The IB Philosophy IA criteria assess a 2,000-word philosophical analysis of a non-philosophical stimulus. Under the current course, first assessed in 2025, the work is marked across five criteria for a total of 25 marks: identification and justification, clarity, knowledge and understanding, analysis, and evaluation.
Your teacher marks the IA initially, after which the IB moderates a sample from your school. Although each criterion is awarded separately, weaknesses can affect several areas. Inaccurate philosophical knowledge, for example, can reduce Criterion C and undermine the analysis based on it.
IB Philosophy IA criteria at a glance
The task is the same at SL and HL, but its contribution to the final grade differs. According to the official IB Philosophy subject brief, the IA is worth 25% at SL and 20% at HL.
| Criterion | Focus | Maximum marks |
|---|---|---|
| A | Identification of issue and justification | 3 |
| B | Clarity | 4 |
| C | Knowledge and understanding | 4 |
| D | Analysis | 8 |
| E | Evaluation | 6 |
| Total | Philosophical analysis | 25 |
Analysis and evaluation provide 14 of the 25 marks. Accurate summaries of philosophers are therefore insufficient. Knowledge must be used to examine reasoning, compare viewpoints, test implications, and reach justified conclusions.
Criterion A: Identification and justification, 3 marks
Criterion A asks whether you have explicitly identified a philosophical issue and justified how the stimulus raises it. Full marks require both parts to be clear.
Suppose the stimulus shows a character whose memories have been erased. Stating that the IA concerns personal identity is too broad. You should explain why the scene raises a focused issue, such as whether continuity of memory is necessary for continuity of personal identity.
A research question can establish focus, but it does not earn marks merely by appearing in the title. The introduction should explain the logical connection between a specific feature of the stimulus and the philosophical problem. Avoid summarizing an entire film, article, image, or song when only one detail is relevant.
Criterion B: Clarity, 4 marks
Criterion B assesses whether the response is focused, structured, coherent, and understandable. It is not simply a spelling and grammar criterion.
Lower-band work is vague, poorly focused, or difficult to follow. A response reaching 3 marks is generally organized and clear, while 4 marks requires effective structure and consistently coherent expression. The distinction is not the presence of an introduction, body, and conclusion, but whether the organization advances the reasoning.
Give every paragraph a distinct function. One might explain a theory, the next identify an assumption, and the next test that assumption through an objection. Signposting such as “This objection challenges the assumption that...” can clarify the argumentative relationship between sections. Headings are optional and cannot compensate for disconnected reasoning.
Criterion C: Knowledge and understanding, 4 marks
This criterion concerns the relevance, accuracy, and detail of philosophical knowledge. It also assesses your explanation of the issue and use of philosophical terminology.
Markers reward precision rather than name-dropping. If you use Locke's account of memory and identity, explain why memory matters to personal identity and how that reasoning applies to the stimulus. Listing several philosophers without developing their ideas will not demonstrate detailed understanding.
Define concepts when their meaning affects the argument. Terms such as personhood, determinism, utility, and authenticity should perform a clear role rather than make the writing sound academic. In a 2,000-word response, two theories accurately explained and carefully applied are usually more productive than five superficial summaries.
Criterion D: Analysis, 8 marks
Criterion D carries the most marks. Analysis involves identifying claims, assumptions, implications, distinctions, logical connections, strengths, and weaknesses.
| Mark band | General quality of analysis |
|---|---|
| 1-2 | Mostly descriptive, with little analysis and ineffective examples |
| 3-4 | Some analysis, although description remains dominant |
| 5-6 | Relevant analysis and examples, but development is incomplete |
| 7-8 | Well-developed critical analysis using effective examples |
The key transition is from reporting a position to examining it. “Kant argues that persons must be treated as ends” demonstrates knowledge. Analysis asks why rational agency generates this status, whether that principle applies to the stimulus, and what consequences follow in a difficult case.
Examples should test or support reasoning rather than decorate it. When discussing utilitarianism and surveillance, compare a case where surveillance prevents serious harm with one where it produces little benefit. Explain what the contrast reveals about privacy, proportionality, and the measurement of consequences.
Some older versions of the Philosophy IA mark scheme explicitly placed counterarguments within Criterion D. The current criteria emphasize developed analysis and effective examples under D, while different viewpoints are addressed directly under Criterion E. Counterarguments still deepen analysis, but use the current rubric supplied by your school rather than an outdated version.
