IB Economics HL Internal Assessment Example

This is a relevant diagram because it directly models the market failure and the effect of the advertising ban. Linking the diagram to a specific policy helps the reader see that the student's theory is being applied to the article, not drawn in isolation.

Good use of the tax diagram to show the policy mechanism and its effect on the market. The student connects the quoted policy detail to the supply shift, tax wedge and government revenue, which makes the diagram economically meaningful.

This explanation becomes inconsistent when the student says a ban reduces output to zero but then analyses the move from $Q_0$ to $Q_1$ instead. A ban should be shown and explained as zero legal market output; otherwise, they are describing a quantity restriction rather than a full prohibition.

The student could consider redrawing or relabelling this diagram so the outcome matches the policy exactly. If they intend a full ban, the diagram should show legal output falling to zero; if they intend a partial restriction, they should describe it as such to avoid weakening the accuracy of their visual analysis.

The student uses the core welfare terminology correctly and in context. Terms such as $MPB$, $MSB$, allocative efficiency and market failure are not just named, but used to explain why the market outcome is inefficient.

The student's terminology is precise here: they correctly distinguish consumer price, producer price, tax wedge and government revenue. That accuracy strengthens the explanation because it shows they understand how the incidence of an indirect tax is represented in the model.

The student could make this even stronger by briefly linking inelastic demand to nicotine addiction in a more explicit way. That would help show why the PED result is not just a definition, but a reason the tax may reduce quantity less than expected.

This is a strong application of theory to the article because the student connects the advertising restrictions to a specific behavioural problem in the source. They move beyond generic externality language and explain why the policy changes demand.

The student applies the tax model thoroughly by following the consequences through to revenue and reduced output. This makes the theory feel fully connected to the policy rather than stopping at the supply shift.

If the illegal market could make harm worse, what does that imply about the most effective policy mix: a ban, a tax, or tighter regulation? Thinking about that trade-off would help the student judge whether reducing legal sales is always the best outcome.

The student could weigh this benefit against the extra enforcement and compliance costs they mention later. That would make their analysis more developed because they would be comparing the full social gain and loss rather than listing effects separately.

Good application of enforcement theory to the article. The student recognises that intervention has implementation costs, which shows a more complete understanding of how policy works in the real world.

The student clearly identifies the key concept and embeds it in the economic story from the start. This works well because it frames the whole commentary around government intervention rather than treating the policies as separate facts.

The student returns to the key concept in their conclusion, which gives the commentary a coherent conceptual thread. Repeating the concept here helps show that their analysis stayed focused on the same economic idea throughout.

This is a well-judged evaluation because the student does not assume the tax will work perfectly. They explain why price inelastic demand limits the reduction in consumption, which makes their judgment more realistic and economically grounded.

The student should try to make their final judgment more decisive by stating which policy seems most effective overall and why. For example, they could compare the tax, the advertising restrictions and the ban directly and conclude which delivers the best balance of reduced harm and manageable costs.

What evidence from the article most strongly supports the idea that one intervention creates more net benefit than the others? Identifying that evidence would help the student turn a broad conclusion into a sharper, better-supported final judgment.

The student balances the benefits of intervention against the costs of enforcement and possible illegal-market responses. That is strong evaluation because it shows they are weighing outcomes rather than simply endorsing intervention.