Tackling Nov 2011 & May 2012 TOK Questions

Please note that the suggested interpretation is one of various ways possible. There are many ways to approach a TOK essay. Q1: Knowledge is generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge. The command term evaluate would require you to argue to what extent you agree with the statement. Understanding the question In order for knowledge to be generated, does it require the interaction of critical thinking and creative thinking? Are both equally important? Is one more important than the other? Or is critical thinking alone enough? Or is creative thinking alone enough? Each scenario should be linked to either one of two AOKs. They need to be linked to several WOKs too. Not all of the scenarios need to be discussed due to the word limit. Neither do you want to focus on only one or two scenarios. What not to do an extensive treatment of what knowledge is all about, the philosophy behind knowledge etc. Likewise, an extensive treatment of critical thinking and creative thinking is not required. A light treatment is essential, but not more than that. What to do focus on ONLY two AOKs. Choose contrasting AOKs. Suggestions are:
y y y y y

natural sciences and human sciences natural sciences and arts natural sciences and history natural sciences and ethics math with any of the AOKs above (except natural sciences)

Links to WOKs ensure that at least two WOKs are used. The obvious choices are logic and perception, but given proper treatment, language and emotion will work well too. Some ideas one would generally equate natural sciences/math with critical thinking. Dont stop there please. Question the relevance of creative thinking in natural sciences/math. Likewise, whilst you argue about how important creativity is important for the arts/human sciences, do not fail to question the relevance of critical thinking in those areas. Some examples Could Victor Hugo have written Les Misrables (1862) without a massive interaction of critical and creative thinking? Obviously not! Heres an example where critical thinking alone is enough. When scientists discover a new species of animal (say a frog with fangs?!), is there much imagination involved? They need to use critical thinking here check various sources before announcing this as a new find. By the way, this is not my imagination WWF scientists discovered frogs with fangs in New Guinea in June 2011. Note: This is not to say that scientific thinking does not involve creative thinking as it does, really (see comments thread). What I gave here is just an example.

Q2: Compare and contrast knowledge which can be expressed in words/symbols with knowledge that cannot be expressed in this way. Consider CAS and one or more areas of knowledge. The command term compare and contrast would require you to discuss the similarities and differences between knowledge that can and cannot be expressed in words/symbols. Understanding the question this is a shift towards a more engaging trend of TOK titles with your life as an IB student. For the first time, we have a question that asks you to consider CAS. You need to consider knowledge that can be expressed in words/symbols this you will not have a problem with as you have had many years of studying such knowledge! What about knowledge that cannot be expressed in words/symbols? Clearly CAS is one area as it involves emotions, feelings, selfdiscovery, creative ventures that may be quite difficult to put in words. What to do Highlight how knowledge can be communicated with or without words/symbols. Talk about it can be equally powerful and damaging both ways. Most importantly, find similarities and differences between these two types of knowledge. What not to do To claim that knowledge can only be communicated via words/symbols, OR that it cannot at all be communicated via words/symbols. Links to AOKs/WOKs You MUST use CAS as one AOK, and at least one other AOK (we recommend two more). It must be linked to AOKs/WOKs/TOK concepts. Any AOK is good here, but I would recommend Arts (novels/plays) where words do wonders. Science works well too cold hard facts, systems, hardly any room for nuances or feelings here. A few ideas think of a few CAS activities where you felt that the knowledge gained was received without words/symbols. Use your language A1 texts to convince the reader that knowledge can be very easily transmitted via words/symbols. A few examples Maybe you played music for residents at a home for the elderly and their reaction was not easily captured by words/symbols. One similarity is that both types of knowledge make use other Woks and do not operate on their own i.e. there is a need for perception and/or emotion and/or logic to be present. One difference is that knowledge that can be transmitted via words/symbols is easily disseminated whereas without words/symbols, it is quite difficult to do so. Think about using print media versus using word-of-mouth or personal contact.

Q3: Using history and at least one other area of knowledge, examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection. The command term examine would require that you analyse the statement in detail and consider various perspectives. In this case, it would mean consider for and against the claim. Understanding the question the common notion is that most ( if not all) historical sources or texts suffer from bias and selection, and as a result, provides us knowledge that cannot be trusted. There is a tendency to dismiss such sources due to elements present. This would be a mistake as in most cases, knowledge is still present, albeit slightly twisted. The question is pushing you in the direction of knowledge is still attainable. What to do Highlight that knowledge is still attainable despite bias and selection. Then discuss areas where knowledge may not be attained when the duo are present. Remember history MUST be used. Then add one or more AOKs. What not to do To claim that knowledge cannot be attained at all when bias and selection are present.

