Essay Title 1

1. “Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why
not” (Pablo Picasso). Explore this distinction with reference to two areas of knowledge.
 Appears obvious. Use of Sense Perception and reason - Seen what is and asked why?
 However, is sense perception enough? Stress on description -- How it might mislead
or only be partially correct
 Assumption that people are divided into ‘others’ and ‘I’ (in this case Picasso. May
also represent a section of population).
 Focus on ‘distinction’
 Assumption that you can think only one way or the other. May not necessarily be the
case.
 What could be and why not? - Imagination (Intuition?) and reason
 AoKs - Arts; Nat Sci; History - most obvious

Essay titles unpacked 1

Essay Title 2

2. “There is a sharp line between describing something and offering an explanation of

it.” To what extent do you agree with this claim?

Describe Explain Remarks

What does Object Process Make distinction between the

one..? two

How does Factual Interpretations

one…? observations

AOK - WOK Arts- SP, Arts- Intuition, emotion, In case of RKS and HS the
used NS- SP and Faith, belief, distinction may get blurred
Reason Natural Science-
Reason

Assumption The title presents that both description and explanation are distinct

Describe is used when the subject is an object which is factually similar to all situations and
circumstances.
Explain are for processes and providing reason.

Essay titles unpacked 2

Essay Title 3
3. Does it matter that your personal circumstances influence how seriously your
knowledge is taken?
 This promises to be this year’s trickiest title (the word “trickiest” is subjectively
used, of course!). Within the deceptively simple question, lies an entire story.
 It implies that an individual’s credibility is determined by his/her
circumstances. Then it goes on to ask: “does it matter that….” Implicit in this is
the idea that who or what determines credibility has, perhaps, very little to do
with what the constructed knowledge is. Its value is not determined by its
actual value but of the value placed on it by someone else (a group that
accepts).
 At its face value, one might immediately take the implicit statement to be true
 Explicit Key terms: Personal Circumstances; Influence; Knowledge
 Implicit Key terms: Value of knowledge; Perspectives; Credibility
 Assumptions in the title:
 Someone has to take it “seriously” for knowledge to be valuable
 Personal knowledge or constructed Shared knowledge created by
some individuals or groups are in danger of not being taken seriously
 There is value placed on knowledge
 Knowledge exists in hierarchies of acceptance
 The knowledge-creating individual or community needs to have
personal circumstances that establish credibility.
 Extracting - at the simplistic level - the claim and counter-claim:
 Personal circumstances should establish credibility for knowledge to be
accepted
 Personal circumstances should not matter - knowledge should be
viewed on its own merit
 Various lenses that this can be viewed through:
 Which knowledge communities are taken the most “seriously” in the
various AOKs?
 Which methodologies trump over others? [e.g. explore why the arts are
often seen as disciplines that don’t construct knowledge!]
 Why have almost all indigenous knowledge systems gone “extinct”?
 In what ways does the context [dominant discourse] establish
credibility?

Essay titles unpacked 3

Essay Title 4
4. “The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification.” To
what extent do you agree with this statement?
Keywords: Analogy, aid, understanding, justification
Possible assumptions:
Analogies may lead to analogical reasoning and analogical arguments.
AOK-NAT SC
Darwin used analogy between artificial and natural selection to argue for the plausibility of
NS.
The analogy of domestic productions, and from what we know of the struggle of existence
and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some very slight degree, in itself probable-
It appears that his analogy is used to show the probability of his hypothesis to an extent
which then makes his observation worthy of investigation. Of course, later some other
scientists rejected this analogy.
AOK-HISTORY
Sometimes analogical reasoning is the only available form of justification for a hypothesis.
The method of ethnographic analogy is used to interpret nonobservable behaviour of the
ancient inhabitants of an archaeological site (or ancient culture) based on the similarity of
their artifacts to those used by living peoples.
For example historians have used ethnographic analogy to determine the probable
significance of odd markings on the necks of Moche clay pots found in the Peruvian Andes.
Contemporary potters in Peru use these marks to indicate ownership; the marks enable them
to reclaim their work when several potters share a storage facility. Analogical reasoning may
be the only way to infer the past in such cases, though again this point is subject to dispute
AOK- MATH
Descartes’s correlation between geometry and algebra provided methods for systematically
handling geometrical problems that had long been recognized as analogous.
Analogical arguments of course vary logic and strength.
Suppose that you have established that of all rectangles with a fixed perimeter, the square has
maximum area. By analogy, you deduce that of all boxes with a fixed surface area, the cube
has maximum volume.
Through such arguments we justify understanding and through analogical reasoning we aid
understanding.
Some general questions that can be answered are :
How do humans identify analogies?
Do nonhuman animals use analogies in ways similar to humans?
How do analogies and metaphors influence concept formation?
How is analogical reasoning helpful in improving our understanding of a concept?
How does an analogical argument justify our understanding?
Is it possible to measure the level of understanding?

Essay titles unpacked 4

Essay Title 5
5. “Given that every theory has its limitations, we need to retain a multiplicity of
theories to understand the world.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of
knowledge.
Key words in the title: Limitations, retain, multiplicity, understand
Command Term: Discuss
Requirement: use TWO Areas of Knowledge
Implicit Knowledge claims in the title:
 Theories are built on other previous theories.
 All theories have limitations.
 Context changes affect the applicability of theories - leading to need for multiple
theories. Theories have limitations since some theories are more applicable in some
contexts as compared to others.
 We need to retain multiple theories to understand the world.
Possible assumptions:
Different contexts lead to theories having limitations (in terms of different definitions of key
terms in the models).
 Example for Human Sciences: Claim supporting the limitation of theories: economics
- theory of rationality - basis for almost all other theories - definition of rationality has
been argued - that shakes the basis of all the other theories; so, ceteris paribus is
added in order to qualify under what circumstances a particular theory (based on
rationality) will be effective in describing a scenario or outcome - for example, law of
demand - this says that if the prices go down, the demand will go up, and vice versa,
- however, in a situation of say, cigarettes: even if the prices go up, the demand will
remain constant and NOT GO DOWN; similarly for life-saving drugs - even if the
price increases, the demand will not go down. Therefore, the qualifier, ceteris
paribus, is added - which is that “if all other things remain constant”. In effect,
therefore, what is being said here is that the theory is self-limiting because the other
variables - addiction and life-and-death situation - are exceptions to the theoretical
framework provided.
Example for human sciences : claim supporting context having an effect on applicability -
Development Economics-- categorizes countries on the basis of different development
parameters-- poverty, equality, income, growth-- different methods of estimating the poverty
line -- one on the basis of income, secondly Amartya sen’s capability approach (stemming
from the fact that you earn income based on your abilities or capabilities) and, calorie intake
poverty line ( if income translates into a medical minimum requirement of calories then you
don’t qualify as “poor’)

Essay titles unpacked 5

Essay Title 6
6. “Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge.” Discuss this claim
with reference to two areas of knowledge.
 Aspect of continuity
 Ground breaking changes nonetheless - revolutions
 Can be argued that revolutions will also have a basis and therefore, continuity
 Past knowledge - may not be evident always as ‘knowledge’ of knowledge
 Present knowledge is also a part of the continuum. Provisional. No finality.
 Focus again on ‘wholly’. Can be argued.
 Argue whether within the same discipline? Present knowledge of something may be
dependent on past knowledge in another discipline.
 Nat Sci, History, HS

Essay titles unpacked 6