that he saw.

P.S. In his dream that night, in his bed, not under tree, he dreamed of a new theory named “gravity”.

 

Q3: Possession of knowledge and ethical responsibility

 

T’was a man who had much knowledge

Spent many years building up his knowledge base

Used his knowledge to get a great job

Studied Ethical Theory 101 as part of his course

Graduated morally upright best of the lot

Started out as a research assistant

In a top notch organization

Steadily climbed the ladder

Then came that fateful day

When he had to bribe some government official

Ethical Theory 101 tugged at his heart

The million dollar contract tugged at his wallet

Ethical Theory 101 went flying through the window

Then came that proposal

To harvest organs from death row prisoners

How could he refuse?

With a CEO-ship position waiting for him?

Once a CEO, boy did he outdo himself

He launched a grand new scheme

To introduce a new disease

For which only his company has the cure

What ethics are you talking about?

Knowledge equals wealth equals power

 

Q4: Memory, imagination, intuition

 

A tale of three dogs

 There were three dogs who were the best of dog friends. They would get together every evening at a nearby talk to chat. Their names were Dog Day, Dog Life and Dog Gone. One day, Dog Gone came excitedly with something in his mouth.

Dog Life said, “Dog Gone it, spit out that thing. Cats drag things home, not dogs!”

Dog Gone spit it out, but not before he reached to where his friends were. It was a black box. Covered with Dog Gone spit.

Dog Gone said, “Guys, this is a cool experiment, trust me”.

Dog Day asked, “Pray, tell us why”, rolling his eyes at Dog Life.

“Well, I heard my master’s son talking about it. You’re supposed to guess what is in the box without opening it. Even better, the master tested his son to do it without using sand surs, whatever that is. He wanted the boy to use memory, imagination and intuition”, said Dog Gone.

Dog Life said, “Okay, we’ll humour you. You do memory, I’ll do imagination and DD will do intuition”.

“Right! Memory. I’m sure it’s a bowl of dog food. I remember hearing a bell when I first saw the box”, said Dog Gone, drooling badly as he said it.

“Dog Gone! How many times have I said to stop thinking about bells and bowls of food? You may be the great-great grandson of Pavlov’s dog, doesn’t mean you only memorise the sound of bells. And stop drooling!” said Dog Life.

He continued by saying “imagination…hmm.. yes, yes! I can imagine a big fat juicy steak”.

“Oh my, how clever of you. What an imagination!” said Dog Day. “As for me, intuition. My gut feeling is…” but he was rudely interrupted by Dog Life.

“Don’t get me started on that gut of yours. When was the last time you got dewormed?”, asked Dog Life.

“Hey, feelings okay? Don’t go there. My intuition tells me premium quality dog biscuits”, said Dog Day.   

“That’s just wishful thinking. Prove that it’s intuition”, said Dog Gone.

“Your memory is gone, so you have no right to question my intuition. Anyway, intuition does not need to be justified. You, Dog Life, need to justify your imagination”, retorted Dog Day.

“I do not need to do so! Imagination is a creative force. I will not be forced to explain or justify it”, said Dog Life.

“Hey guys. I shook the box. Guess what, I think it’s not something that we can eat” said Dog Gone.

“Have you lost your marbles? Of course it must be edible!”, said Dog life and Dog Gone in unison.

“Erm, guys, while you were arguing, I opened the box. Look…” said Dog Gone.

They could only watch as marbles rolled out of the box…

Question 1: Can disagreement help the serach for knowledge?

The command term is not evident here. So you just argue based on the title.

Understanding the question – We often think of disagreements as something bad and counter-productive. This may be true in some cases, but we cannot deny that quite often, disagreements can lead to new knowledge. These are typically productive academic arguments. This is especially the case when the arguments are founded on good logic. The fruitful arguments that arise aid in the pursuit of knowledge.

