IB Philosophy SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly stated and immediately frames the investigation around evaluation rather than description. This gives the essay a clear line of inquiry, and the student maintains that evaluative purpose throughout the report.

The student overstates the scope here by implying that all three Ways can simply be treated as separate forms without setting a tighter analytical boundary. To improve focus, the essay should define exactly which version of Aquinas it is evaluating in each section and how each sub-claim links back to the same research question.

The student could strengthen the method section by explaining why these source types were selected and how they were weighed against primary texts. A brief note on criteria such as authority, relevance, and philosophical depth would make the research design feel more deliberate.

This is a major conceptual inaccuracy. Aquinas does not argue that the first cause brings itself into existence; he argues that nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. The student should correct this, because the misunderstanding weakens the explanation of the First Way and affects later analysis.

The explanation of the Third Way is oversimplified and mixes temporal language with Aquinas’s metaphysical point about contingency. The student should distinguish between beings that begin and cease in time and the stronger claim that contingent existence requires a necessary being at every moment.

This wording is unclear and conceptually muddled. The student should distinguish between explaining the existence of contingent beings and explaining God as a necessary being, because these are not the same claim in Aquinas. Tightening the terminology would improve philosophical accuracy.

This is a strong use of source material because the student does not stop at Smart’s objection but brings in Hick to clarify the Aquinas-style meaning of necessity. That helps show an understanding of how a philosophical term can be disputed and then redefined within the argument.

This response to Hume is too loose to be convincing because it does not clearly show why contingency should be treated as a property of the whole universe rather than of its parts. The student should support this claim with a more precise metaphysical explanation, otherwise the rebuttal reads as assertion rather than analysis.

This overstates what the source material can show. Aquinas’s notions of actuality and potentiality are philosophical metaphysical concepts, not scientific laws that are empirically verified in the same way as physical laws. The student should present them as philosophical principles and explain their role in the argument instead of claiming scientific verification.

This is a useful comparative point, but it needs more precision. The student should explain which divine attributes are shared and which are uniquely required by Aquinas’s conclusion, otherwise the argument drifts from philosophical analysis into a general claim about religion.

This example weakens the analysis because it substitutes biological reproduction for Aquinas’s more general causal claim. The student should be careful not to treat human birth as direct evidence for the whole argument, since the First Way is about change and efficient causation more broadly, not just parenthood.

The student strengthens the discussion by anchoring the critique in a primary source and then connecting it directly to the contingency argument. This is effective critical thinking because the objection is not merely named; it is interpreted and applied to the specific conclusion under review.

This conclusion is too quick. Even if Hume appears to use a similar pattern, that does not automatically invalidate his objection to Aquinas. The student should separate rhetorical parallels from whether the criticism still works against the argument’s actual premises.

The student could make the analysis sharper by explicitly showing how the concepts of actuality and potentiality support the need for a mover. A short step-by-step explanation of why potentiality cannot actualise itself would improve the logic of the paragraph.

What exactly is the argument from moving from here, and does that match the philosophical meaning of the is/ought fallacy? The student should check whether this label is being used accurately, because the current sentence seems to treat a modal inference as if it were an ethical one.

The Plato section appears in the contents page but the topic is not clearly integrated into the essay’s overall line of argument. The student should make the purpose of this section explicit, or remove it if it is not needed to answer the research question.

The document includes the expected major components and a contents page that helps the reader navigate the essay. That structure supports clarity, especially in a long philosophical evaluation with multiple arguments and objections.

The contents page suggests the conclusion begins on page 17, but the essay concludes much earlier. The student should update the pagination so the contents page matches the actual structure, as accuracy in internal signposting matters for presentation.

The bibliography is clearly separated from the main discussion, which makes the ending of the report easy to identify. This is a simple but effective structural choice that improves navigation for the reader.

The bibliography entries are not consistently complete in their referencing detail. The student should standardise the format and ensure each source includes the information needed to identify it clearly, because consistent citation practice is part of academic presentation.