World Studies Extended Essay Exemplar: Theme: Health and development… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB World Studies SL Extended Essay Example

Theme: Health and development • Subjects: Biology and Business Management • To what extent do variations in added sugar content in commercial infant cereals, influenced by Nestlé’s market segmentation strategies, increase the biological risk of early childhood metabolic disorders in selected low and middle income markets?SL

Official IB Result

28/34

Criteria A: Focus and Method

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Topic identification and communication

Excellent

A.2Research question formulation

Moderate

A.3Methodology selection and justification

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You communicate a clear and relevant World Studies topic that immediately shows the connection between business strategy and health outcomes.
Your research question is researchable and shows an intentional link between the two disciplines.
You select an interdisciplinary secondary-research approach that is appropriate for the topic and shows awareness of ethical limitations.

Your question is still too broad in places, especially in the way it refers to markets and health outcomes.
Some key terms are not defined precisely enough for the investigation to be fully focused.
The method is described more as a plan than a reproducible procedure, with limited detail on source selection and comparison rules.

1.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The title communicates a clear, relevant World Studies focus and immediately signals the two disciplines involved. This works well because the reader can see at once that the investigation is about both corporate strategy and health outcomes, which helps establish scope from the outset.

1.2·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

The research question is clear, but it is still too broad for a fully focused investigation. Terms like “to what extent,” “selected low and middle income markets,” and “biological risk” are not operationalized, so the question cannot yet be answered with precision. The student should define the markets, the health outcome, and the basis for measuring “extent.”

1.3·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

The interdisciplinary design is promising, but the method would be stronger if the student explained exactly how each method will be used. Consider stating the source selection rules, comparison procedure, and how business and biological evidence will be combined. That would make the investigation reproducible rather than only descriptive.

1.4·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

This reads more like an intention than a method. The student should specify what will be compared, how sources were chosen, and what criteria determine relevance or reliability. Without that, the methodology is not yet reproducible enough for a strong research design.

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Source material selection and relevance

Good

B.2Knowledge demonstration and application

Good

B.3Use of terminology and concepts

Good

Criteria Feedback

You show substantial knowledge of both business and biological concepts and use specialized terminology with confidence.
You select a range of relevant sources, including public-health, company, NGO, and academic material.
You generally integrate sources into the discussion rather than leaving them isolated or purely descriptive.

Some of your source choices are stronger than others, and several of the biological sources are not as directly tied to the infant case as they could be.
A few concepts are used in ways that are more assertive than the evidence fully supports.
At times you treat mechanistic plausibility as though it were the same as direct proof of product-specific harm.

2.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

The comparison is useful, but the word “identical” is too strong unless the student shows that the full product specifications are the same across markets. If only the sugar content is compared, the argument should say so explicitly and avoid implying product identity without evidence.

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The student uses a highly relevant real-world source to anchor the investigation in a concrete business case. This is effective because the claim is specific, dated, and tied directly to the formulation issue, which gives the argument a strong empirical starting point.

2.3·Suggestion

Page 4• Click to view

This contextual statistic strengthens the public-health framing, but it would be even more useful if the student linked it directly to the selected case countries or explained why Africa-wide data is the right comparison. A tighter connection would help the evidence feel targeted rather than general.

2.4·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

The biochemical explanation becomes overconfident here. This sentence presents a mechanism as though it directly proves product-specific harm, but the evidence cited later is mostly adult or animal research. The student should distinguish between known metabolism and the specific health effect of this infant cereal.

2.5·Question

Page 20• Click to view

How directly does this hypothesis apply to the infant cereal case the student is studying? A brief explanation of the exact chain of evidence linking prenatal undernutrition, the chosen market populations, and the product exposure would make the application more convincing.

2.6·Suggestion

Page 35• Click to view

Several glossary definitions are useful, but this one would be stronger if it avoided causal language that has not been demonstrated elsewhere in the essay. Consider defining inelastic demand more neutrally, then explaining separately how the student thinks infant-food demand may behave in LMICs.

Criteria C: Critical Thinking

12/12

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Research quality and relevance

Moderate

C.2Analysis and conclusions

Moderate

C.3Argument structure and evaluation

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You build a coherent argument that moves logically from product formulation to business strategy to possible health implications.
You make real efforts to connect the two disciplines rather than treating them as separate strands of work.
You use comparative evidence and synthesis to create an interdisciplinary line of reasoning with some critical depth.

Several of your stronger claims go beyond what the evidence in the report can actually prove.
Alternative explanations such as regulation, local preferences, affordability, and wider health determinants are not explored enough.
Some conclusions are stated too definitively when they should be more conditional and evidence-bound.

3.1·Weakness

Page 10• Click to view

This conclusion is asserted rather than demonstrated. The student should show evidence that the sugar difference actually lowers costs and improves profit margins, rather than assuming that formulation change automatically produces cost leadership. Otherwise the causal claim remains speculative.

3.2·Strength

Page 11• Click to view

The student makes effective use of comparative evidence to build an analytic claim. This works because the statement is anchored in the data set, not just opinion, and it gives the business argument a clear structural basis.

3.3·Weakness

Page 15• Click to view

The analysis needs stronger support here. High sugar content may be cheaper than some ingredients, but the essay does not provide ingredient-cost data or a comparison of full formulation costs. The student should either add direct evidence or soften the claim.

