Challenging Assumptions

[emevas]

What does it mean to "successfully challenge assumptions"?

Shoul the challenge of the assumptions of the question be the key thesis of the essay, or should it just be a mentioned aside? If it's just a mentioned aside, where should it be placed?

[sweetnsimple786]

I'm not familiar with what essay you're referring to... the IA maybe?

I know that in order to fully support your argument, you should have counterarguments that the other side may argue. After you present these other points of view, you should explain why your argument is more valid. I don't think challenging assumptions needs to be an ongoing idea in your paper unless your whole topic is about an area where most people say one thing, and you want to argue against that--then your paper would be listing the other arguments and how your point of view is better historically and logically. Other than that, I'd devote a paragraph to pointing out other views about my topic.

Does that help any?

[Hyperbole]

As far as I've understood it, in order to "successfully challenge the assumption" made in a question, there needs to be an assumption made. One essay that I've written (in class) where I was instructed on how to challenge the assumption is "'The German Unification was built more truly on coal and iron than on blood and iron.' How far do you agree with this statement?" What you can do to challenge this assumption is to write your essay in three parts.

The first part is the Yes part: coal and iron (=economy) was more important than blood and iron (=wars). Talk about the Congress of Vienna, the Zollverein, Prussian policies and so on.

Then you write the No part: wars were most important. There is the Schleswig-Holstein war (1863-64) which raised Bismarck's domestic popularity and created a possible conflict with Austria; the Austro-Prussian war (1866) which excluded Austria from Central Europe; and the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) which convinced the Southern German States that unification was good.

Then comes the challenge part: "But there were also other factors which contributed to the unification..." Nationalism and Diplomacy in this question.

In the conclusion, I would mention how far I agree with the statement in the question and include something about the other factors.

So I guess that the easiest question to challenge an assumption in is one where you're given two alternatives: "which of x and y was the most important?".

As for your question about whether it should be an aside, YES. In my opinion. It doesn't make sense to write an essay on the importance of diplomacy when the question focuses on economy and wars; but it adds to the quality if you mention it. For me, the logical placement of a challenge is at the end, after you've covered the main points that are asked for in the question but before you conclude.

In general, though, I think it's much more important to make sure you include historiography than to challenge the assumption. If you have an obviously challengeable question, then go for it! But don't spend ages trying to find a suitable challenge. You can definitely get a seven without challenging a single assumption; you only need marks in the 14-16 markband in order to achieve a seven in the end, whereas challenging the assumptions is only required for the 17+ markband.

I hope this helps you at least a little bit.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Hyperbole