IB World Studies SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly stated and gives the investigation a workable direction. Focusing on urbanization, water quality, and Port Moody makes the topic locally grounded and feasible, which helps the reader understand the scope immediately.

The question is still too broad because it refers to “creeks in Port Moody” while the report mainly studies Noons Creek. The student should narrow the wording to the specific creek, time period, and indicators being assessed so the investigation reads as fully focused rather than general.

Consider adding a brief explanation of why building-type counts are an appropriate proxy for likely chemical inputs, and what they cannot show. That would make the source/method selection more convincing and help prevent overclaiming.

The method is appropriately matched to the research question because it identifies the key dataset and the three variables that will actually be analysed. This makes the investigation methodologically coherent and shows informed source selection.

This method is too vague to evaluate strong causal claims because it does not explain how the map will be analysed, what counts as evidence of a runoff source, or how comparability between sites is ensured. The student should specify the steps of analysis and the limits of what mapping can prove.

The student demonstrates clear foundational knowledge by defining pH before using it in the analysis. This is effective because it helps the reader follow the chemistry without needing to infer the concept from the graphs alone.

This is conceptually too narrow: conductivity reflects total dissolved ions, not only salt. The student should distinguish conductivity from salinity more carefully so the later claims about road salt do not sound more certain than the evidence allows.

The student connects ammonia to possible urban sources such as sewage and fertilizer, which is relevant to the inquiry. This helps link the chemical variable to the local land-use context rather than treating it as an isolated lab measure.

Consider naming this as a likely explanation rather than a confirmed cause unless the report can show direct evidence of fertilizer runoff. That wording would better match the level of proof available in the data.

This source choice is weak for making an environmental claim because a retail product page does not establish actual fertilizer use in the neighbourhood. The student should rely more on local survey data, municipal sources, or environmental research to support the inference.

This conclusion conflicts with the claim that pH was generally safe, because 52 readings below the boundary are still meaningful exceedances. The student should reconcile the discussion of the mean with the count of unsafe events and explain what the frequency of those events means for impact.

This is a strong moment of evaluation because the student acknowledges uncertainty instead of forcing a conclusion. Recognising alternative explanations improves credibility and shows that the evidence is being interpreted cautiously.

The reasoning here assumes that a source closer to the storm drain would necessarily produce a larger signal there, but that does not follow without controlling for flow, rainfall, and timing. The student should treat this as a hypothesis and explain why the sampling design can or cannot distinguish sources.

The argument would be stronger if the student linked this trend to the actual survey results more explicitly, for example by showing how many surveyed homes used fertilizer and when. That would move the discussion from correlation toward a more convincing local explanation.

The student uses comparative numerical evidence effectively here, which strengthens the analysis. Reporting the means allows the reader to see the size of the difference rather than relying on a general statement that one site is “higher.”

Consider comparing this pattern with rainfall or streamflow data if available. That would help distinguish seasonal background variation from urban runoff and make the causal argument more rigorous.

This is internally inconsistent: the student calls road salts the main source of increased conductivity, then says there was no large impact. The student should clarify whether the data show a small, moderate, or strong effect and align the conclusion with the evidence.

This is a strong limitation because it directly addresses sampling resolution and why short-lived pollution events may have been missed. Such evaluation shows the student understands how methodology affects the reliability of the conclusions.

The structure is clear and academically appropriate, with a contents page that helps the reader navigate the report. This supports readability and makes the progression from background to conclusion easy to follow.

The section labels would be stronger if they were made more consistent in wording and hierarchy. For example, this heading should match the style of the surrounding contents entries so the structure looks deliberate rather than slightly uneven.

The table is a useful presentation choice because it condenses the building-type survey into a format that is easy to compare at a glance. That helps the reader connect the residential context to the later argument about possible fertilizer use.

The table would be easier to interpret if the headings and values were clearer and the relationship between the categories and the totals were stated directly in the surrounding text. As written, the reader has to reconstruct too much of the meaning from scattered entries.

The map is relevant because it places Noons Creek within the wider urban layout and supports the discussion of surrounding residential and commercial land use. Used this way, the visual adds geographical context rather than serving as decoration.