How Specific Is Specific Enough in TOK
Specific Enough to Analyze
TOK examples do not need endless detail. They need the right detail. Specific enough means the example has enough information to support a knowledge claim without turning the paragraph into a subject report.
Name the Case
A useful standard is the 3-2-1 rule. You need three factual anchors, two knowledge links, and one limitation. The factual anchors might be the case, the source or method, and the outcome. The knowledge links might be evidence and interpretation, or method and certainty. The limitation is what the example cannot prove.
Show What Changed
For example, if your example is about a scientific model, three factual anchors might be the model, the data it used, and a prediction or error. Two knowledge links might be how models simplify reality and how uncertainty is communicated. One limitation might be that one model failure does not mean scientific modelling is unreliable in general.
Connect Detail to Knowledge
This is specific enough because it gives you analysis material. You do not need to explain every technical detail of the model. In fact, too much subject detail can hurt TOK. The paragraph should not become a science lesson, history lecture, or art commentary. It should use the example to discuss knowledge.
Stop Before It Becomes a Story
A sign that you are not specific enough is that your claim uses words like 'things', 'people', 'society', 'science', or 'history' without naming a concrete case. A sign that you are too detailed is that your paragraph spends more time explaining the subject than explaining what the subject reveals about knowledge.
Use the reader test. Could another IB student understand the example's role in your argument after three sentences? If yes, you probably have enough detail. If they only understand the topic but not the point, you need more specificity. If they understand the technical details but not the TOK point, you need less description and more knowledge framing.
Specific enough is not a word count. It is a function. The example is specific enough when it can clearly answer: what happened, what knowledge issue appears, how it supports the claim, and where the claim has limits.