IB Theory of Knowledge 2.5 Linking an Object to the Prompt Notes

2.5 Linking an object to the prompt

The link is an argument, not an association

1. An association says the object reminded you of the prompt. An argument says what the object shows about the prompt, in a claim that somebody could disagree with.
2. To explain a link, identify a feature of the object and show what it supports, complicates or challenges in the question your prompt asks. The reader needs to follow the reasoning between them.
3. Identification, justification and the link serve different purposes within a commentary, but they can overlap in the same explanation. Check that you have both connected the object to the prompt and explained why it belongs in the exhibition.
4. Because a prompt is a knowledge question, the claim has to be about knowledge. An object that shows something about how your school runs is not yet linked to a question about certainty, however precisely you have placed the object.
5. Ask what could challenge your explanation and what evidence would help you judge it. Not every link is an empirical claim that can be disproved, but it should involve reasoning rather than TOK vocabulary attached to a description.
6. Phrases such as “this relates to” or “this shows the importance of” can leave the connection unstated. Read what follows: have you explained how the object bears on the question?

Justification is the part you will be tempted to skip

1. Justification explains why this particular object belongs in the exhibition. Alongside its link to the prompt, consider what it contributes to the set and how its details support that contribution.
2. A link and a justification can share a sentence or paragraph, but one does not automatically establish the other. An object may be relevant while adding little that the other objects have not already shown.
3. Justification also has its own clause at every described level. In the Satisfactory band, 5–6, there is “some justification for the inclusion of each object in the exhibition”; in the Basic band, 3–4, that justification is “superficial”.
4. In the Rudimentary band, 1–2, there “is very little justification offered for the inclusion of each object in the exhibition”. A commentary can run long and still answer to that, because length is not justification.
5. After explaining what an object shows, check whether you have also explained its inclusion. Relevance to the prompt is part of the reason, but the particular object still needs a contribution you can support.
6. One useful planning question is what the exhibition would lose if this object were removed. Use the answer to investigate its contribution; you do not have to use that question as a sentence opening.

Starting from the object versus starting from the prompt

1. There are two routes into a link and they fail in opposite directions. From the object, you risk a claim bent to fit the prompt; from the prompt, you risk an object recruited to illustrate a point already decided.
2. Starting from the object works when the object arrived with a puzzle attached. Something about it had already made you unsure how anyone knew, and the prompt gives that unease a question to belong to.
3. Starting with an object can lead to a forced link if you keep it regardless of the prompt. Test whether you can explain the connection through its details rather than saying only that it raises questions.
4. Starting from the prompt works once you have read it closely enough to know what would count as evidence about it. The object hunt then has a specification instead of a mood.
5. Starting with a claim can lead you to use an object only as decoration. Examine whether its details support, qualify or challenge the claim you began with.
6. You can start from an object or from a prompt, and you may move between them as you investigate. Either way, the finished explanation needs to show how the particular object bears on the selected question.

When an object illustrates a claim it does not support

1. Illustration and support are different relations, and the descriptors ask for the second. Reasons that are “not supported by appropriate evidence” can still have a photograph sitting beside them.
2. The gap opens when your claim is larger than your object. An object can show that one institution recorded one thing in one way; it cannot show that institutions in general do.
3. It also opens when the object is evidence for the neighbouring claim. A leaflet can support a claim about how a message was framed and not support a claim about whether the message was believed.
4. The repair is usually to shrink the claim to the object rather than to hunt for a larger object. A small claim you can support does more for you than a wide one you cannot.
5. Match the strength of your verb to the evidence. Suggests may express a warranted limit, while proves may claim more than the object can establish. Explain both the support and the uncertainty where they matter.

Testing a link by trying to break it

1. As a planning exercise, write an objection to your explanation and consider what evidence or qualification it needs. This can test a link without requiring a claim-and-counterclaim format in the submitted commentary.
2. First: could another object make a similar point? That does not invalidate yours. Ask what this object's particular details contribute and whether you have used them in the explanation.
3. Second: which context details matter to the claim? Some identify the object; others support the reasoning. Remove irrelevant background without treating every identifying detail as a separate argument.
4. Third: would somebody who knows the object better than you disagree? Objects out of your own life carry facts you know alongside facts you assumed, and the assumptions are where a link snaps.
5. Fourth: does the explanation address knowledge? How an object came to be trusted can do so. Its practical use can also matter if you explain, for example, how that use changes what someone can know.
6. Use the questions to locate assumptions or missing steps. Then revise the explanation in light of what you can support; passing the exercise does not guarantee an assessment outcome.

Objects that connect to more than one prompt

1. An object can connect to several prompts, and some arguments may bear on more than one. Check that your explanation addresses the selected question instead of remaining at the level of their shared topic.
2. Compare IA prompt 5, “What counts as good evidence for a claim?”, with IA prompt 31, “How can we judge when evidence is adequate?” Both concern evidence. The first directs attention to its quality; the second also invites attention to sufficiency and how that is judged.
3. If you chose one of these prompts, explain the relevant standard or judgment in your object's context. The distinction is useful for focus, but it does not require two entirely separate bodies of evidence.
4. All three objects must link to the same selected prompt. Read each commentary with that exact question in view and check what part of the question it addresses.
5. If your strongest explanation addresses another prompt more directly, consider that during planning. Changing prompt requires checking all three objects again, so investigate the fit before rewriting.
6. As a check, try reading your explanation beside a related prompt. If it fits both, inspect the reasoning rather than rejecting it automatically. You may need to sharpen the focus, or you may have identified a real overlap.

Rewriting a weak link without changing the object

1. Before replacing an object, check whether the weakness lies in the explanation or the available evidence. An established context is worth keeping if you can develop a supported contribution from it.
2. Start by locating the claim about the prompt. If you cannot find one, decide what the object supports before writing more sentences.
3. Connect the claim to a relevant feature: wording on the object, the way it was made, who could use it or the circumstances of its use. Explain why that detail bears on the question.
4. Write out any step the reader would otherwise have to supply. That may take a clause or several sentences, depending on the claim and evidence.
5. Then check your vocabulary against the prompt. The Basic band, 3–4, describes reasons that “lack relevance to the selected IA prompt”, and drifting into the prompt’s subject rather than its question is how relevance leaks away.
6. Reread the justification after changing the link. If the claim has changed, check that your account of the object's contribution still fits.