Links to AOKs/WOKs You MUST use History as one AOK, and at least one other AOK (we recommend two more). It must be linked to AOKs/WOKs/TOK concepts. Any AOK is good here, but I would recommend Arts (e.g novels that are biased) and Science for the contrast to history. A few ideas Despite being biased or selective, one can still gain knowledge about what happened. Maybe the numbers cant be trusted, or the description is biased, but the basic idea should be there in most cases. And then there are times when the fundament al message is twisted out of shape A few examples The Cold War surely very different views are presented depending on whether US or Russian writers produced it. Maybe go a for a neutral country writer? The Tiananmen Massacre good to check records from various years and see whether the number of casualties mentioned have changed, also the way the incident is described. Please do not go with History is written by the winners

Q4: When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing? The command term discard would require that you explain when we should not accept explanations that are intuitively appealing. But in doing so, you will first have to explain when such explanations can be accepted. Understanding the question an explanation that is intuitively appealing means something that your gut feeling says is a good explanation. You may not have hard facts, statistics or a systematic methodology, yet the explanation is appealing based on your intuition. The common notion is that we normally do not accept explanations that are intuitively appealing. There is a tendency to dismiss such explanations due to the intuition component. This would be a mistake as in some cases, such knowledge is still valid. What to do Highlight that some explanations are acceptable despite being based on intuition. Then discuss areas where such explanations may not be accepted when intuition is involved. What not to do To claim that explanations that are intuitively appealing should never be accepted, OR that they should always be discarded. Links to AOKs/WOKs this is a free for all. We suggest you go for contrasting AOKs such as Science/Math (linked to logic) versus Arts/Human Sciences. (linked to emotion/perception). The concept of emotional quotient should be discussed. A few ideas In sciences and Math, one would be hard-pressed to find any explanation that is intuitively appealing (there could be a few exceptions). It all boils down to systematic methods and hard facts. In the human sciences, arts, religion etc , there exists room for explanations that are intuitively appealing, but remember, there are exceptions too. A few examples - explanations regarding natural phenomena such as earthquakes and tsunamis require solid facts and detailed understanding of natural geological processes. Where is the room for intuition here? But then again, animals seem to have a strong intuition for the oncoming tsunami. If one sought explanation about the movement of the share market, despite the presence of all types of data and systems for predicting the movement of share prices, intuition seems to still be relevant.

Q5: What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing? There is no particular command term here. Understanding the question the question is clearly implying that the theories in the two sciences are indeed convincing. Your job is to explain why the theories are convincing. You may touch on how one of the sciences is more convincing than the other, but do not argue that it is unconvincing. Maybe a small section can be spent to talk about what is sometimes not convincing about the sciences (maximum two short paragraphs). What to do You MUST use only Human Sciences and Natural Sciences as your AOKs. Arguments must be linked to WOKs/TOK concepts. What not to do to argue that the sciences are not convincing. Links to AOKs/WOKs focus on ONLY the two AOKs mentioned in the title. Link to logic and sense perception for both sciences. A few ideas the highly systematic methodology used in the sciences (especially natural sciences) must be highlighted. Knowing that any findings must be backed by this strict methodology makes it convincing for us. In the human sciences, the ability of the models or theories to predict or explain what is happening in the market place/behavior/life etc makes the theories convincing. A few examples when Dolly the sheep was cloned, it was a sensational breakthrough in cloning technology. The research was accepted due to the strict methodology used. Demand and supply theory explains quite well why the prices of things go up or down. Link it to a personal example.

