English A Lang & Lit Extended Essay Exemplar: How do Clinton’s 2016… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB English A Lang & Lit SL Extended Essay Example

How do Clinton’s 2016 and Harris' 2024 presidential campaigns employ rhetorical strategies in their campaign videos (“The Story of Her,” “The Kamala Harris Story,” “Role Models” and “Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President”) to construct a viable female presidential persona?SL

Official IB Result

28/30

Criteria A: Framework for the Essay

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question

Excellent

A.2Research methods

Good

A.3Structure

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is clearly stated and genuinely comparative, with a focused corpus of four named campaign videos.
The essay is organised into recognisable academic sections that generally help the reader follow the line of inquiry.
The comparison is conceptually coherent, especially in the way the student frames competing female presidential personas.

The comparative method is not fully explicit, so the reader is not always shown how the four texts are being analysed in a controlled and systematic way.
Some structural choices, including pagination gaps and a table of contents that does not always match the essay’s organisation, reduce the effectiveness of communication.
A few section labels and transitions feel more descriptive than analytical, which weakens the overall academic flow.

1.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

The table of contents is present, but it does not fully reflect the actual pagination or section organisation of the essay. Aligning the listed pages and section titles more precisely would make the structure easier to follow and strengthen the academic presentation.

1.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The student defines a clear corpus and a genuinely comparative task. Naming all four texts and grouping them by candidate and genre gives their essay a workable scope and helps the reader immediately see what will be analysed.

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

The student could consider stating the comparative procedure more explicitly: for example, they could explain whether they will analyse each video in the same sequence of features or compare the same rhetorical move across all four texts. That would make their method feel more controlled and replicable.

1.4·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This sentence mixes a textual observation with a theory claim, but the logic is not fully explained. The student needs to show more precisely how the anecdote creates transportation before concluding that it makes the story convincing; otherwise the method reads more like a label than an analysis.

1.5·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

This is a strong organising move because it gives the comparison a clear analytical hinge. The student is not just listing features; they are contrasting the different value systems each campaign uses to build ethos.

1.6·Question

Page 9• Click to view

How is this balance achieved differently across the montage, sound, and testimony rather than just at the level of surface meaning? Pushing into those formal details would make the structural comparison more persuasive.

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Knowledge

Good

B.2Understanding (Terminology)

Excellent

B.3Understanding (Concepts)

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses a broad range of relevant terminology accurately in many places, including rhetorical and multimodal terms.
The essay demonstrates secure familiarity with the subject matter through relevant primary texts and supporting scholarship.
Key concepts such as ethos, pathos, the double bind, and social proof are usually connected to the campaign context.

Some concepts are introduced more quickly than they are demonstrated, so terminology can sometimes feel applied as a label rather than justified through close evidence.
A few source and bibliography inconsistencies weaken the reliability of the knowledge base.
At times the essay moves from textual features to audience conclusions too quickly, without enough support from the specific material.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

This is a strong conceptual foundation. The student introduces a relevant scholarly framework and immediately connects it to the core tension in female candidacy, which gives the essay a clear intellectual direction.

2.2·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

This claim is promising, but the connection to the evidence is still too general. The student should explain exactly how the quoted language and visual detail produce the religious or multicultural reading, rather than moving quickly to broad audience conclusions.

2.3·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

This sentence overstates the evidence by turning description into a sweeping claim. If the student wants to argue that the montage establishes long-term competence, they should point to the specific actions, sequencing, and repeated service roles that support that reading.

2.4·Suggestion

Page 13• Click to view

The student could strengthen this section by distinguishing more carefully between what the music itself does and what the celebrity association adds. Separating those layers would make their use of terminology feel more precise and less cumulative.

2.5·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

This is a useful interpretive point, but the term is asserted rather than justified. The student should explain why the Pledge functions as appropriation in this context and what specific textual evidence makes that interpretation stronger than alternatives.

2.6·Question

Page 20• Click to view

What would change in the student's interpretation if Harris’s language were read less as binary simplification and more as a strategic response to an already polarised electorate? That distinction would sharpen their conceptual understanding of persuasion.

Criteria C: Analysis and Line of Argument

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Analysis

Good

C.2Line of argument

Good

Criteria Feedback

The essay makes several strong analytical moves by linking formal choices to persuasive purpose rather than simply describing content.
There is a clear comparative argument throughout about how each candidate constructs a different female political persona.
Some passages show real close reading of sequencing, juxtaposition, and multimodal detail.

Parts of the essay remain explanatory or speculative rather than fully analytical, especially when they move too quickly from a feature to an audience effect.
The argument is not sustained evenly across paragraphs, and some material becomes tangential to the central comparison.
Several conclusions would be stronger if they were supported by tighter evidence from shot order, sound, duration, or editing.

