IB History HL Internal Assessment Example

You stated a sharply focused, arguable research question with clear time, place, and topic boundaries.

You selected two highly relevant sources that work well together as a primary/secondary pairing.

You evaluated both sources in a detailed way, including origin, purpose, content, value, and limitation.

At times, the distinction between evidence of investigation and evidence of prosecution could be made even clearer.

Some limitations would be even stronger if they were tied more explicitly to the practical needs of the investigation.

A few evaluative points are effective but still slightly formulaic rather than fully source-specific.

Your investigation is generally clear and logically structured, with a sensible progression from context to federal response to judgment.

You use evidence from a range of sources to support a sustained argument that federal action was only moderately effective.

You show awareness of different perspectives and you reach a reasoned conclusion that stays connected to your evidence.

Some paragraphs rely too heavily on assertion, especially when linking declines in violence to prosecutions.

At times you blur prosecutions, surveillance, and investigation together, which weakens the precision of the argument.

You would strengthen the analysis by weighing alternative explanations and by treating statistics and trends more cautiously.