IB Theory of Knowledge 2.6 the Commentary: 950 Words Across Three Objects Notes

2.6 The commentary: 950 words across three objects

Working within the 950-word maximum

1. The maximum overall word count for the TOK exhibition is 950 words, and that allowance covers the written commentaries on all three objects together. It is not 950 words per object.
2. If you exceed the limit, examiners stop reading after 950 words and assess only those first 950 words. Material beyond that point cannot support your exhibition's assessment.
3. The cutoff can occur midway through a sentence or explanation. Keep the whole commentary within the maximum rather than relying on a reader to finish an argument beyond it.
4. You do not have to use the full allowance. Aim for enough space to identify the objects and contexts, explain the links and justify their contributions, without adding description only to reach a number.
5. Look first for sentences that could sit unchanged in an exhibition on another prompt. A general statement that knowledge is complex may use space without contributing to the explanation of your objects.
6. Length alone does not establish quality. Review whether your links are explained and supported before deciding that a short commentary needs expansion or that a long one is complete.

Roughly 300 words per object, and when to break that

1. Dividing 950 by three gives about 317 words per object. Around 300 words each can be a useful starting budget; the assessment rule sets only the overall maximum.
2. An even split can help you leave room for every object. Adjust it where needed, checking that each object still has a supported link and justified contribution.
3. One object may need more words to establish unfamiliar context. An object you made or used at school may require details a reader would not otherwise know.
4. A familiar object may need less background, but do not assume the reader knows the context your argument uses. Include the relevant details even if the image is widely recognised.
5. If your favourite object takes 450 words, check what space remains for the other two. That allocation is permitted, but it may leave an explanation underdeveloped; the number alone does not determine a band.
6. The word budget does not fix the paragraph count. Use paragraphs where they help the reader follow your explanation rather than trying to fit each object into one dense block.

What each object's commentary needs to do

1. Each commentary identifies the object and its specific real-world context, justifies its inclusion and explains its link to the selected IA prompt. These functions can overlap; they are not separate scoring criteria or prescribed paragraphs.
2. Identify the particular object. “A newspaper article” is a category; the publication, date, title and relevant page or web address let a reader distinguish the article you mean.
3. The real-world context concerns the object's source, setting or use. Include details relevant to your discussion so the reader understands which object you mean and why its circumstances matter.
4. Justification explains the contribution of this particular object. Another object might support a similar point, but you still need to explain why the details of the one you selected belong in this exhibition.
5. Refer explicitly to the selected prompt and explain the connection. Using its terms can help focus the discussion, but repeating a word from the prompt is not a substitute for reasoning.
6. Each object needs an explained link and contribution. You can refer to shared context, provided the reader still understands the circumstances and role of each particular object.
7. Support each point you make. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes points "well-supported by appropriate evidence and explicit references to the selected IA prompt", so a context claim you cannot back is a claim to cut.

Deciding what the opening needs

1. Your title already identifies the selected prompt. An introduction that repeats it without developing the discussion uses words you may need for an object's explanation.
2. Definitions of TOK or explanations of what an exhibition is rarely help identify or justify an object. Clarify a term where its meaning affects your argument, rather than opening with general definitions.
3. An introduction is not required. If all three objects share a setting, a short account of that setting may save repetition, but it must still leave the context of each object identifiable.
4. Keep any shared opening tied to the objects and the chosen prompt. A long discussion of the topic in general may leave too little space for the particular examples you need to explain.
5. Try removing an opening sentence and rereading the commentary. If no relevant information or reasoning is lost, cut it; if the explanation becomes harder to follow, keep or shorten it.

Whether a conclusion earns its space

1. A conclusion is not required. If you include one, its words count within the 950-word maximum, so judge whether it adds something beyond the three commentaries.
2. A conclusion that only repeats the three justifications may add little. The instrument's concern about repetition across object justifications is not a ban on conclusions; judge whether your ending contributes anything worth its space.
3. A closing comparison can help when the objects reveal a tension that has not yet been explained. Consider whether that comparison belongs within a commentary or in a short ending.
4. There is no required length or position for an optional ending. Keep it proportionate to what it adds and within the overall limit, leaving enough space to justify each object.
5. Ask what the ending adds. If it only restates points already explained, remove it and use the space where an object needs more context, evidence or reasoning.
6. An ending does not replace the need to explain each object's link. Check that the reader can follow those connections within the commentaries rather than encountering them only in a closing summary.

Citations, images and what does not count in the limit

1. What sits outside the 950 is anything printed on or inside the objects themselves, together with your acknowledgements, reference list and bibliography, whether you reference in footnotes, endnotes or in the text.
2. Extended footnotes and appendices are not appropriate for the exhibition. Keep substantive explanation in the commentary rather than moving it into a note to avoid the word count.
3. Text within the object is excluded from the count; your own explanation of it is included. A caption or paragraph that supplies context or argument uses commentary words even if it sits next to the image.
4. The image of each object must be appropriately referenced. That is a requirement of the file in its own right, and it applies to the image of every one of the three objects.
5. If an object is your own original work, a painting from your visual arts course for instance, that has to be identified and acknowledged so the origin of the object is not left in doubt.
6. Include appropriate citations and references in the submitted file. They are excluded from the word count, so keep the information a reader needs to identify your sources.
7. Since none of those words were being counted, compressing your citations saves nothing. Cite in full and spend the effort on the sentences that do count.

Cutting from 1,200 to 950 without losing the argument

1. A draft of 1,200 words needs a reduction of at least 250. Identify repeated background, unsupported claims and sentences that do not help explain an object's context, link or contribution.
2. Check narration first. How you found an object may establish relevant context, but a long story about choosing it can take space from the explanation. Keep what the argument uses.
3. Cut stacked hedges such as “it could perhaps be argued that this might suggest”. Keep qualifications that match real uncertainty in the evidence, and state what you can support without pretending to know more.
4. Do not cut the evidence for a point in order to keep the point. A claim with its support deleted reads as an assertion, and the paragraph comes out thinner than the shorter version that kept both.
5. If two objects repeat the same contribution, revisit their justifications before cutting words. A different feature may support a distinct contribution; otherwise consider replacing an object while retaining the required total of three.
6. After cutting, check that the links still refer explicitly to the selected IA prompt. It is easy to remove a short phrase that made the connection understandable.