To put it simply, you are to argue about how disagreements can aid the pursuit of knowledge. These are disagreements in an academic context, like when researches or scientists argue amongst themselves. How? Usually via articles in journals or during conferences, or even when a scientist is presenting a paper.

What not to do – to argue that disagreements cannot aid the pursuit of knowledge. Or to say that disagreements are never good for the pursuit of knowledge.

What to do – argue that disagreements can aid the pursuit of knowledge. You also should argue that knowledge can be produced without necessarily having arguments. This balances out the essay.

Link to AOKs/WOKs – Use only TWO AOKs – Natural Sciences and Human Sciences (as stated in the question).

WOKs – Any WOK can be used, but logic must be used as one of the WOKs i.e. logic is an important ingredient for disagreements to take place.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Argument 1 – In Natural Sciences, it is very common for scientists to argue with one another regarding academic findings or theories. When a new theory is presented, scientists will immediately try to counter the theory, resulting in disagreements. They may disagree in terms of the set-up of experiment, methodology, data collection or analysis. These disagreements will result in new experiments or research being conducted by those who disagree, thereby aiding in the pursuit of knowledge.

Example 1 – Science Magazine (July 2009) reported that a senior member of the science advisory board for Autism Speaks resigned due to a disagreement on vaccines and its effects. The arguments that caused the disagreement was this – that vaccines could be a possible cause of autism. This disagreement aided in the pursuit of knowledge as more research was conducted to disprove this allegation.

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5937/135.1

Counterclaim 1 – Whilst disagreements are good, too many disagreements can halt or slow down the pursuit of knowledge. At some point, a general consensus is required. Otherwise, researchers may not know which direction they should take and may end up confused.

Argument 2 – In the human sciences, disagreements also aid in the pursuit of knowledge. Here, the disagreement may result in new research, as we saw in example 1, or it may be in the form of new ideas or perspectives. Due to the experiments not easily being replicated in the human sciences, it is common to come up with alternatives points of views. So, the pursuit of knowledge can be aided by new views and theories as a disagreement to earlier views.

Example 2 – economists in different countries and within a same country often disagree about the correct method to deal with economic problems such as unemployment, depression and inflation. Some may choose to deal with the problem via government spending whilst others may look at taxation. When they disagree, they will try to come up with different solutions. The new solution represents new knowledge. An example of a new solution is Supply Side Economics, which came after decades of policies based on Demand Side.

Counterclaim 2 – Too many alternative views can end up muddying the situation. Sometimes, much progress in the pursuit of knowledge can be achieved when we are in agreement, then we can proceed much faster in the pursuit of knowledge.  

Question 2: General patterns, particular examples and understanding

The command term is “to what extent”, which means argue from both perspectives i.e. in support and against the given statement.

Understanding the question – First, what is meant by “seeing general patterns”? It means seeing a common theme that runs through the data that we have. It can be something that works in tandem, something that works opposite to each other, or something that involves numbers even.

In gaining knowledge, we can do so at several levels. At the most basic level, we have direct access to the knowledge. We do not need to see general patterns before we gain knowledge. To gain more knowledge though, or to get more out of what we see, it is useful to look for general patterns. You will now be able to see more things and see connections where you did not see any before this.

As regards examples, we sometimes gain understanding without requiring a particular example. But there are times when we can only understand something when we see a particular example.

What not to do – to argue that we never need to see patterns or that we never need particular examples.

What to do – argue that at times, we do need to see patterns and at times, we do need particular examples. Keep a balanced view.

Link to AOKs/WOKs – Use two or three AOKs   (not more). As none are indicated in the question, you are free to use any AOK. However, do choose contrasting AOKs.

WOKs – You MUST use LOGIC and PERCEPTION in the essay. Any other WOK can be used too.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Argument 1 – In the natural sciences, it is common to find general patterns after spending some time with the data and facts. Once we see a general pattern, we gain knowledge. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the natural sciences follow the laws of nature, where many general patterns exist.

