The first step in breaking down a prescribed title is carefully picking apart / analyzing the key words in it.
1. Can there be knowledge that is independent of culture? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.
Try to avoid superficial / stereotypical approaches to the prescribed title – e.g. “mathematical knowledge is based on fundamental universal principles and thus there is no link to culture.” That kind of a basic approach is easy to make but certainly lacks depth and may not score very well. You need a more insightful and nuanced approach.
“Knowledge” – make sure you are clear and specific in your essay about what kinds of knowledge you are focusing on. Look at a number of specific examples and see what exact knowledge there is in them that does or does not have a link to culture. Make sure the marker can see precisely what aspects of knowledge you are discussing in each paragraph of your essay.
“Independent” – There may not be that many cases where knowledge is completely independent of culture but there will be cases where the connection between knowledge and culture is quite weak. You need to find specific examples where there is a direct link between knowledge and culture and others where there is only a weak link or no link at all.
“Culture” – This is a very broad term. Here are a few definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture
Make sure you look carefully at narrow aspects of culture that appear in the specific examples you are investigating. The marker should be able to clearly identify what elements of culture you are focusing on in each essay paragraph.
“Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.” Your choices are limited but clear with this prescribed title – you MUST choose the natural sciences and one other AOK. If you do not write about the natural science or you write about the natural sciences and two other AOKs it seems clear that you will lose marks.
2. To what extent do you agree with the claim that “there’s a world of difference between truth and facts” (Maya Angelou)? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.
“To what extent do you agree” – There are very rarely cases in TOK where an argument is 100% for or against something. If your whole essay completely agrees or completely disagrees with the statement you may likely not do well. You need to find a variety of specific examples that show that there is and is not a “world of difference between truth and facts.” Overall your essay may lean one way or the other or may end up squarely in the middle. It is important that you make it clear to the marker that you clearly show the extent to which you agree with the statement – it is essentially the thesis of your essay.
“there’s a world of difference between truth and facts” – Your first point in exploring this prescribed title is having a solid understand of the meanings of “truth” and “facts” and you can start by reading a variety of dictionary definitions. They are obviously not the same but there is of course overlap between them. Additionally, these words have different meanings in different AOKs so your discussion of “truth” and “facts” will vary depending on what AOKs you are focusing on. For example, “truth” and “facts” in literature are quite different from “truth” and “facts” in chemistry.
After you have a solid set of specific examples in two different AOKs you need to critically examine how they show that there is (or is not) “a world of difference between truth and facts.”
“Maya Angelou” – there is no benefit to researching Maya Angelou or researching the original context behind the quotation.
“Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.” – Unlike many of the other prescribed titles in this session, your choice in AOKs is up to you. Two AOKs only, though.
3. Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
“Is there…” Historically, not many prescribed titles are yes / no questions. This prescribed does have a yes / no answer though although it is highly unlikely that you will end up 100% in the “yes” or no” camp. The best TOK essays as a whole do not end up completely on one side of an argument. Your essay still needs a definitive answer though and your thesis statement and essay as a whole need to clearly answer the question.
“solid justification” – Different people (and groups of people) will view knowledge in the natural sciences in vastly different ways. They will have different kinds of justifications for viewing knowledge in the natural sciences more highly (or less highly) than knowledge in other AOKs. You need to carefully look at how people justify their opinions about knowledge in the natural sciences vs. knowledge in other AOKs.
“Knowledge” – make sure you are clear and specific in your essay about what kinds of knowledge you are focusing on. Make sure the marker can see precisely what aspects of knowledge you are discussing in each paragraph of your essay.
“more highly” – How can knowledge in the natural sciences be viewed more (or less) highly than knowledge in other AOKs? To give one example, the need for peer review may be a reason why some view knowledge in the natural sciences as more trustworthy than knowledge in other AOKs. However, there are definitely drawbacks to peer review and from some points of view peer review is a negative, not a positive.
“Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.” – Your choices are limited but clear with this prescribed title – you MUST choose the natural sciences and one other AOK. If you do not write about the natural science or you write about mathematics and two other AOKs it seems clear that you will lose marks.
4. How do historians and human scientists give knowledge meaning through the telling of stories? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.
“Historians and human scientists” – You need to talk about more than history and the human sciences with this prescribed title – you need to specifically discuss individual historians and human scientists. You should look for specific examples where individual historians and human scientists are “telling stories.”
Also note that the prescribed title asks “How do historians…”. And not “To what extent do historians…” If the prescribed title started with “To what extent do historians…” you would have to discuss how stories are and are notused but that is not the case with this prescribed title.
“Knowledge” – make sure you are clear and specific in your essay about what kinds of knowledge you are focusing on. Make sure the marker can see precisely what aspects of knowledge you are discussing in each paragraph of your essay.
“give knowledge meaning” – your essay must be able to pinpoint places in your specific examples where the telling of stories gives knowledge meaning. You need clear concrete evidence to support your arguments.
“the telling of stories” – This may involve publication of academic research, seminars, lectures, etc. Look for how the stories are told in your specific examples. There may (or may not be) differences in the “telling of historians” between historians and human scientists. There may also be significant differences between how stories are told between people in the study of history and between people in the study of the human sciences.
“Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.” – If you choose this prescribed title you have to discuss these (and only these) AOKs.
5. How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.
“distinguish” – There are numerous ways (sometimes the ways depend on the AOK) to distinguish between good and bad interpretations. Some of the ways include peer review of academic publications, re-doing experiments, debates, etc. You need to identify and analyze these different methods in the specific examples you choose to discuss in your essay.
“good and bad interpretations” – Sometimes it is very clear / easy to distinguish between a good and bad interpretation and sometime it is just a matter of judgement. Different AOKs will have different ways of determining whether something is a good or bad interpretation. Even within an AOK there will be significant differences – graffiti artists and kabuki actors (both artists) are held to very different standards and the way their artistic interpretations are distinguished between good and bad vary significantly. An “interpretation” could refer to how a historian interprets a source, how a mathematician interprets a data set, how an artist interprets an event, how a reader interprets a poem, etc.
“Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.” – Your choices are limited but clear with this prescribed title – you MUST choose the arts and one other AOK. If you do not write about the arts or you write about the arts and two other AOKs it seems clear that you will lose marks.
6. If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
“Knowledge” – make sure you are clear and specific in your essay about what kinds of knowledge you are focusing on. Make sure the marker can see precisely what aspects of knowledge you are discussing in each paragraph of your essay.
“pursue on ethical grounds” – First of all, the pursuit of knowledge can take many forms and your essay should have a variety of types of “pursuits.” As for “ethical grounds,” this also a broad area. In some situations the ethics are drawn from professional standards within an AOK but on other cases the ethical foundation may come from laws, regulations, religious doctrine, etc.
“how can we determine the boundaries of acceptable investigation. ” – There are various ways to look at “determining the boundaries.” There are different individuals and groups who determine the boundaries of acceptable investigations depending on the context. Sometimes a researcher / artist / religious leader etc. makes the determination alone while in other cases it is a set of professional standards, a licensing body, or a government that determines the boundaries of acceptable investigation.
“within an area of knowledge” – It could be argued that some areas of knowledge are broader and less uniform than others. Regardless, this prescribed title asks how the boundaries are determined within an AOK. It is possible that your investigation within one AOK finds that the AOK has a fairly uniform way of “determin[ing] the boundaries of acceptable investigation.” A different AOK, however, may have quite different ways of determining boundaries. In the human sciences, for example, the ways in which psychology, criminology, law, economics, etc. determine boundaries may have some significant differences.
“Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.” – Unlike many of the other prescribed titles in this session, your choice in AOKs is up to you. Two AOKs only, though.