How can we reconcile the relentless drive to pursue knowledge with the finite resources we have available? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.SL
Loading scores...
B
Example Grading Result
9/30
Criteria A: TOK Essay
9/10
0
5
10
Criteria Strands
A.1Understanding
Knowledge
Questions
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- You sustain a clear focus on the prescribed title throughout the essay.
- Your examples are specific, relevant, and generally well integrated into a coherent line of argument.
- You make effective use of more than one area of knowledge to build comparison and breadth.
- You show awareness that knowledge can be revised, challenged, and refined over time.
- Your structure is logical and easy to follow, which makes the argument accessible.
- Some sections become more explanatory than critically analytical.
- At times, claims are stated too broadly without enough scrutiny of counterarguments or limitations.
- The discussion would benefit from more explicit TOK language about justification, reliability, bias, and uncertainty.
- The comparison between areas of knowledge could be made more epistemic rather than mainly thematic.
- The conclusion could do more to evaluate the central tension in the title rather than mainly restating the direction of the essay.
1.1·Strength
Page 2
The student establishes a clear TOK frame early by treating the issue as a problem of how knowers pursue knowledge under constraints. This opening helps the essay stay focused on the prescribed title rather than drifting into a general discussion of science or progress.
1.2·Strength
Page 2
The discussion of the natural sciences is well chosen because it immediately links resource scarcity to a concrete knowledge-making process. Framing the natural sciences as “intrinsically demanding of resources” sets up a relevant line of argument for later comparison with the human sciences.
1.3·Strength
Page 2
The uranium example is effective because it is specific and shows how technological innovation can extend a finite resource. This gives the argument evidence-based support rather than leaving the claim at a purely abstract level.
1.4·Strength
Page 3
The Human Genome Project is a strong addition because it broadens the discussion beyond a single field and shows interdisciplinary collaboration in practice. The example also helps the essay answer the title through the idea that “resources” can include shared expertise, not only material supplies.
1.5·Suggestion
Page 3
The student could strengthen this case by briefly examining a counterpoint: improving access to uranium through technology does not eliminate scarcity, but may shift the resource burden to other inputs such as infrastructure, expertise, or energy. That would make the reconciliation argument more precise.
1.6·Strength
Page 3
The student moves beyond describing the case by generalising its significance for the natural sciences. This helps the essay build a coherent line of reasoning from a single example to a broader epistemic claim.
1.7·Weakness
Page 3
This claim is still too sweeping. Saying these technologies are “simply one of innumerable examples” moves toward assertion rather than analysis; the student should explain exactly what epistemic lesson the example demonstrates about justification, limits, or reliability.
1.8·Question
Page 4
What makes a “resource” in the human sciences different from a resource in the natural sciences, and how does that difference affect what counts as good knowledge? Reflecting on this could sharpen the comparison between the two AOKs.
1.9·Weakness
Page 4
The explanation of the Human Genome Project remains largely descriptive. The student should say more about why cross-disciplinary collaboration improved knowledge production, and whether that collaboration also introduced limitations such as differing standards of evidence or interpretive disagreement.
1.10·Strength
Page 4
The move to define resources as “material or immaterial” shows useful conceptual breadth. It helps the essay avoid a narrow interpretation of the title and supports the later comparison with human-science knowledge and expertise.
1.11·Suggestion
Page 4
To deepen the TOK analysis, the student could distinguish between collaboration as a practical advantage and collaboration as an epistemic necessity. That distinction would help show whether the project increased knowledge quantity, knowledge quality, or both.
1.12·Weakness
Page 4
The statement that scarcity is an “unavoidable impediment” is too absolute. The essay would be stronger if it acknowledged that resource constraints can sometimes stimulate innovation, prioritisation, or methodological change rather than only obstructing knowledge.
1.13·Weakness
Page 4
The explanation of the Human Genome Project remains largely descriptive. The student should say more about why cross-disciplinary collaboration improved knowledge production, and whether that collaboration also introduced limitations such as differing standards of evidence or interpretive disagreement.
1.14·Strength
Page 4
The CPI example is relevant because it shows how knowledge in the human sciences depends on extensive data collection and processing. This supports the essay’s broader point that the pursuit of knowledge can be resource-intensive even when the resources are informational rather than physical.
1.15·Strength
Page 4
This is one of the essay’s stronger TOK moments: the student begins to connect collaboration to knowledge production rather than just treating it as a practical benefit. That shift strengthens the argument because it addresses how knowledge can be expanded, not merely funded.
1.16·Suggestion
Page 5
The student could improve this paragraph by linking the CPI more explicitly to the title: does the need for data collection, modelling, and computation represent a reconciliation of finite resources, or does it simply replace one kind of resource demand with another?
1.17·Weakness
Page 5
The CPI section needs more epistemic scrutiny. The student explains how the index is measured, but does not examine how choices about baskets, weighting, sampling, or data coverage might affect reliability and bias in the knowledge produced.
1.18·Strength
Page 5
The Phillips Curve example is especially effective because it allows the student to show that human-science knowledge is revisable, not fixed. That directly strengthens the essay’s consideration of implications and differing perspectives.
1.19·Suggestion
Page 5
The student could improve this paragraph by linking the CPI more explicitly to the title: does the need for data collection, modelling, and computation represent a reconciliation of finite resources, or does it simply replace one kind of resource demand with another?
1.20·Weakness
Page 5
The CPI section needs more epistemic scrutiny. The student explains how the index is measured, but does not examine how choices about baskets, weighting, sampling, or data coverage might affect reliability and bias in the knowledge produced.
1.21·Weakness
Page 6
The Phillips Curve figure is useful, but the commentary does not fully unpack what the graph shows about the limits of knowledge. The student should connect the visual example to the claim that economic models are provisional and depend on context-sensitive assumptions.
1.22·Question
Page 6
If the Phillips Curve changed after stagflation, what does that suggest about the reliability of economic models across time and different historical conditions? This is a useful place to evaluate the boundaries of human-science knowledge.
1.23·Question
Page 6
If the Phillips Curve changed after stagflation, what does that suggest about the reliability of economic models across time and different historical conditions? This is a useful place to evaluate the boundaries of human-science knowledge.
1.24·Strength
Page 6
The discussion of later economists revising the Phillips Curve shows awareness that knowledge develops through challenge and refinement. This is a good TOK move because it highlights that collaboration across time can improve, rather than simply increase, knowledge.
1.25·Weakness
Page 6
The Phillips Curve figure is useful, but the commentary does not fully unpack what the graph shows about the limits of knowledge. The student should connect the visual example to the claim that economic models are provisional and depend on context-sensitive assumptions.
1.26·Suggestion
Page 7
A stronger ending would synthesise the two AOKs by stating what the essay has shown about knowledge itself: for example, that finite material resources do not stop inquiry, but they shape the methods, standards, and limits of what can be known.
1.27·Suggestion
Page 7
A stronger ending would synthesise the two AOKs by stating what the essay has shown about knowledge itself: for example, that finite material resources do not stop inquiry, but they shape the methods, standards, and limits of what can be known.
1.28·Weakness
Page 7
The conclusion restates the overall direction of the essay, but it does not fully evaluate the tension in the title. The student should weigh whether expanding knowledge through technology and collaboration truly reconciles scarcity, or merely manages it more effectively.
1.29·Weakness
Page 7
The conclusion restates the overall direction of the essay, but it does not fully evaluate the tension in the title. The student should weigh whether expanding knowledge through technology and collaboration truly reconciles scarcity, or merely manages it more effectively.