IB May 2026 (M26) TOK Title #4 Model Response
In the acquisition of knowledge, can we only understand something to the extent that we understand its context? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
- The essay below is written as a teaching draft to illustrate the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected in a high-scoring Theory of Knowledge essay.
- It includes call-outs after each paragraph that explain why particular choices were made and how they align with the IB assessment criteria.
- In a formal submission, you would need to provide proper references and citations (using MLA, APA, or the referencing style your school/IB requires).
Introduction
Context feels like the background hum of knowledge. Without it, we may still grasp fragments, but whether we truly understand is another matter. The title asks if our understanding is strictly limited by context, the word “only” makes the claim absolute. I disagree. We can often achieve a thin kind of understanding without much context at all, particularly in the sciences and mathematics. But when understanding is meant to be deep, interpretive, or reliable, context is not optional. My stance is that context scales understanding, rather than being the sole determinant of it.
Note- The intro does three things examiners like:
- Defines “context” and “understanding” in everyday terms
- Addresses the trap word “only” right away
- Gives a clear stance (“context scales understanding”)
History: When Facts Without Context Mislead
Take the Partition of India in 1947. Without the context of colonial withdrawal and Hindu–Muslim tensions, Partition might look like a simple “border adjustment” or “population exchange.” That surface description is technically true, but misleading, like saying “the average person owns half a car.” Context explains why millions were displaced and why violence erupted on such a scale. Here, understanding is inseparable from context because the meaning of the event shifts completely when background is supplied.
But even in history, the word “only” is too strong. I can still understand the thin claim “Nigeria gained independence in 1960” without knowing Cold War dynamics or British policy. That’s limited understanding, but not zero. History shows context is usually essential for interpretation, but not always required for basic grasp.
Hint- A non-Eurocentric example (Partition) plus a witty analogy (“half a car”) to make the point memorable.
- Then, I balance it by showing that even in history, some understanding is possible without context which nuance and avoids absolutism.