Q6: It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts. To what extent would you agree with this claim? The command term to what extent would require that you explain the situation from both perspectives i.e. to agree and to disagree. You probably want to choose a stand as to which is more important (there is no right or wrong answer here), but you still need to argue from both perspectives. Understanding the question This is an interesting question. Both aspects are important, almost a 50:50 share. You will see differences within WOKs (more of this later). New ways of thinking means having the same data/facts as before, but finding a new way of seeing or using the data/facts. Discover new data/facts means exactly that the search for new data/facts. Researchers keep finding new data/facts. What to do argue first for the one, then for the other perspective. Remember that both aspects are important. Within the AOKs, however, there is room for you to argue that one is definitely more important than the other. What not to do To claim that only new ways of thinking is important, OR that only discovering new data/facts is important. Links to AOKs/WOKs this is a free for all. We suggest you go for contrasting AOKs such as Science/Math (linked to logic) versus Arts/History/Human Sciences. (linked to emotion/perception). Link to research in universities and in the private sector, companies and inventions, new versions of music, tv shows, remakes of movies etc. A few ideas In both sciences, there is no end of research i.e. new data is being produced. And yet scientists keep coming up with new ideas based on existing facts In history and the arts, reinterpreting is the order of the day. And yet, new discovery plays an important role too. A few examples Would we have the joys of the iPad if someone had not found a new way of using technology some years earlier i.e. touch screen technology (natural sciences). Speed of computing and data transfer increased many fold after the discovery of new facts/data (fibre optics). Or was this a new way of thinking about fibre optics? (natural sciences) Up to you to argue. Didnt Korean and Japanese horror movies take the world by storm with their realistic portrayals of spirits (Ju-On, Ringu) that spawned many copy cats? This is an example of a new way of thinking of horror (the arts movies).

Q7: The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.

The command term evaluate would require you to critically examine the statement i.e. considers carefully how vocabulary can communicate and shape what you can know. Understanding the question This is an easily misunderstood question. It is NOT about vocabulary versus body language or sign language. It is about vocabulary doing far more than communicating knowledge that it also can shape what we can know i.e. it can shape your mind. This means that more than just a transfer of information. The vocabulary can change the way we see the world, it can make us change our principles, motivate us, demotivate us etc. What to do argue first that vocabulary indeed communicates our knowledge either in a written or spoken manner. Then go on to argue that vocabulary also shapes what we can know. These are to be linked to AOKs and WOKs of course. What not to do To claim that vocabulary can communicate but cannot shape our mind or vice versa. Certainly vocabulary can do both to a certain extent. To claim that vocabulary cannot do either one of the two things. This is near suicidal for your essay. Links to AOKs/WOKs this is a free for all. We suggest you go for contrasting AOKs such as Science/Math (linked to language and logic) versus Arts/History/Human Sciences. (linked to language and emotion/perception). A few ideas in history (or any AOK), the basic text that we are introduced to say at primary school level is more about communicating knowledge. When you reach higher levels, the vocabulary aim s to both communicate and shape your mind. Another way of looking at it is the purpose of the book/conversation/ written material was it to just inform or give some basic information e.g. a menu or a location map or was it to shape your mind e.g. a brochure meant to entice you or a pamphlet that urges you to go for a PAP smear? A few examples when Kuhn wrote about the paradigm shift (1962), was he trying to communicate information or was he trying to shape what we can know? When you check Google Maps and obtain information about how to get from point A to point B, is the vocabulary there trying to shape your mind? Or merely communicating the information?

Q8: Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the ToK diagram.

The command term analyse would require you to examine in detail the statement i.e. consider carefully the strengths and weaknesses of using faith. Understanding the question This is actually a very direct question but often misunderstood by students. There is a tendency to argue about religion itself i.e. the existence of God. This is not the question. The question is about using faith in religion and one other AOK what are the strengths and weaknesses? What to do Discuss strengths and weaknesses of using faith in religion. Try to be balanced i.e. there is a tendency to talk more about weaknesses and too little about strengths. These are to be linked to AOKs and WOKs of course. Then talk about strengths and weaknesses of using faith in one other AOK. What not to do To discuss religion in itself, or about the existence of God. A short paragraph is fine bot not more than that. To claim that there are no strengths of using faith in religion. Links to AOKs/WOKs Only two AOKs one MUST be Religion, the other is your choice. For religion, you can link to emotion and perception. After religion, we suggest you go for Natural Science/Math/Human Sciences/History (linked to language/perception/logic). A few ideas - faith has done wonders for people who are believers. They can handle whatever misfortune or obstacles they face in life, nothing is too much to bear. But faith can cause a person to close their minds to other points of view (please remember that not all people who believe in God close their eyes and minds to other point of views). In the natural sciences, one needs to have faith in previous findings before they can proceed to further their research (a strength of faith). Simply believing a theory without investigating can lead to errors. A few examples many people work hard for material gains and push themselves to the limit physically and mentally at the expense of health and relationships and then at one point in life begin to ask themselves what life is all about. They typically find the answer in religion. There are numerous stories about people who almost died in an illness or accident and find faith after that. In his autobiography Then Sings My Soul, American gospel singer George Beverly Shea tells how, when his father fell asleep for the last time, he had a notebook on his lap in which were these words, the last he had written: Life has been wonderful, the promises of God precious, the eternal hope glorious. Source: http://www.christianity.co.nz/life_death9.htm Faith teaches us about life. In this example, the Quran gives knowledge about how an embryo is formed. We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance) (Quran 23:12-14)

