IB World Religions SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly stated and gives the investigation a workable comparative direction. Framing it as “To what extent” invites evaluation rather than simple description, which is a strong basis for a focused inquiry.

The question remains too broad because “Muslims” and “Buddhists” are very large categories. The student should narrow the scope by specifying the surrogacy type or the communities/schools being compared, otherwise the conclusion risks overgeneralising from a small, mixed sample.

Consider explaining why these three countries were chosen and how they relate to the research question. A brief justification of case selection would make the method look more deliberate and would help readers judge how far the findings can be generalised.

The sample is presented as if it reflects “average believers,” but the student does not explain recruitment, regional balance, or whether the respondents actually represent wider Muslim and Buddhist populations. The findings should be treated more cautiously unless the sampling limits are acknowledged.

This section describes what will be done, but it reads in the future tense even though the investigation is already complete. The student should revise the methodology to report what was actually done and add details on sampling, question design, consent, and how the data were analysed.

How were the interviewees selected, and what makes them appropriate representatives of their traditions? Clarifying selection criteria would strengthen the method and help show that the views gathered are not just convenient opinions but relevant evidence.

This is too sweeping because it presents Sunni scholarship as uniform and leaves out other legal or interpretive positions. The student should qualify the claim, identify the specific juristic sources used, and avoid implying that all Muslims or all Islamic schools take the same view.

The student demonstrates solid foundational knowledge by linking family, lineage, and reproduction to Islamic ethical reasoning. This works well because it shows an understanding of the doctrinal issues that make surrogacy ethically sensitive in Islam.

The terminology here is too vague and slightly inaccurate: “both schools” is unclear, and “claim to highlight” weakens the explanation. The student should state more precisely which Buddhist traditions or schools are being discussed and explain how intention and consequence function in Buddhist ethics.

The student shows good understanding of Buddhist ethical language by connecting surrogacy to compassion, suffering, and intention. This is effective because it uses tradition-specific concepts rather than treating Buddhism as a simple yes/no system.

It would strengthen the knowledge strand to define $cetana$ more precisely and distinguish it from related ideas such as compassion and non-harming. That would show deeper command of Buddhist ethical vocabulary and prevent the concepts from blurring together.

This inference is not well supported by the cited text. A general statement that children are valued does not by itself endorse surrogacy, so the student should avoid drawing a doctrinal conclusion that the source does not actually establish.

This interpretation is overstated. The verse does not directly address surrogacy, and equating the practice with $zina$ needs much stronger legal and textual justification. The student should present it as an analogy used by some scholars, not as a straightforward scriptural proof.

A stronger knowledge base would come from distinguishing the different ethical categories more clearly, especially commercial, altruistic, gestational, and traditional surrogacy. These distinctions matter because the religious evaluation may differ depending on the exact practice being discussed.

The data show familiarity with the term, but not necessarily that surrogacy is a common subject of discussion. The student should avoid inferring more than the survey actually measures and instead state the finding more cautiously.

This conclusion is too broad for a 31-person survey and is treated as if it represents Islam universally. The student should separate the survey finding from the doctrinal claim and explain that this reflects the views of this sample, not all Muslims.

The student uses the survey to identify an important contrast and connects the data back to the comparative question. This is a strong analytical move because it turns raw responses into a pattern relevant to the research focus.

Consider structuring this part more explicitly around claim, evidence, and evaluation. For example, the student could state a claim about harm, support it with interview or survey data, and then explain whether that evidence is strong enough to support the broader conclusion.

What exactly does this text prove about surrogacy, and what does it only prove about children in general? Clarifying that distinction would help the student avoid overreading a supportive value statement as direct evidence for the practice itself.

The analysis here is internally inconsistent because it shifts from “neutral” to effectively conditional approval without clearly explaining the criteria. The student should state the precise circumstances under which surrogacy might be acceptable and then test that position against the evidence already presented.

The student compares the two traditions in a meaningful way by identifying a shared ethical concern—harm—while still showing how the reasoning differs. This strengthens the argument because it moves beyond summary into comparison.

This contradicts the earlier discussion, which presents Buddhism as conditional rather than uniformly condemning. The student needs to resolve this tension so the conclusion follows consistently from the analysis instead of introducing a new and unsupported claim.

The title is placed prominently at the start and makes the topic immediately identifiable. This helps the report feel purposeful from the outset and supports the reader’s understanding of the investigation’s subject.

The overall organisation is clear and easy to follow, with a contents page, methodology, analysis, conclusion, references, and appendix. This supports reader navigation and shows that the investigation has been planned as a structured report.

The survey figures are introduced and labelled in a way that helps the reader understand the data source. Labeling the figures clearly makes the results easier to interpret and shows attention to presentation of evidence.

The figure labels and surrounding headings are sometimes inconsistent in wording and punctuation. The student should standardise these labels so the presentation looks more polished and the structure is easier to scan.

This sentence is confusing and undermines clarity near the conclusion. The student should revise the wording so the comparative claim is precise and grammatically clear, because the final section needs to communicate the argument without ambiguity.

The reference list would be stronger if the student applied one citation style consistently throughout. Check punctuation, italics, author formatting, and web-source formatting so the bibliography looks more professional and easier to verify.