Criterion E: Evaluation, 6 marks
Evaluation means making and defending judgements. You must critically discuss different viewpoints, justify your main claims, maintain a position, and reach a conclusion consistent with the argument.
Lower-band evaluation offers little critical discussion or justification. Work in the middle bands considers alternatives but may reach a superficial or inconsistent conclusion. The 5-6 mark band requires clear critical discussion, justification of nearly all main points, a consistently held position, and a conclusion supported by the preceding argument.
Evaluation is not adding “I agree” after explaining a philosopher. A judgement needs a reason and an appropriate standard. One theory might be more convincing because it handles a counterexample better, relies on fewer questionable assumptions, or explains the stimulus without producing an unacceptable implication.
A consistent position may still be qualified. You could conclude that memory is important but insufficient for personal identity, provided the body develops that view. Marks are restricted when a response shifts between incompatible conclusions without recognizing or resolving the tension.
Analysis and evaluation are different skills
Students often combine both skills under the label “critical thinking,” but the criteria distinguish them.
| Skill | Central question | Example move |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis | How does the argument work? | Identify an assumption and trace its implications. |
| Evaluation | How convincing is it? | Compare it with an alternative and justify a judgement. |
Strong paragraphs frequently integrate both. Explain a claim, identify its assumption, test it through an example, consider a serious alternative, and then make a provisional judgement. This produces sustained argument rather than separate blocks of description and opinion.
How markers apply the criteria
The IA is criterion-related, not ranked against your classmates. Markers choose the descriptor that best matches the demonstrated work in each criterion. There is no fixed allocation of marks for quotations, philosophers, objections, headings, or bibliography entries.
You also do not need one section per criterion. Separating analysis and evaluation too rigidly can make the essay artificial. A coherent philosophical argument normally integrates accurate knowledge, examples, objections, alternative views, and judgements throughout.
The RevisionDojo Philosophy IA grader can help you inspect a draft against individual criteria. Its feedback is formative rather than official IB marking, so confirm assessment decisions and submission requirements with your teacher.
A practical criterion-based revision method
Revise the draft in separate passes:
- Issue pass: Highlight the sentence identifying the issue and the explanation linking it to the stimulus.
- Structure pass: Write a short purpose beside every paragraph. Merge or remove paragraphs without a distinct role.
- Knowledge pass: Verify definitions, philosopher attributions, quotations, and references.
- Analysis pass: Underline sentences examining assumptions, inferences, implications, distinctions, or limitations.
- Evaluation pass: Circle each justified judgement and check that the conclusion follows from them.
Compare your draft with annotated work to identify techniques, not to copy content or structure. RevisionDojo's Philosophy coursework exemplars include a 24/25 personal identity analysis and a 20/25 individuals and society analysis. Comparing their use of examples, objections, and judgements can clarify why strong knowledge does not automatically secure high marks in Criteria D and E.
Common mistakes that restrict marks
- Treating the stimulus as the main subject: It initiates the issue, but the response must become a philosophical argument.
- Writing a philosopher report: Exposition supports Criterion C but does not automatically demonstrate analysis.
- Using token opposition: A one-sentence objection does not create serious critical discussion.
- Making unsupported judgements: Terms such as “stronger” or “convincing” require an explained standard.
- Saving evaluation for the conclusion: Judgements should develop throughout the response.
- Using an outdated rubric: Check guidance against the course first assessed in 2025 on the IB Philosophy curriculum update page.
Conclusion
The IB Philosophy IA is marked out of 25, with the greatest weighting placed on analysis and evaluation. High-scoring work connects the stimulus to one focused issue, communicates a coherent argument, uses philosophical knowledge accurately, analyzes reasoning through effective examples, and defends a consistent conclusion.
RevisionDojo can support revision through its Philosophy IA examples and criterion feedback. Use exemplars to study techniques, the IA grader to diagnose weaknesses, and Jojo AI to test assumptions and counterarguments while keeping the submitted reasoning and writing your own.
Sources and referenced URLs
- Official IB Philosophy SL and HL subject brief
- Official IB Philosophy curriculum updates
- RevisionDojo Philosophy IA grader and criteria
- RevisionDojo Philosophy coursework exemplars
- RevisionDojo Philosophy IA examples and feedback
- RevisionDojo personal identity and memory IA exemplar
- RevisionDojo individuals and society IA exemplar