How could Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract. Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the worlds most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human. Source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/216/ There have been cases of fraudulent research in the natural sciences where some overzealous scientists were too hungry of fame. Having complete faith in such research is problematic, to say the least.

Q9: As an IB student, how has your learning of literature and science contributed to your understanding of individuals and societies? The command term is not evident here. Howcontributed to your understanding basically means you have to explain in a convincing manner. It is easy to explain, but not easy to be convincing. Understanding the question This is an interesting (and tricky) question. Instead of asking how Group 3 subjects helped you understand individuals and societies (direct approach), you are asked how Group 1(Literature) and Group 4 (natural sciences) do so (indirect approach). You need to show proof of how your Group 1 and 4 subjects have helped you to understand individuals and societies. How does the knowledge gained help you to understand how and why individuals and societies behave as they do. What to do Focus on Group 1 and 4 subjects that YOU take (as the questions say your learning). Explain how these subjects have helped you to understand individuals and societies. These are to be linked to AOKs and WOKs of course. You may also discuss how the subjects at times do not really help to understand individuals and societies (but this should not form a substantial part of your essay). What not to do To argue that these subjects do not really help you to understand individuals and societies. To argue at length that other subject groups are the ones that really help you to understand individuals and societies. Links to AOKs/WOKs Only two AOKs one MUST be Group 1 (language A1) and the other MUST be Group 4 (natural sciences). Each should be linked to perception. Other WOKs can also be used. A few ideas - Use your World Lit component to explain how you have understood the way a foreign society operates. Use your Group 4 subjects to explain how people (not all people though) tend to operate in a scientific manner i.e. logical, systematic, hard evidence etc. A few examples In Things fall apart, you learn how people in a region of Nigeria deal with complex issues as colonialism and religion, conversion, and changes in culture. In the sciences you learn about methodology and the scientific method. You see in people how they react to life in a typically scientific manner. They typically do not accept things purely based on faith as they require evidence and logic.

Q10: Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well-supported as those provided in mathematics. To what extent would you agree? The command term to what extent would require that you explain the situation from both perspectives i.e. to agree and to disagree. You probably want to choose a stand as to which is more important (there is no right or wrong answer here), but you still need to argue from both perspectives. Understanding the question This is a rather difficult question to answer. Conclusions in Mathematics are well-supported. You are asked to argue if conclusions are equally well-supported in ethics. You need to agree and disagree. What to do To argue about how we reach conclusions in Maths compared to Ethics. Using different methods of justification, you are to argue whether they are equally well-supported or not. These are to be linked to AOKs and WOKs of course. What not to do To argue that conclusions in ethics are never as well-supported as those in Mathematics. Links to AOKs/WOKs Only two AOKs one MUST be mathematics and the other MUST be ethics. Each can be linked to logic/language/perception. A few ideas if one has axioms in mathematics, so too one can use axioms in ethics. If the axioms are strictly adhered too, then the conclusions would be equally well-supported. Ethics can be easily influenced by emotion, unlike mathematics. So therefore the conclusions are unlikely to be well-supported in such cases. A few examples lets say the angle in a triangle is found using Pythagoras Theorem i.e. using a clear set of axioms. Likewise, ethics can be used with a fixed axiom such as utilitarianism. In such a case, it is likely to result in a well-supported conclusion. In mathematics, typically there is one set of axioms for each theory so that the conclusion is very wellsupported. In ethics, however, there are various axioms that can be used to solve an ethical dilemma. As such, the conclusion is not as well-supported as conclusions in mathematics.