• Design Technology (First Exam 2027)
• Digital Society (DS)
• Economics
• English A Lang & Lit
• English A Lit
• English B
• Environmental systems and societies (ESS)
• French A
• French ab initio
• French B

• Geography
• German A
• German ab initio
• German B
• Global Politics
• History
• Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA)
• Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI)
• Philosophy
• Physics

• Psychology
• Psychology (First Exam 2027)
• Spanish A
• Spanish ab initio
• Spanish B
• Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS)
• Theory of Knowledge (TOK)

Common Mistakes:

• Choosing a stimulus without clear philosophical implications.
• Providing superficial justifications.

Evidence to Show:

• Explicit identification of the philosophical issue.
• Clear explanation of how the stimulus raises this issue.

Criterion B: Clarity (4 marks)

What It Tests: The organization, focus, and coherence of your analysis.

Performance Levels:

• High (4 marks): Well-structured, focused, and coherent analysis.
• Medium (2–3 marks): Generally clear but may have minor organizational issues.
• Low (1 mark): Lacks clarity and organization.
• Very Low (0 marks): Disorganized and difficult to follow.

Common Mistakes:

• Lack of clear structure.
• Repetitive or unfocused content.

Evidence to Show:

• Logical flow of ideas.
• Clear introduction, body, and conclusion.

Criterion C: Knowledge and Understanding (4 marks)

What It Tests: Your grasp of relevant philosophical concepts and theories.

Performance Levels:

• High (4 marks): Demonstrates thorough understanding with accurate use of philosophical terminology.
• Medium (2–3 marks): Shows understanding but with minor inaccuracies.
• Low (1 mark): Limited understanding with significant inaccuracies.
• Very Low (0 marks): Fails to demonstrate understanding.

Common Mistakes:

• Misinterpreting philosophical concepts.
• Inaccurate use of terminology.

Evidence to Show:

• Accurate explanations of philosophical ideas.
• Correct application of terminology.

Criterion D: Analysis (8 marks)

What It Tests: Your ability to critically examine the philosophical issue.

Performance Levels:

• High (7–8 marks): Provides in-depth analysis with well-chosen examples and consideration of counterarguments.
• Medium (4–6 marks): Offers analysis with some depth; examples and counterarguments may be less effective.
• Low (1–3 marks): Superficial analysis with limited examples and counterarguments.
• Very Low (0 marks): Lacks analytical depth.

Common Mistakes:

• Overly descriptive without critical examination.
• Ignoring counterarguments.

Evidence to Show:

• Critical discussion of the issue.
• Inclusion of relevant examples and counterarguments.

Criterion E: Evaluation (6 marks)

What It Tests: Your ability to assess different viewpoints and justify your position.

Performance Levels:

• High (5–6 marks): Thorough evaluation of perspectives with well-justified conclusions.
• Medium (3–4 marks): Evaluates perspectives with some justification.
• Low (1–2 marks): Limited evaluation with weak justification.
• Very Low (0 marks): Fails to evaluate perspectives.

Common Mistakes:

• Presenting opinions without justification.
• Neglecting alternative viewpoints.

Evidence to Show:

• Assessment of different perspectives.
• Justified conclusions.

How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool

The embedded grader provides a score for each criterion, which maps to performance bands:

• Excellent: Top marks in the criterion.
• Good: Above-average performance.
• Satisfactory: Meets basic requirements.
• Needs Improvement: Below expectations.

If you're between bands or uncertain:

• Review Feedback: Focus on areas highlighted for improvement.
• Seek Clarification: Consult your instructor for guidance.

Improvement Actions:

• Criterion A: Ensure a clear link between the stimulus and the philosophical issue.
• Criterion B: Organize your analysis logically.
• Criterion C: Deepen your understanding of relevant concepts.
• Criterion D: Engage critically with the issue, considering multiple perspectives.
• Criterion E: Justify your evaluations with strong reasoning.

Annotated Examples

High-Band Excerpt:

"In examining the painting 'The Persistence of Memory' by Salvador Dalí, we encounter a profound exploration of time's fluidity. This aligns with Henri Bergson's concept of durée, emphasizing time as a continuous flow rather than discrete moments."

Why It Scores High:

• Clearly identifies the philosophical issue (nature of time).
• Links the stimulus to a relevant philosophical concept.
• Demonstrates deep understanding and analysis.

Mid/Low-Band Excerpt:

"Dalí's painting shows melting clocks, which might mean time is passing."

What's Missing:

• Lacks clear identification of a philosophical issue.
• Superficial analysis without depth.
• No connection to philosophical concepts or theories.

Grade Boundaries & Converting Your Mark

Grade boundaries can vary by session. It's essential to verify the latest figures with your instructor or official IB resources. The IA contributes 25% to your final Philosophy grade.

Common Mistakes & Fast Fixes

• Mistake: Choosing an inappropriate stimulus.
• Fix: Select a stimulus with clear philosophical implications.
• Mistake: Superficial analysis.
• Fix: Engage deeply with the issue, considering various perspectives.
• Mistake: Poor organization.
• Fix: Create a clear outline before writing.

Subject-Specific Tips

• Engage with Primary Texts: Reference original philosophical works to support your analysis.
• Use Precise Terminology: Employ accurate philosophical language throughout your essay.
• Critically Evaluate Sources: Assess the reliability and relevance of your references.

FAQs

Q: Can I analyze a song as my stimulus?

Yes, song lyrics are acceptable stimuli for the Philosophy IA.

**Q