3.1·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

This claim moves too quickly from technique to audience effect. The student needs to explain how the subtitle style works visually and rhetorically before stating that it improves credibility; otherwise the analysis feels asserted rather than demonstrated.

3.2·Strength

Page 11• Click to view

This is effective analysis because the student shows how the ad’s rhetorical force comes from selection and arrangement, not just from what Trump says. They connect the formal choice to the persuasive purpose, which deepens the argument.

3.3·Strength

Page 12• Click to view

This is a strong close reading because the student links title, speech, and visual sequence into one interpretive pattern. The analysis shows how meaning is created through juxtaposition rather than through isolated features.

3.4·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

The interpretation is plausible, but the phrasing is too deterministic. Consider qualifying how the edit invites this reading, and support it with tighter evidence from shot order, duration, or sound to show why the moral-crisis framing is convincing.

3.5·Suggestion

Page 15• Click to view

To make this analysis even stronger, consider unpacking the sequence of movement, light, and group composition separately. Breaking the metaphor into its formal components would show exactly how the hopeful meaning is constructed.

3.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

This conclusion is clear, but it is still more summarising than argumentative. The student should show one final step of reasoning: which specific evidence most strongly proves the shift they claim, and why that evidence matters for their overall line of argument?

3.7·Strength

Page 23• Click to view

This is a strong, sustained argument because it synthesises the essay’s main comparison into one clear claim. It works well as a final analytical takeaway because it links the texts, the historical context, and the concept of viability.

Criteria D: Discussion and Evaluation

4/8

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Discussion

Moderate

D.2Evaluation

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The essay offers a balanced discussion by recognising possible strengths and limitations in both campaigns’ rhetorical strategies.
There is some use of supporting evidence and scholarship to frame the significance of the findings.
The writing shows awareness that persuasive choices can be effective in one respect while problematic in another.

The discussion is not fully supported by evidence throughout, and some counter-readings remain hypothetical rather than firmly grounded in the texts.
The evaluation focuses more on the campaigns than on the essay as an investigation, so the strengths and limitations of the research process are not fully addressed.
The essay would be stronger with fewer, more fully developed evaluative points rather than several shorter ones.

4.1·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

This is a thoughtful evaluative move because the student recognises both the rhetorical strength and the strategic vulnerability of the same choice. That kind of tension-based evaluation is exactly what strengthens discussion in an EE.

4.2·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

This is a useful starting point, but the criticism remains too general. The student should identify which specific textual choices create each limitation and explain why those choices matter for the overall effectiveness of the campaign videos.

4.3·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

This evaluative point is relevant, but it needs firmer support from the text itself. Explain what in the sequence, imagery, or sound makes the child imagery vulnerable to that reading, rather than leaving the limitation as a general possibility.

4.4·Weakness

Page 19• Click to view

This passage introduces evaluation, but the source-use is not secure here. The cited scholarship should be tied much more clearly to the campaign context and the exact rhetorical move being evaluated, otherwise the criticism feels imported rather than demonstrated.

4.5·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

The student is doing well to weigh both the persuasive benefits and the strategic costs of the same device. That balanced treatment shows real evaluative awareness rather than one-sided approval or criticism.

4.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

The student still needs a fuller self-evaluation of their own investigation. There is little explicit reflection on the strengths and limitations of their corpus, method, or source base, so the evaluation currently focuses more on the campaigns than on the essay as research.

4.7·Question

Page 22• Click to view

To what extent is that limitation a flaw in the candidates’ rhetoric, and to what extent is it a consequence of the campaign-ad genre itself? That distinction would make the student's evaluation more nuanced and convincing.

Criteria F: Formatting

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1The student provides a word count at the beginning of the document

F.2The title of the essay is stated at the start

F.3The work does not surpass the maximum word limit of 4000 words

F.4The pages are numbered

Criteria Feedback

The word count is clearly stated and within the maximum limit.
The title is clearly given at the start of the document.
The pages are numbered consecutively.

Several bibliography and citation details are inconsistent or incomplete.
Some source entries appear merged or not fully separated in the works cited section.
The reliability of the evidence base is weakened by these documentation issues.

5.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student clearly states the title at the start, which immediately identifies the topic, scope, and comparative focus of the essay.

5.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student meets the word-count requirement, so the essay stays within the maximum limit while still allowing enough space for sustained analysis.

5.3·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The document includes a table of contents and conventional academic sections, which helps the reader orient themselves before the main argument begins.

5.4·Suggestion

Page 23• Click to view

The student could consider using the final page to signal the essay’s main contribution more explicitly, then end with a brief note about what their comparison reveals about the genre of campaign video itself. That would give the conclusion a stronger formal finish.

5.5·Weakness

Page 24• Click to view

The bibliography has several consistency issues like this one, where citations in the essay and works cited list do not fully match. The student should verify every entry and make sure in-text citations, dates, and author names are complete and consistent throughout.

