IB Economics HL Internal Assessment Example

This is the main diagrammatic problem. A TRQ should not be explained as a downward shift of the foreign supply curve; that misrepresents how the quota creates a stepped import supply. Correcting this would make the labelled areas and import quantities much more reliable.

This description sets up the diagram, but the mechanics of a TRQ are not modelled accurately. A quota does not work as a simple supply shift, so the student needs to show the price/quantity changes in a way that matches how the quota and tariff actually operate.

What determines the imported quantity at the lower tariff rate, and what happens once that quota is filled? Answering that explicitly would make the student's diagram explanation much more convincing.

It would help to include a brief caption or note explaining exactly what each shaded area represents in welfare terms. That would make the student's diagram easier to use in the analysis and reduce the risk of mislabelling quota revenue and consumer loss.

This claim needs greater caution. Quota revenue depends on who holds the import rights or licences, so it is not automatically captured by US producers. The student should explain the allocation mechanism before assigning the revenue to any one group.

The student uses the term accurately and in context. Defining it early helps anchor the trade analysis and shows clear economic vocabulary control.

This statement is too general to support the trade argument as written. If the student wants to use market structure or demand conditions, they should connect them to evidence from the article or to a clear economic mechanism.

The student could use the standard term ‘comparative advantage’ rather than ‘comparative cost advantage’ unless they define the difference carefully. The intended meaning is clear, but the more conventional term would sound more precise in IB economics.

The student applies comparative advantage terminology directly to their diagram, which strengthens the link between theory and interpretation. This makes their trade argument more disciplined and economically focused.

The student applies international-trade theory from the start rather than just defining terms. That helps build a commentary that is analytically grounded in the article’s policy context.

How much of the price reduction would consumers actually see if the quota is limited and the lower tariff applies only to a fixed quantity? Thinking about that would make the student's analysis of the TRQ much stronger.

This is a useful application of the article’s trade context because it brings in the reciprocal nature of the negotiations. It helps show that the car concessions are part of a broader bargaining relationship.

This is asserted too quickly. The value of products alone does not prove the overall trade position, so the student needs a clearer explanation of export values, import values, and how they affect the balance of trade.

This conclusion follows from the student's diagram, but because the TRQ is not modelled accurately, the consumer-price effect is not securely established. Reworking the diagram would make this analysis much more defensible.

The student could strengthen this by explaining exactly which short-run and long-run outcomes they expect for each side. Naming consumer welfare, producer protection, government revenue and trade creation would make the analysis more developed.

The student attempts to go beyond description by identifying welfare loss and allocative inefficiency. That is good analytical practice because it shows they are linking price changes to broader efficiency consequences.

This is a clear, relevant link to the article’s trade relationship. The student shows how the concept appears in the bilateral exchange, which helps the reader see why interdependence is the right lens.

The student could refine the definition to emphasize mutual economic reliance, not just access to scarce resources. That would make the concept more precise and help them distinguish interdependence from simple dependence.

The student clearly identifies the key concept and signals that it will guide the commentary. That framing is strong because it keeps the response concept-driven rather than turning into a general trade discussion.

The student connects the concept to the article’s central negotiation issue very clearly. This works well because the discussion stays anchored in the actual trade relationship rather than becoming a generic definition.

The link to interdependence becomes less clear here because the focus shifts to trade balance and technology. Explain more explicitly how the pattern of imports and exports changes mutual reliance between the two economies.

The student supports their judgment with a plausible stakeholder reason, which improves balance. The reader can see why India might hesitate, rather than just being told that it does.

This judgment would be stronger if the student weighed both sides more carefully and used evidence to support the predicted trade pattern. At the moment, it reads as a conclusion without enough reasoning about why the balance would move that way.

The student makes a clear evaluative judgment here rather than simply describing the issue. That is important because it shows they are weighing the likely direction of the negotiations.

What are the likely trade-offs of ‘more competition’ for Indian consumers versus Indian producers in the short run? Considering both sides would make the student's final evaluation more balanced and persuasive.