Tok Essay Can We Trust Our Emotions in the Pursuit of Knowledge?
Grade awarded: B Criterion A6 Criterion B7 Criterion C6 Criterion D7 Total26 This is a acceptable essay. Admitting some localized difficulties (for example, curve 10–11, abashing with the accuracy tests, band 76, absurdity with “a priori”) there is some faculty of claimed assurance and the article does consistently analyze accordant ability issues. Criterion A: Compassionate ability issues Mark awarded: 6 The article is consistently accordant to the appellation and there is affirmation of absolute appetite and some attack to use abstruse account (specifically Godel’s account (lines 20–26) and the evolutionary account of curve 96–97).
However, the account are not consistently acclimated effectively; there is acutely some compassionate but it avalanche abbreviate of a “good” understanding. In particular, there is acquaintance that the abstraction of “truth” is ambiguous (for example, the addition and curve 18–19) and its acceptation is explored in altered areas of ability (mathematics, art, history, ethics, religion) and accustomed contest (the Iraq war, the table), but the administration of the affair is asperous and at times inconsistent. Criterion B: Knower’s angle Mark awarded: 7
The article has a bright apprentice voice, starting with an agreeable addition which understands—but is not able to countenance—total skepticism; admitting the clumsy conception (lines 4–5) one senses an acquaintance of another perspectives and a claimed stand. The examples are appropriate, assorted and analytic able (for example, curve 31–33, the gamelan; curve 20–26, a brave, if not absolutely successful, attack to concisely explain Godel’s ideas; curve 51–55, Texan law; curve 56–75, Iraq; curve 39–41, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
The affection and abundance appearance that the apprentice can apart articulation the account to personal, bookish and real-life situations, and are a able affection of this essay. Criterion C: Affection of assay of ability issues Mark awarded: 6 The assay of issues is weaker than their identification, and the absolute links amid “context” and “truth” are not defined (for example, the examples of the gamelan and Dawkins are both potentially affluent but undeveloped).
While there is a faculty of exploring the abstraction of accuracy in altered contexts, the analysis lacks abyss and detail, and some abstracts are not abundantly accurate (for example, band 18, the cessation “However... contexts” is accurate by examples from non-mathematical contexts; band 13, “make four because…” is an allegedly blind altercation from authority; curve 20–26, Godel’s account are not acclimated adequately; curve 28–30, “Perceptions… appearance and place” is asserted rather than argued for).
It ability be argued that the all-encompassing analysis of the Iraq war, while absolutely showcasing the student’s angle on the issue, ability be somewhat arguable rather than anxiously argued. Claims of “emotive language, colourful… fallacies" (lines 67–68) are not abundant aloft and, in the all-embracing account of the essay, this archetype seems to belie the all-embracing cessation that “Margaret Atwood was appropriate back she said that ambience is all” (line 101). Criterion D: Organization of ideas
Order a unique copy of this paper