5.6·Weakness

Page 25• Click to view

This element shows that multiple bibliography entries have been run together. Separate each source clearly and check punctuation, order, and missing details so the works cited page meets academic standards.

5.7·Weakness

Page 26• Click to view

This source mismatch matters because it weakens the reliability of the evidence base. If the student cites a 2024 study in the essay, the bibliography must match it exactly; otherwise the reader cannot verify their claim or judge the relevance of the research.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

28/30

Criteria A: Framework for the Essay

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question

Excellent

A.2Research methods

Good

A.3Structure

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is clearly stated and genuinely comparative, with a focused corpus of four named campaign videos.
The essay is organised into recognisable academic sections that generally help the reader follow the line of inquiry.
The comparison is conceptually coherent, especially in the way the student frames competing female presidential personas.

The comparative method is not fully explicit, so the reader is not always shown how the four texts are being analysed in a controlled and systematic way.
Some structural choices, including pagination gaps and a table of contents that does not always match the essay’s organisation, reduce the effectiveness of communication.
A few section labels and transitions feel more descriptive than analytical, which weakens the overall academic flow.

1.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

1.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

1.4·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

1.5·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

1.6·Question

Page 9• Click to view

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Knowledge

Good

B.2Understanding (Terminology)

Excellent

B.3Understanding (Concepts)

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses a broad range of relevant terminology accurately in many places, including rhetorical and multimodal terms.
The essay demonstrates secure familiarity with the subject matter through relevant primary texts and supporting scholarship.
Key concepts such as ethos, pathos, the double bind, and social proof are usually connected to the campaign context.

Some concepts are introduced more quickly than they are demonstrated, so terminology can sometimes feel applied as a label rather than justified through close evidence.
A few source and bibliography inconsistencies weaken the reliability of the knowledge base.
At times the essay moves from textual features to audience conclusions too quickly, without enough support from the specific material.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.2·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

2.3·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

2.4·Suggestion

Page 13• Click to view

2.5·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

2.6·Question

Page 20• Click to view

Criteria C: Analysis and Line of Argument

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Analysis

Good

C.2Line of argument

Good

Criteria Feedback

The essay makes several strong analytical moves by linking formal choices to persuasive purpose rather than simply describing content.
There is a clear comparative argument throughout about how each candidate constructs a different female political persona.
Some passages show real close reading of sequencing, juxtaposition, and multimodal detail.

Parts of the essay remain explanatory or speculative rather than fully analytical, especially when they move too quickly from a feature to an audience effect.
The argument is not sustained evenly across paragraphs, and some material becomes tangential to the central comparison.
Several conclusions would be stronger if they were supported by tighter evidence from shot order, sound, duration, or editing.

3.1·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

3.2·Strength

Page 11• Click to view

3.3·Strength

Page 12• Click to view

3.4·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

3.5·Suggestion

Page 15• Click to view

3.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

3.7·Strength

Page 23• Click to view

Criteria D: Discussion and Evaluation

4/8

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Discussion

Moderate

D.2Evaluation

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The essay offers a balanced discussion by recognising possible strengths and limitations in both campaigns’ rhetorical strategies.
There is some use of supporting evidence and scholarship to frame the significance of the findings.
The writing shows awareness that persuasive choices can be effective in one respect while problematic in another.

The discussion is not fully supported by evidence throughout, and some counter-readings remain hypothetical rather than firmly grounded in the texts.
The evaluation focuses more on the campaigns than on the essay as an investigation, so the strengths and limitations of the research process are not fully addressed.
The essay would be stronger with fewer, more fully developed evaluative points rather than several shorter ones.

4.1·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

4.2·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

4.3·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

4.4·Weakness

Page 19• Click to view

4.5·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

4.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

4.7·Question

Page 22• Click to view

Criteria F: Formatting

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1The student provides a word count at the beginning of the document

F.2The title of the essay is stated at the start

F.3The work does not surpass the maximum word limit of 4000 words

F.4The pages are numbered

Criteria Feedback

The word count is clearly stated and within the maximum limit.
The title is clearly given at the start of the document.
The pages are numbered consecutively.

Several bibliography and citation details are inconsistent or incomplete.
Some source entries appear merged or not fully separated in the works cited section.
The reliability of the evidence base is weakened by these documentation issues.

5.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student clearly states the title at the start, which immediately identifies the topic, scope, and comparative focus of the essay.

5.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student meets the word-count requirement, so the essay stays within the maximum limit while still allowing enough space for sustained analysis.

5.3·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The document includes a table of contents and conventional academic sections, which helps the reader orient themselves before the main argument begins.

5.4·Suggestion

Page 23• Click to view

5.5·Weakness

Page 24• Click to view

5.6·Weakness

Page 25• Click to view

5.7·Weakness

Page 26• Click to view