How to Write a TOK Essay [Updated for 2025]: A Step-by-Step Guide Using ChatGPT
So, it’s time to write your TOK essay - which accounts for a whopping 67% of your TOK grade. While it may not feel as important as other subjects, TOK (in combination with your Extended Essay) can give you 3 bonus points. Some of you might already have conditional offers from universities and - trust me - those extra 3 points can make a difference. Plus, TOK can teach you something about the world and the way we assimilate knowledge and do research - so it can give you a pretty good basis for things that are important in the academic world.
Want to learn how to use AI to get the most out of your IB essays?
Sign up for tutoring with world-class IB experts who’ll not only boost your grades - but also teach you how to use AI like a pro to supercharge your essays and study smarter.
Now, you’ve decided you want to use ChatGPT to help you write your essay - this is both allowed by the IB (if you reference it and to an extent) and could help you in some ways. It can, however, also work against you and lower your grade as a result. So, the following article showcases ways in which you can use ChatGPT to your advantage and in a responsible manner - nobody wants to receive an E on their TOK essay or be called in for a meeting to discuss plagiarism (mostly because then you’ll have to rewrite the whole TOK essay from scratch, doubling your work).
In order to determine how ChatGPT can be used to help you, I asked ChatGPT the following:
Could you please write a short essay of 1600 words (the TOK word count) that answers the following question: Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences. Thank you (always thank AI in case of a future uprising)
By the way - this question is the first on the list of the 2025 prescribed TOK essay titles. Also - 1600 words is the actual limit for the TOK essay, so it should compute a relevant response.
If you want to read the essay - it is posted at the bottom of this article. Since some of you don’t have time for this, I’ve just included all the main take-aways from the essay: what ChatGPT did well, what you can learn/use from it, and what you need to watch out for when using ChatGPT.
Pre-emptively, before providing this information, I should say that it is definitely not a good idea to just copy-paste whatever ChatGPT spits out since it will be flagged for plagiarism. In addition, ChatGPT doesn’t do actual referencing (it makes up the references which will be flagged at any school). Finally, if you do find a piece of information or a great sentence you wish to quote, ChatGPT must be referenced like any other source! With this in mind, let’s get started.
First off - let’s start with some things ChatGPT did well and some examples of things you can use for your own TOK essay.
The Good
As always, ChatGPT provides a good structure for your paper. It starts by providing an introduction and then, in excellent fashion, defines terms. Good TOK essays rely on a proper defining of terms. Unlike other subjects and disciplines, TOK terms cannot rely as much on terms that are part of our general knowledge - since we are often debating the definition of the very terms we are using. Defining these terms also shows the grader that you have a good understanding of the topic you are writing about.
ChatGPT also provides some great food for thought. In the essay, for instance, ChatGPT asks the question:
“What is the responsibility of the scholar when confronted with evidence that disrupts a previously held belief or theory?” (OpenAI, 2025).
What a great question to consider in your TOK essay. Definitely do not copy and paste this question, however! Reformulate it to something like:
“What is the ethical responsibility of a scholar? Why do they have a responsibility to answer questions to the best of their ability? What about cases where two pieces of information directly contradict each other?”.
The answer to these questions will provide some insight into answering the general question of the prescribed title. You could even turn these questions into subsections of your essay - dividing up a TOK question into smaller parts often helps to see if you are actually answering the question at hand or ‘writing around it in a descriptive manner’.
At the end of the essay, ChatGPT has given a list of case studies regarding the power of ethical engagement with contradictory evidence. It mentions, for instance, Transitional Justice and Historical Truth Commissions as an example. This is a great example of where to start looking for your case study. The Eichmann trial and the South African Reconciliation committee immediately come to mind (in case you are currently writing your TOK essay on this exact essay title). You will probably need to utilise a few examples in your TOK essay, given that the prescribed essay title asks you to discuss with reference to history and the human sciences. So, ChatGPT has given you a great place to start when it comes to finding these examples! Naturally, you will need to research these case studies further in order to use them effectively.
