“To what extent has Australia’s tobacco excise tax succeeded in reducing cigarette consumption and internalizing the negative externality of smoking-related health costs?”SL
Loading scores...
B
Official IB Result
IB Grade: B
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Topic communication and appropriateness
Excellent
A.2Research question clarity and focus
Good
A.3Methodology completeness and appropriateness
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student's topic is clearly framed, geographically bounded, and clearly linked to a real economic policy issue.
- The student's research question stays visible throughout most of the investigation and gives the essay a clear direction.
- The student shows a sensible attempt to select a manageable range of sources and methods for the topic.
- The student's method does not fully explain how their evidence can measure the claim about internalizing smoking-related health costs.
- Some evidence extends beyond the stated investigation window, which weakens the tightness of focus.
- The selection of sources and the way they are used is not always explained in enough detail to show fully informed method choices.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Application and relevance of source material
Good
B.2Knowledge of topic/discipline
Moderate
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student shows clear knowledge of externalities, market failure, excise tax, elasticity, and regressivity.
- The student uses a range of relevant economic concepts in a way that generally fits the tobacco policy context.
- The student's source material is mostly relevant to the Australian case and helps them build a coherent policy discussion.
- Some concepts are applied too broadly or too absolutely, especially where legal sales are treated as if they fully represent total consumption.
- The student does not always distinguish clearly between evidence that supports the policy and evidence that only suggests it indirectly.
- Some diagrams and terminology are not consistently precise enough to show fully secure disciplinary understanding.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
10/12
0
6
12
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Research quality and relevance
Moderate
C.2Analysis depth
Poor
C.3Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Criteria D: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Structure appropriateness
Good
D.2Layout and formatting
Good
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.