Example 1 – In natural sciences, both Mendeleev and Meyer published their version of the Periodic Table in 1869 and 1870 respectively, leaving blank spaces for “yet to be discovered elements”. They were looking for data to fit into their theory, because they had seen a general pattern based on the numbers for existing elements.

Counterclaim1 – It does not mean that a general pattern must be seen before knowledge can be gained. Sometimes, you gain knowledge even when you do not see a general pattern. Or maybe there was no general pattern in the first place? Taking the same example as above, scientists understood the nature and characteristics of elements even before they saw a general pattern, or even if they did not see the pattern.

Argument 2 – Some concepts are quite difficult to understand, so we do need the help of particular examples. Only when we see these examples do we fully understand the concept. In fact, the more examples we see, the more we understand.

Example 2 – In the human sciences, taking Economics as an example, we can look at the concept of externalities. Merely studying the definition will not really help, as you end up with more difficult words such as social costs and benefits. When given a particular example e.g. based on a real life situation, then you will truly understand. For example, say a highway is built. Of course the highway brings benefits for motorists who use the highway (as was intended) but it also affected the lives of residents living nearby the highway (unintended) in a positive way (social benefit) and negative way (social costs).

An even better example is in Mathematics, where a student would be lost if not given example. In fact, we learn through examples in Mathematics.

Counterclaim 2 – There are many instances where you do not need examples in order to really understand. The knowledge being passed on is clear enough, so particular examples are not really needed.

In history, when explaining the events leading up to the Cuban missile crisis, there is no need for examples. The facts are clearly understood. Of course, there may be various interpretations of the events (that’s what history really is), but still, there is no need for examples.

Question 3: Ethical responsibility in possessing knowledge 

The command term is “evaluate”. You are required to examine the statement in detail, looking at the statement from several perspectives.

Understanding the question – The right to study and possess knowledge is a fundamental right for every human being, enshrined in every country’s constitution. No constitution, however, talks about the ethical responsibility that comes with the possession of knowledge.

What exactly is this ethical responsibility?

It refers to the need to be responsible with the knowledge that we have so as not to breach ethical boundaries (as grey as they are). There are several ways in which the ethical boundaries may be breached:

1. Using the knowledge for unethical purposes

2. Disseminating the knowledge for unethical purposes

3. Exploring academic areas that may be deemed to be unethical

Note 1: An extensive treatment of “what is ethics” is not required. If done extensively, it will detract you from the title.

What not to do – to argue that there is no ethical responsibility in the possession of knowledge. Or that every bit of knowledge carries ethical responsibility.

What to do – to argue that knowledge does at times and in certain situation carry ethical responsibility. To point out that the ethical responsibility varies according to culture and context.

Link to AOKs/WOKs – Use two or three AOKs. I would discourage using ethics as an AOK as you may be detracted by producing long arguments about ethics. This question is not about ethics per se. WOKs – free to choose.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Argument 1 – In the natural sciences, much useful knowledge has been produced over the centuries, transforming the way we live, work and play. But we have also seen how the knowledge has been misused. This happens when the people who possess the scientific knowledge have not been ethically responsible. The knowledge is used to further unethical agendas. There is certainly a need to be ethically responsible with the knowledge that we possess.

Example 1 – During Nazi Germany, scientific knowledge was not used ethically. Scientists worked on methods to kill many people with minimal costs and maximum efficiency. Surely this cannot be considered as being ethically responsible? Knowledge from the three natural sciences, instead of being used to make further progress, was used to find more efficient ways of killing people.

Counterclaim1 – Sometimes, scientists will pursue a certain area of study or use the knowledge for a purpose that may be deemed unethical, but they do so in the interest of expanding knowledge. This is especially so if the study may not be considered unethical in the eyes of the scientist, as ethical standards differ among countries and cultures.

Argument 2 – In history, possession of knowledge seems to be rather free of ethical concerns. You merely present the information and knowledge according to your interpretation, which is what history is all about – an interpretation of past events. Granted, some representations may be distorted, but we can use our judgment to figure that out. Is there really a need to be ethically responsible with knowledge in history?