Takeaways:
ChatGPT gives you a great way to structure your paper (ie: introduction, definition of terms, etc…)
ChatGPT gives you some great food for thought.
ChatGPT gives you some great case studies that you can use for your TOK essay.
With that in mind, let’s move on to the issues with the ChatGPT-generated Essay.
The Bad/The Ugly
The following issue comes up a lot when using ChatGPT to answer essay questions. ChatGPT does not really answer the question you are asking - or at least it does so without care for nuance.
In the essay, ChatGPT considers the ethical obligation of researchers by noting that
“The core ethical obligation of any researcher is intellectual honesty” (OpenAI, 2025).
It then continues to note what intellectual honesty means. It does not, however, note why intellectual honesty is actually important. Why do we want our researchers to be honest? Why don’t we want our researchers to lie to us? In part this is because of the consequences - if our doctors lie to us about our medical conditions it has self-explanatory dire consequences. Perhaps it is because there is a moral obligation to tell the truth because that is how we would like to be treated? Perhaps it is because there is some normative power behind telling the truth - we live according to certain rules in society that must be upheld. Whatever your preferred stance is, you must go into the fundamentals of the question. TOK is all about debating the fundamental concepts and terms that we commonly accept.
I mentioned earlier that ChatGPT provided a good structure to a paper - I will now go back on that a little bit by talking about form. While ChatGPT started off with a great structure - a snappy introduction and a great definition of terms - the structure of the paper goes downhill after that.
ChatGPT attempts to discuss three parts of the issue at hand - whether human scientists and historians have an ethical obligation not to ignore contradictory evidence. It starts with a political aspect, continues with a pragmatic challenge and ends with an educational factor. While it sort of makes sense to mention these things, it would be far more fruitful if the essay was structured as follows:
Introduction
Definition of terms
The ethical obligation of historians (in which you discuss whether historians have an ethical obligation when it comes to contradictory evidence)
The ethical obligation of human scientists (in which you also discuss whether historians have an ethical obligation when it comes to contradictory evidence),
Case studies (where you apply what you’ve written about in the previous two sections),
Conclusion.
In this way, you really make sure you answer the question in reference to historians and human scientists. What ChatGPT has done is considered 3 important factors, but it has led to a descriptive and vague essay that, like I mentioned earlier, ‘talks around the question in a descriptive manner’. This is not what graders are looking for.
I also mentioned earlier that ChatGPT provided some great case studies - I will now also go back on that a bit (apologies). So, while the case studies are great - ChatGPT does not apply what it has talked about at all to the case studies at hand. Case studies in your TOK essay are supposed to showcase that you are able to apply what you have written about to the real world. If you, for instance, have argued that human scientists do have an ethical obligation not to accept contradictory evidence because it would lead to unfavourable outcomes, then the case studies are a great way to showcase that there have been real-life examples where a scientist’s acceptance of contradictory evidence has actually led to morally unfavourable outcomes. So, while the case studies ChatGPT provided are a great starting point, it misses the mark completely by not applying the arguments it has made to them.
A final short remark - ChatGPT has not justified the case studies it has chosen. The reason for choosing these case studies might seem commonsensical - but it is always a good idea to justify your use of case studies. Why did you pick these cases and not others?
The Definitely Do Not Do-takeways:
ChatGPT does not answer the actual question - or at least not with nearly enough detail.
ChatGPT ‘talks around’ the question by failing to structure the middle part of the essay - the actual content.
ChatGPT misses out by not applying its arguments to the case studies.
ChatGPT has not justified its use of these particular case studies.
So, I hope this helps you with your TOK essay. As I have mentioned before - ChatGPT is a great tool when it comes to brainstorming ideas, finding a loose structure for your paper and giving you some food for thought when it comes to what to write and which case studies to use. It is not a great tool when it comes to actual content - as it often fails to answer the question at hand or provide relevant information. Sometimes it feels like ChatGPT goes on tangents, or talks around a subject instead of directly analysing it.
If you are currently writing your TOK essay - good luck! And if you do decide to use ChatGPT - don’t forget to reference it!
The TOK essay that ChatGPT formulated:
“Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”?
