IB Theory of Knowledge 3.3 What Separates 9-10 from 7-8 Notes

3.3 Comparing the Good and Excellent descriptors

Read the descriptors as whole descriptions

1. The Good band, 7–8, describes arguments that are "clear, coherent and supported by examples". It also includes effective links to areas of knowledge and some evaluation of different points of view.
2. The two descriptors also carry the identical phrase "linked effectively to areas of knowledge", so the link to an area of knowledge is not where they part company.
3. Accuracy supports your argument, but an absence of factual errors does not determine a band. The assessment also considers focus, coherence, support and evaluation across the whole essay.
4. The Excellent band, 9–10, adds emphasis on sustained focus, effective support by specific examples, evaluation of different points of view and consideration of implications. Read those qualities together.
5. Its sentence "The implications of arguments are considered" asks you to examine what else follows if your argument holds.

Awareness of assumptions, made explicit

1. An assumption is something your argument takes for granted, whether stated or unstated. Identifying one lets you test whether the conclusion holds when that assumption is challenged.
2. The Good band, 7–8, describes "awareness and some evaluation of different points of view". Awareness is noticing that another position exists; evaluation is saying what makes it hold or fail.
3. Making an assumption explicit can help you evaluate a position. Saying that some might disagree does not yet identify either the competing view or what it depends on.
4. For example, interpreting a failed replication as evidence against a scientific claim may assume that the conditions needed for the effect were reproduced. Examine whether that assumption holds in the particular study.
5. Focus on assumptions that affect the conclusion. Explain what changes if one is rejected or restricted; listing background assumptions without using them takes space from that analysis.
6. Distinguish an assumption from an implication. The assumption is part of what the argument depends on; an implication is a consequence if the argument is accepted.

Counter-argument that tests the position

1. A counter-argument needs a fair hearing. Raising an objection and dismissing it without examining its support gives the reader little basis for judging your answer.
2. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes "clear awareness and evaluation of different points of view". Evaluation can support retaining your position, qualifying it or rejecting it, provided you explain why.
3. An objection may force a qualification: a narrower claim, a condition under which it holds, or a distinction between areas of knowledge. It may also fail for reasons you can defend.
4. Your final position need not differ from the opening one. What matters is whether the reader can see why it survives the strongest relevant challenge.
5. If an objection changes your mind, revise the argument accordingly. A conclusion that abandons an earlier claim needs to explain why and resolve any remaining inconsistency.
6. Counter-pressure applies to your example as well as your claim. Showing that your own case can be read the other way, and saying which reading you take and why, is evaluation performed on the evidence.

Examples that carry weight in the argument

1. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes arguments "effectively supported by specific examples"; the Good band, 7–8, describes support by examples. The distinction concerns what the examples contribute within the whole discussion.
2. A specific example identifies the study, event, argument, artwork or result you mean. Include dates and places when they matter, but those details are not a universal checklist for every example.
3. Using an example effectively means explaining how its features support the argument. The phrase "this shows" can introduce that explanation, but cannot stand in for it.
4. Name the feature your claim depends on: perhaps two teams used different instruments, or a ruling was later reversed. Explain why that feature affects what can be known or justified.
5. One developed case can do more than three unexplained mentions. A broad claim may still need several cases or another kind of evidence; one case does not establish a pattern by itself.
6. A famous case can work if you understand and analyse it. Check the details rather than repeating the familiar story attached to its name.

Precision about the area of knowledge

1. Both descriptors describe effective links to areas of knowledge. Investigate the particular methods, evidence and standards relevant to your argument.
2. Writing about science becomes TOK analysis when you ask, for example, how a claim in the natural sciences comes to count as established and how that bears on the title.
3. The five areas are history, the human sciences, the natural sciences, the arts and mathematics. Explore how knowledge is produced, justified, interpreted or used in the areas your title requires.
4. If a claim applies across two areas, explain why. If it does not, identify the relevant difference. Similarities can be as useful to the argument as differences.
5. Two areas may support a shared conclusion. Develop what each contributes and test whether the same reasoning holds in both, rather than assuming that similar examples establish identical practices.
6. Use terms such as peer review, replication, calibration, source criticism and corroboration when they name the practice you mean. These practices can overlap across disciplines, so avoid assigning each exclusively to one area.

Two constructed paragraph plans, for analysis

1. Consider this constructed practice question for analysis, not a prescribed title: To what extent does the acceptance of a knowledge claim depend on the community that produced it? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and history.
2. The first constructed plan claims that scientific knowledge is accepted because of peer review, mentions historians' disagreements about causes, and concludes that communities matter. It leaves both the examples and the reasoning general.
3. This plan cannot be assigned a whole-essay band. To develop it, identify a specific peer-review episode and a particular historical disagreement, then investigate what each shows about acceptance.
4. A second plan uses those particular cases to distinguish a community's acceptance of a claim from the truth of the claim. The cases still need accurate details and an explained connection to that distinction.
5. The implication to test is that agreement within a community may explain acceptance without, by itself, establishing truth. Ask what further grounds could justify the claim when communities disagree.
6. This develops support and implications, qualities named in the Excellent band, 9–10. It does not establish that band for an unfinished paragraph or guarantee it for an essay.
7. The plans explore the same practice question. The second offers more specific work to do, rather than a finished argument to copy.

Changes that need reasoning behind them

1. More words help only if they add needed evidence or reasoning. Repeating a point uses space without developing it.
2. More areas of knowledge can spread the discussion too thinly. Follow the title's requirements and develop the relevant comparisons.
3. Technical vocabulary helps when it sharpens a distinction. If epistemically circular means that an argument assumes what it sets out to prove, explain the circularity in the argument itself.
4. A philosopher's name does not supply a reason. Explain and evaluate the position if your argument depends on it.
5. A stronger conclusion can help if it draws together what the essay established. It cannot supply missing evidence or repair an argument merely by asserting more.
6. Keep qualifications that reflect the evidence. Removing every condition may make a claim easier to state while making it harder to defend.