IB Geography SL Extended Essay Example

The title clearly signals a geographical and comparative investigation. It identifies both the topic and the place of study, which immediately helps the reader understand the essay’s focus.

This is a clear, relevant research question with a defined location and comparison. The wording makes the investigation’s purpose easy to follow and gives the analysis a workable structure.

The topic is introduced clearly, but the phrasing is still broad and slightly repetitive. The student should tighten the scope by stating exactly which neighbourhoods and which indicators will be compared, so the method and analysis align more precisely with the question.

The study area shifts between AP 2.1, the South Zone, and four neighbourhoods, which weakens precision. The student should define one consistent spatial framework and explain why these four neighbourhoods are the appropriate comparison set.

Consider adding a brief classification table that distinguishes legal status from physical form. That would help the reader understand why Rocinha and Vidigal are treated as comparators within a formal/informal framework.

The methodology is not fully complete here because the intended sampling design is not carried through consistently. The student should explain how the missing Rocinha primary data and the reduced Vidigal coverage affect comparability before drawing conclusions.

This limitation is important, but it also creates an uneven evidence base across the comparison. The student should state how the imbalance was mitigated and why the remaining data are still sufficient for a fair comparison.

This is a strong source choice for secondary data. To strengthen the method further, the student could briefly justify why these municipal datasets are appropriate for each indicator and note any known date limitations.

The discussion shows understanding that favelas are not static or uniformly informal. This nuanced historical framing helps avoid oversimplifying settlement development.

This provides useful context and shows awareness of inequality at a national scale before narrowing to Rio. The student is effectively using background information to frame the local investigation.

The student makes a clear conceptual link between urban planning, infrastructure, and the SDGs. This helps ground the investigation in relevant geographical ideas rather than only describing local conditions.

This sentence is conceptually unclear and contains repetition. The student should rewrite it so the link between SDG 6 and the sewage issue is precise, grammatically clear, and directly tied to the investigation.

This claim is left incomplete and therefore cannot support the point being made. The student should finish the explanation and ensure the sentence directly connects the map evidence to the comparison between formal and informal areas.

This note is useful because it clarifies a key source limitation. The student could expand this further by explaining how the boundary difference affects any neighbourhood-level comparisons made later in the essay.

The health discussion is too sweeping here. The student should distinguish between direct evidence and possible consequences, and explain the causal pathways more carefully rather than presenting every illness as an equally direct result of the Valas.

This is a strong example of evidence being applied directly to the hypothesis. The student interprets the map rather than simply describing it, which supports analytical depth.

This is a well-developed comparison because it links spatial evidence to a broader interpretation. The phrase “seemingly government investment” is appropriately cautious and shows some evaluative restraint.

If both areas ultimately connect to the same outfall, what does that suggest about the difference between sewage access and sewage treatment? The student should consider whether the hypothesis is really about infrastructure coverage rather than final disposal.

This explanation is plausible, but it is not fully demonstrated by the evidence shown. The student should separate what the sources explicitly show from what is inferred, and ideally add direct confirmation for stormwater contamination or Vala connection.

This is a debatable classification because beaches are not usually treated as green space in environmental analysis. The student should justify this choice more carefully or separate beach access from vegetation-based green space.

This is a strong evaluative point because it recognises that not all mapped green space is equally useful. The student is distinguishing between quantity and accessibility, which strengthens the argument.

This is a useful acknowledgement of bias, but it also means the comparison is not fully controlled. The student should either limit the claim to the sampled route or explain how route selection affected the reliability of the environmental score.

This is a clear synthesis of several strands of evidence. The student is effectively combining multiple indicators rather than treating each figure in isolation.

The comparison is directionally useful, but the line is incomplete and the measures are not yet fully interpreted. The student should define exactly what counts as “more common” and explain why those categories indicate better or worse waste management.

This conclusion is plausible, but the figure uses several stacked measures and the comparison is not fully transparent. The student should explain the calculation more clearly so the reader can see how the difference was derived.

How should this result be interpreted alongside the claim that formal areas have better waste management? The student should consider whether trash-can count alone measures service quality, or whether placement, reliability, and collection frequency matter more.

The document includes a contents page, which helps the reader navigate the essay’s sections and shows an appropriate extended-essay structure.

The report is organised into clear sections, and the background context appears before the methodology and analysis. That sequencing supports understanding and makes the argument easier to follow.

This interview is interesting, but it sits somewhat outside the core comparison between the four neighbourhoods. The student should explain more clearly how this evidence contributes to the central argument, otherwise it feels peripheral.

The analytical section is clearly signposted, which helps the reader move through the investigation logically. The student’s use of major headings supports readability.

Several figures and captions are numbered inconsistently, which can make cross-referencing confusing. The student should check that figure numbers match the text references throughout the report.

The conclusion is clearly identified and placed in the expected location. This makes the overall report structure easy to follow.

Consider making the evaluation explicitly method-by-method, with each limitation paired to a specific improvement. That would make the reflection more analytical and easier for the examiner to track.