Example 2 – When historians tell us about natural history, they merely present the knowledge as it is. There is nothing to favour  here in terms of any national, racial or political interest. In such a case, what room is there to be ethically irresponsible? So the question of being ethically responsible does not even arise.

Counterclaim 2 – Even in history, at times there can be room for being ethically irresponsible. A historian may write a book that has very skewed views to appeal to a certain nationality or ethnic group for material reasons. He or she may end up saying things that they themselves don’t believe in just to make sure the book sells.

Question 4 : Intuition, memory and imagination

The command term is “propose”. This is a new one from IBO. You are to suggest a new way of knowing. Of course it does not stop at suggesting. You need to argue convincingly.

Understanding the question – This is an interesting question. The question acknowledges that the four traditional Woks are not the only ways of knowing available, but they are the most common and easily accessible to all. Now let us consider these three suggested areas. The question is easy in terms of understanding it – simply choose one of the three and argue as to why the chosen area would make a good (fifth) WOK in TOK. However, once chosen, it is difficult to nail down KIs for the new area.

Imagine you are on a committee that has a task of proposing a 5th WOK. Argue convincingly to support your chosen area (either intuition, memory or imagination) but be balanced i.e. look at the pro and con of the chosen area.

What not to do – to argue that all three areas given are important. The question clearly states “inclusion of a fifth way of knowing”. Do not do a comparative study of two or three of the areas stated in the question. Worse, do not ever argue that the existing 4 WOKs are good enough, and that we do not need a 5th WOK.

What to do – argue based on ONE out of the three areas given. Look at how this new area could be beneficial for TOK in two AOKs. Also look at possible complications or difficulties. Identify and explore KIs in the chosen AOKs. You may, or should, compare

Link to AOKs/WOKs – Use two AOKs only – the question does not specify which AOK to discuss, so you are free to choose. But I would recommend contrasting AOKs. Do not, for example, choose Nat Sci and Maths, for the contrast is not apparent.

WOKs – likewise, you are free to choose. Bear in mind though that you are proposing a fifth WOK,  so it makes sense to compare against other WOKs.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Note: I have chosen “memory” as the fifth WOK, so the following arguments and examples are based on “memory”. This is no way means that I ask you to choose “memory”.

Argument 1 – In history, memory could become an important WOK. Faced with many facts to be remembered, memory certainly becomes a boon. Memory is also important to obtain facts and opinions from witnesses to historical events. A knowledge issue that may appear when you use memory as a Wok is “To what extent is memory reliable”?

Example 1 – We learn a lot about historical events by interviewing eyewitnesses to the events. In the absence of written records for whatever reasons, the memories of said witnesses are very important. An example would be the memories of those who were incarcerated in labour camps during Stalin’s era. As these forced labourers were not allowed to write or keep journals. Were it not for memory, we would not have been able to read the masterpiece “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich”by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Counterclaim1 – Memory can be fickle and unreliable. People forget finer details and make them up as they go along, though not necessarily with bad intentions. And then there are those who add on or drop some facts to further their agenda.

Argument 2 – In the natural sciences, memory plays an important role too, but perhaps not as important as in history. We could even compare the subjects that come under Group 4, and see that the importance of memory differs according to the subjects. A knowledge issue that arises here is “To what extent does memory translate into understanding”? When one merely memorises facts, there is no guarantee that understanding will follow.

Example 2 – supposing a student merely memorises Boyle’s Law but does not understand it. He or she will not be able to apply the law to a given situation. In this case, memory did not really help.

Counterclaim 2 – there are times when memory is essential and whether you understood or not, you still needed to remember certain things. For example, from Biology, you need to remember exactly what procedures to follow when you are performing a surgery.

Question 5: Assertion without evidence

The command term is “do you agree”. Although the question is “do you agree”, you are required to agree and disagree.