The pursuit of truth, accuracy, and understanding lies at the core of both history and the human sciences. These disciplines, though varied in methodology and subject matter, share a commitment to the careful collection, interpretation, and communication of knowledge about human beings and societies. The directive “do not ignore contradictory evidence” is not merely a methodological caution but a moral imperative. Historians and human scientists wield influence over how societies understand themselves and others. Therefore, they have an ethical obligation to acknowledge and engage with contradictory evidence, even when it challenges dominant narratives or personal biases. Ignoring such evidence undermines scholarly integrity, distorts collective memory, and risks perpetuating harmful ideologies. This essay explores the ethical dimensions of this obligation in the fields of history and human sciences, discussing challenges, implications, and real-world examples.
Want better grades using AI (without plagiarising)?
Learn how to turn ChatGPT's vague answers into high-scoring essays with smart edits and clear structure.
The Nature of Evidence and Contradiction in History and Human Sciences
Before delving into the ethical responsibilities of scholars, it is important to clarify what is meant by “contradictory evidence.” In both history and the human sciences, evidence consists of data, documents, testimonies, and observations that are used to construct explanations and theories. Contradictory evidence refers to information that opposes, complicates, or invalidates existing interpretations or hypotheses.
In history, evidence often comes in the form of archival documents, artifacts, oral histories, or visual materials. Contradictory evidence might include records that challenge accepted versions of events or present marginalized perspectives. In the human sciences—which include disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and economics—contradictory evidence might emerge from new data, cross-cultural comparisons, or longitudinal studies that undermine prevailing models or assumptions.
Due to the complexity of human behavior and the inherent subjectivity in interpreting human action, contradictions are not only inevitable but essential for progress in understanding. This raises the ethical question: what is the responsibility of the scholar when confronted with evidence that disrupts a previously held belief or theory?
Ethical Obligations and Intellectual Integrity
The core ethical obligation of any researcher is intellectual honesty. For historians and human scientists, this includes an honest engagement with the full body of evidence, not just that which supports a particular viewpoint. Selectively presenting evidence while ignoring contradictory data can amount to academic malpractice, distorting the public’s understanding and contributing to false narratives.
Consider, for instance, the case of Holocaust denial. Historians have a moral obligation to challenge attempts to erase or distort evidence of atrocities. Denial often hinges on ignoring mountains of documentary and testimonial evidence in favor of cherry-picked anomalies. Responsible historians, in contrast, must confront even the most uncomfortable or ambiguous evidence to provide a comprehensive, truthful account. To do otherwise is to risk complicity in moral and historical injustice.
Similarly, in the human sciences, unethical disregard for contradictory evidence can have real-world consequences. Consider early psychological studies that ignored evidence of trauma in children placed in orphanages. Because early behaviorist theories dismissed the emotional needs of infants, contradictory findings by researchers like John Bowlby (who emphasized attachment and bonding) were initially resisted. Over time, however, the field corrected itself—partially through acknowledging and incorporating the very contradictory evidence that had once been sidelined. The ethical obligation to engage with such evidence is what allowed the discipline to grow and provide more humane, effective models for child welfare.
Struggling with your TOK essay? Learn how to use AI without getting flagged for plagiarism.
Bias, Power, and the Politics of Knowledge
One of the reasons contradictory evidence is sometimes ignored is because it threatens established power structures or dominant paradigms. This raises the ethical stakes considerably. Knowledge is not created in a vacuum; it is often shaped by political, cultural, and economic forces. Historians and human scientists must be aware of how their work can either challenge or reinforce those forces.
For example, the historiography of colonialism has undergone dramatic shifts in recent decades. Earlier accounts often ignored or minimized the violence, exploitation, and cultural erasure experienced by colonized peoples. These narratives were often based on colonial archives, which themselves were products of power dynamics. Contradictory evidence—from indigenous oral histories, archaeological findings, and declassified documents—presented a more nuanced and often damning picture of imperial practices. Ethically committed historians have worked to integrate these sources, recognizing that failure to do so is not just academically flawed but morally irresponsible.
