IB Economics HL Internal Assessment Example

The student includes a relevant AD-AS diagram that directly matches the monetary-policy discussion in the commentary. Because the diagram is paired with a written explanation of the shift from $AD1$ to $AD2$, it supports the argument rather than sitting as decorative material.

This sentence mixes monetary and fiscal channels without clearly separating them. The student should explain which tool affects borrowing costs, which affects government spending, and how each one changes the diagram, otherwise the diagram explanation becomes blurred.

Consider adding a short caption or note identifying which curve shifts first and why. That would help the reader connect the diagram to the article more quickly and would make the diagram explanation easier to follow.

The second diagram is relevant, but its policy effects are not fully coherent because multiple curves shift at once without a clear explanation of the final equilibrium. The student should make the intended sequence explicit so the diagram’s price-level and output changes are unambiguous.

The wording is imprecise here: the Politburo sets direction, but the People’s Bank of China implements monetary policy. Distinguishing political guidance from policy execution would make the terminology more accurate and show a better understanding of institutional roles.

The terminology here is precise and relevant. The student correctly uses reserve requirement ratio, commercial banks, loans, and money supply in a way that reflects the monetary-policy transmission mechanism, which strengthens clarity and credibility.

The student correctly uses demand-pull inflation, but the explanation is incomplete because it is presented as if inflation directly reduces real wages without showing the mechanism. The comment would be stronger if it explained that higher AD can raise the price level, which then lowers real purchasing power when nominal incomes do not rise as fast.

Consider tightening the terminology in this judgment by separating short-run stimulus from financing consequences. If the student names the crowding-out mechanism more precisely and explains when it is likely to matter, the evaluation would sound more economically rigorous.

The student applies monetary theory accurately and in sequence. Tracing RRR cuts through lending, interest rates, borrowing costs, and then AD shows a clear causal chain, which is exactly the kind of applied theory needed for strong macroeconomic commentary.

This is a strong application of the AD-AS model because it ties the theory directly to the article’s growth target and weak-demand context. The student shows how the policy response is meant to close a recessionary gap rather than describing the diagram in isolation.

The student oversimplifies the fiscal mechanism here. Issuing bonds does not itself raise AD; AD rises when the borrowed funds are spent on infrastructure or technology. Making that distinction would improve the accuracy of the theory application.

What is the precise short-run transmission mechanism here: does converting unsold commercial housing into affordable housing mainly raise AD, improve market confidence, or address a supply imbalance? Clarifying that mechanism would make the analysis more convincing.

Consider adding one more link in the chain here: explain how technology investment raises productivity, lowers unit costs, or improves efficiency. That extra step would turn a good general claim into a more fully developed analysis.

This causal claim is not well developed. Higher demand normally creates demand-pull inflation rather than cost-push inflation, so the student should correct the inflation type and explain the mechanism more precisely.

Consider quantifying or qualifying this claim by asking which businesses benefit most and under what conditions. A more selective judgment would strengthen the evaluation by showing that the gains from policy are not evenly distributed.

This inaccurate inflation mechanism weakens the support for the judgment because it affects the credibility of the final evaluation. Revising the causal chain would make the overall verdict more reliable and more persuasive.

The evaluation makes a balanced judgment by considering multiple stakeholders rather than giving a one-sided verdict. This is effective because it shows the student can weigh who benefits and who bears costs, which is central to economic evaluation.

The conclusion is strong because it is conditional and policy-aware: the student does not simply claim the stimulus will work, but judges when it may fail. That kind of balanced judgment shows good evaluative awareness and helps the commentary avoid being purely descriptive.