Overall Score: 16/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
16/24
0
12
24
5.1·strength
Page 1
The title is concise and clearly indicates the focus of the investigation, aiding reader orientation.
5.2·strength
Page 2
The hypothesis is clearly stated, linking ethanol’s physicochemical action to expected pigment leakage.
5.3·strength
Page 5
The risk assessment thoroughly addresses chemical, equipment, and environmental hazards, demonstrating sound safety planning.
5.4·suggestion
Page 5
The disposal method states dilution of alcohol but omits final waste handling steps; specify whether solutions go to a chemical waste container.
5.5·weakness
Page 11
Reference entries are comprehensive but vary in DOI formatting; ensure all use a consistent reference style.
5.6·suggestion
Page 11
Several references include LaTeX math tags around authors and journal titles; remove unnecessary math formatting in the bibliography.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations
Excellent
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
- Research question embedded in a specific biological and societal context
- Detailed methodological considerations with justification for controlled variables
- Comprehensive and reproducible methodology description, including exact volumes and calibration procedures
- Quantitative rationale for chosen ethanol concentrations is omitted
- Temperature control methods lack a clearly stated target range
- Minor ambiguity in referencing tables (e.g., unnamed Table 1)
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Excellent
Consideration of uncertainties
Good
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data presented in labelled tables with units and uncertainties
- Appropriate discussion of instrument and sampling uncertainties beyond token mention
- Worked example contains a divisor error and decimal notation inconsistencies
- Graph lacks axis labels, units and legend
- No statistical test performed to assess significance between treatments
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and consistency
Excellent
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion is relevant and consistent with processed data, acknowledging error overlap
- Well–integrated literature comparison to membrane-disruption theory and protein coagulation
- Over-interpretation of differences without statistical testing
- Slightly limited discussion of anomaly at 100 % ethanol lacks quantitative backing
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
Improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are identified and their likely impact on variability is explained
- Realistic, relevant improvements are proposed and linked to identified limitations
- Impact of weaknesses and improvements is not quantitatively estimated
- Some suggestions (e.g., testing other alcohols, temperature variation) lack detailed parameters