IB Biology Extended Essay Exemplar
¿Qué hace al virus de la rabia tan mortal en comparación con otros virus neurotrópicos?
Loading scores...
Was this exemplar helpful?
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
The research question is clearly stated, sharply focused and consistently revisited throughout the essay.
The topic is communicated accurately with comprehensive explanations of virology, immunology and epidemiology.
Subsidiary questions and structured sections maintain a sustained focus on the mechanistic comparison of rabies with other neurotropic viruses.
Methodology lacks explicit detail on search strategies, database selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria, reducing transparency.
No critical appraisal framework is provided for web sources, weakening justification of their reliability.
The theoretical framework does not explicitly tie historical context to the analytical design of subsequent sections.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Terminology (e.g., interferones tipo I/III, proteínas STAT1/2, ISGF3) is used accurately and consistently throughout.
Source material is generally well integrated, with correct attribution of tables, graphs and figures to support key claims.
Definitions are provided upon first use and Spanish/English nomenclature is handled appropriately.
Citation style is inconsistent in figure captions and in-text references, hindering source tracing.
Some mechanistic descriptions lack direct citations, and a few statistical symbols are not fully defined in situ.
Over-reliance on secondary summaries leads to occasional gaps in directly applying primary data.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
5/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
Quantitative analyses (bar charts, Pearson correlation, coefficient of variation) are clearly relevant to the research question and interpreted with biological insight.
The discussion weighs multiple lines of evidence, acknowledges limitations and synthesises findings into a coherent conclusion.
The argument is logically structured, with clear transitions and counter-arguments noted.
Computational inaccuracies (e.g., mis-calculated coefficient of variation) and lack of statistical rigour (no p-values or confidence intervals) constrain the depth of analysis.
Key inclusion criteria for virus selection are not explicitly justified, limiting reproducibility.
Some speculative claims (e.g., ranking of STAT1 mechanisms) outpace the presented evidence.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
The overall structure follows the expected extended-essay format with logical sequencing of sections and embedded visuals.
Headings and sub-headings facilitate reader navigation, and figures are placed near relevant text.
Layout considerations (consistent font, captions for tables and figures) are correctly applied.
Page numbers are missing, and the table of contents has incorrect pagination.
There is no abstract, and some figure labels (e.g., raw Mermaid syntax) disrupt professional presentation.
Bibliography formatting is inconsistent and the annex tables are mis-aligned.