Understanding the question – “assert” in this context means to claim or proclaim.  The question implies that there are certain things which can be asserted without having to first produce evidence. The norm is of course that we first need to produce evidence before we can assert something. So the question is asking you to ponder the following – if the claim came without any evidence, therefore we can reject the claim without any evidence too. Sounds rational? Right indeed, but not always the case. Sometimes you need to produce evidence to reject something if you want your case to be strong.

What not to do – to claim that evidence is never important, or to claim that without evidence, we have nothing.

What to do – argue that you generally agree with the statement, but further argue that there are exceptions to the case. Focus on cases where evidence is not needed or could not be provided.

Link to AOKs/WOKs – this is a free for all as nothing is mentioned in the question about AOK or WOK. Seeing that this title has to do with a lack of evidence, I would suggest religion as one AOK and faith as one WOK.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Argument 1 – In the arts, it is quite possible for a person to assert something without producing evidence (though this is not to be generalized). This is possible since the assertion may be an opinion, artistically presented, based on the artist’ idea or observation. There is no need for them to submit evidence, nor are they expected to do so. So on if free to discard the assertion without having to produce evidence.

Example 1 –  In Siddharta (by Herman Hesse), the author asserts (via the protagonist) a certain way of life in the pursuit of truth. No evidence was presented, nor did we as readers feel a need to ask for evidence. What need of evidence was there before we discard the assertions?

Counterclaim1 –  But then again, the assertions were quite powerful and convincing. It may be difficult to simply discard the assertions. Some evidence would be good before we can discard the assertions.

Argument 2 – In religion, one may argue that assertions are made without evidence. An eternal argument in religion is the lack of evidence of God. Without facts or measurable entities, many claims put forward end up as assertions without evidence.

Example 2 – many religions are based on prophetic revelation. This has to be taken based on faith, so where is the evidence?

Counterclaim 2 – it then depends on how we define evidence. For believers, the mere act of breathing can be evidence of an almighty God.

Question 6: To trust or not to trust emotions?

The command term is “consider”. This means you are expected to argue convincingly.

Understanding the question – emotion is generally frowned upon when it comes to a means of gaining knowledge. This question is forcing you to reconsider the case against emotion. By asking “when we can trust emotion”, you are forced to acknowledge that emotion can indeed be trusted. Of course, you also need to argue the case against emotion.

What not to do – to claim that emotion can never be trusted, or that it can always be trusted.

What to do – argue that you have to be careful with emotion, that at times it can be trusted and at times not.

Link to AOKs/WOKs – The question has clearly stated History as one AOK. You need ONE MORE AOK. Try a contrasting AOK. For WOK, you already have emotion. Choose others that are appropriate.

Arguments, examples and counterclaims

Argument 1 – In history, we are more prone to be affected by our emotions. This has to do with the nature of history itself – it is the historian who determine how history is written. Since he or she has national interest or some other agenda to promote, how is he or she to be free of emotion affecting their knowledge? So in this case it is quite difficult to trust our emotions in gaining knowledge.

Example 1 –  If an American historian was working on a new book about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam (1968), it would be very difficult for him or her to be free of emotions when writing the book. The natural emotion of love for the country (national pride) would probably skew the perspective that ends up in the book.

Counterclaim 1 –  human beings being what they are, do not operate in the same way even though they come from the same background. Some other historian in the same situation may not be affected by emotions in the same way. This historian may be independent enough to say things as they really are.

Argument 2 – In the natural sciences, it may be argued that we cannot trust our emotions since this AOK needs a factual and evidence-based process. There is no room for emotion here. Trusting emotions may lead one off the true path.

Example 2 – It was reported that 2047 research articles were retracted from journals in 2008, and the major cause for retraction was fraud. So here we can see how emotion cannot be trusted in gaining knowledge.

Counterclaim 2 – At times though, it is emotion that drives scientists to achieve great success and to relentlessly pursue their area of study.