In the human sciences, we can see similar dynamics at play. Race science in the 19th and early 20th centuries often ignored contradictory data in order to support theories of racial hierarchy. Scientists who challenged such views—like Franz Boas in anthropology—faced significant resistance, even though their findings were empirically more robust. Today, ethical researchers are increasingly aware of their responsibility to uncover and confront systemic biases, including those within their own disciplines.
Pragmatic Challenges and the Role of Interpretation
While the ethical obligation to engage with contradictory evidence is clear, it must be acknowledged that this is not always straightforward in practice. Evidence can be ambiguous, incomplete, or context-dependent. Scholars must exercise judgment in determining the relevance and weight of contradictory data. Ethical scholarship does not require accepting all contradictory evidence at face value, but it does demand transparent engagement with it.
For example, in psychological research, replication studies sometimes produce results that contradict original findings. The “replication crisis” has prompted much debate about what such contradictions mean and how to interpret them. Ethically, it is incumbent on researchers to seriously consider these contradictions, report them openly, and refine their theories accordingly. This may mean discarding popular models or acknowledging limitations in past studies—steps that require humility and courage.
Historians, too, must navigate interpretive complexity. A single document might contradict a prevailing narrative, but how representative is it? Was it written under duress or influenced by ulterior motives? Ethical historical practice involves placing contradictory evidence in context—not ignoring it, but assessing it carefully. Failure to engage critically with such evidence may lead to presentism (judging the past by contemporary standards) or revisionism that lacks scholarly rigor.
Educational and Social Responsibilities
Beyond the academy, historians and human scientists play a crucial role in shaping public understanding. Textbooks, documentaries, and policy papers often derive from academic research. The ethical responsibility to address contradictory evidence is therefore amplified by the potential social consequences of misinformation.
For example, in economics, ignoring contradictory evidence about austerity measures can lead to policies that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. Similarly, public health policies that disregard contradictory findings about mental health, substance abuse, or poverty can have devastating impacts. Ethical research must not only acknowledge contradiction but strive to communicate it effectively to broader audiences, resisting the temptation to oversimplify or mislead for the sake of clarity or persuasion.
In education, teaching students to critically engage with contradictory evidence builds intellectual resilience and empathy. Students learn that truth is often complex and contested—a crucial lesson in an era of misinformation and political polarization.
Case Studies in Ethical Engagement
Several examples illustrate the power of ethical engagement with contradictory evidence:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: For decades, public health researchers ignored contradictory evidence and ethical standards, continuing a study that withheld treatment from Black men with syphilis. It was only when whistleblowers and investigative journalists brought forward contradictory accounts that the full scope of the abuse was acknowledged. This led to reforms in research ethics and institutional review processes.
Climate Change Research: In environmental science—a human science with global implications—early models faced skepticism, and contradictory evidence was sometimes used to delay action. However, the overwhelming convergence of data across disciplines has made the ethical imperative to act and inform indisputable. Ignoring minority contradictory data does not mean dismissing it; rather, it must be evaluated transparently and included in assessments of uncertainty and risk.
Transitional Justice and Historical Truth Commissions: In countries recovering from authoritarianism or civil war, truth commissions often uncover contradictory narratives about violence, responsibility, and victimhood. Ethical historians working with such bodies must include all voices, even when they complicate national reconciliation. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example, faced the difficult task of balancing contested truths. Ethical engagement with contradiction was central to its legitimacy.
Conclusion
The directive “do not ignore contradictory evidence” is not just a guideline for robust research; it is a moral compass for anyone committed to intellectual integrity and social responsibility. Historians and human scientists occupy positions of significant influence. When they ignore contradictory evidence, whether intentionally or through negligence, they risk perpetuating falsehoods, harming communities, and undermining the credibility of their disciplines.
Engaging with contradictory evidence is challenging. It may require revising long-held theories, confronting uncomfortable truths, or navigating complex political pressures. But it is also through such engagement that knowledge advances and societies become more just, inclusive, and self-aware. In both history and the human sciences, the ethical obligation to confront contradiction is not optional—it is foundational.”
(OpenAI, 2025)
References
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (June 5 version)[Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