3.4·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

This is a major overstatement. The student is converting a plausible biological concern into a definitive outcome without infant-specific clinical evidence. The argument would be stronger if it used conditional language and clearly separated mechanistic plausibility from proven harm.

3.5·Suggestion

Page 19• Click to view

The cellular pathway explanation is detailed, but the student could improve critical thinking by briefly acknowledging that this mechanism is inferred from broader fructose research rather than directly demonstrated in the cereal case. That distinction would make the reasoning more disciplined.

3.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

The conclusion is too definitive for the evidence presented. Epidemiological patterns do not “directly” follow from one biochemical pathway, and the essay does not control for alternative causes such as diet quality, poverty, or national policy. The student should present this as one possible contributor, not the sole explanation.

3.7·Question

Page 25• Click to view

What evidence would be needed to prove that these biological effects cause commercial success rather than simply accompany it? Thinking about alternative explanations would help the student separate correlation, mechanism, and business outcome more clearly.

Criteria D: Presentation

4/4

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Academic structure

Excellent

D.2Visual elements

Good

D.3Referencing and formatting

Good

Criteria Feedback

Your report is clearly organized with headings, subheadings, and a logical progression through the investigation.
You include relevant visuals and supporting material that help guide the reader through the argument.
Your referencing is generally consistent and allows most of the sources to be traced.

Some visuals are more generic than analytical and do not always add strong evidence to the specific argument.
A few labels and interpretations could be more precise.
The presentation would be stronger with tighter formatting discipline and more consistent source treatment throughout.

4.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The report has a clear academic structure with an explicit methodology section and numbered sub-sections. This helps the reader navigate the investigation and shows that the student is organizing the work like a formal research report.

4.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The table of contents is comprehensive and helps the reader see the overall flow of the essay, including background, disciplinary analysis, synthesis, conclusion, recommendations, and supporting material. This supports clarity and makes the report easy to follow.

4.3·Suggestion

Page 24• Click to view

The synthesis section is a strong idea, and it would be even more effective if it were more explicitly signposted as the place where Biology and Business Management are brought together. Consider using a short lead sentence that states how the evidence from both disciplines is being combined.

4.4·Weakness

Page 25• Click to view

This sentence is rhetorically powerful, but it overreaches analytically. The presentation would be stronger if the student avoided framing an unproven causal chain as settled fact and instead used language that better reflects the limits of the evidence.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

28/34

Criteria A: Focus and Method

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Topic identification and communication

Excellent

A.2Research question formulation

Moderate

A.3Methodology selection and justification

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You communicate a clear and relevant World Studies topic that immediately shows the connection between business strategy and health outcomes.
Your research question is researchable and shows an intentional link between the two disciplines.
You select an interdisciplinary secondary-research approach that is appropriate for the topic and shows awareness of ethical limitations.

Your question is still too broad in places, especially in the way it refers to markets and health outcomes.
Some key terms are not defined precisely enough for the investigation to be fully focused.
The method is described more as a plan than a reproducible procedure, with limited detail on source selection and comparison rules.

1.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

1.2·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

1.3·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

1.4·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Source material selection and relevance

Good

B.2Knowledge demonstration and application

Good

B.3Use of terminology and concepts

Good

Criteria Feedback

You show substantial knowledge of both business and biological concepts and use specialized terminology with confidence.
You select a range of relevant sources, including public-health, company, NGO, and academic material.
You generally integrate sources into the discussion rather than leaving them isolated or purely descriptive.

Some of your source choices are stronger than others, and several of the biological sources are not as directly tied to the infant case as they could be.
A few concepts are used in ways that are more assertive than the evidence fully supports.
At times you treat mechanistic plausibility as though it were the same as direct proof of product-specific harm.

2.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.3·Suggestion

Page 4• Click to view

2.4·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

2.5·Question

Page 20• Click to view

2.6·Suggestion

Page 35• Click to view

Criteria C: Critical Thinking

12/12

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Research quality and relevance

Moderate

C.2Analysis and conclusions

Moderate

C.3Argument structure and evaluation

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You build a coherent argument that moves logically from product formulation to business strategy to possible health implications.
You make real efforts to connect the two disciplines rather than treating them as separate strands of work.
You use comparative evidence and synthesis to create an interdisciplinary line of reasoning with some critical depth.

Several of your stronger claims go beyond what the evidence in the report can actually prove.
Alternative explanations such as regulation, local preferences, affordability, and wider health determinants are not explored enough.
Some conclusions are stated too definitively when they should be more conditional and evidence-bound.

3.1·Weakness

Page 10• Click to view

3.2·Strength

Page 11• Click to view

3.3·Weakness

Page 15• Click to view

3.4·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

3.5·Suggestion

Page 19• Click to view

3.6·Weakness

Page 22• Click to view

3.7·Question

Page 25• Click to view

Criteria D: Presentation

4/4

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Academic structure

Excellent

D.2Visual elements

Good

D.3Referencing and formatting

Good

Criteria Feedback

Your report is clearly organized with headings, subheadings, and a logical progression through the investigation.
You include relevant visuals and supporting material that help guide the reader through the argument.
Your referencing is generally consistent and allows most of the sources to be traced.

Some visuals are more generic than analytical and do not always add strong evidence to the specific argument.
A few labels and interpretations could be more precise.
The presentation would be stronger with tighter formatting discipline and more consistent source treatment throughout.

4.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

4.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

4.3·Suggestion

Page 24• Click to view

4.4·Weakness

Page 25• Click to view