IB Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) SL Internal Assessment Example

The title is highly descriptive but could be more concise; consider shortening to focus on key variables to improve clarity and coherence.

The narrative frequently shifts from mathematical reasoning to political commentary, which disrupts conciseness. Trim political digressions to maintain focus.

The methodology section outlines data sources clearly, but you could strengthen justification for the chosen time span with more explicit connection to potential trends.

The box-plot description over-explains calculator use rather than focusing on mathematical insight. Consider summarizing steps and emphasizing interpretation.

The table header for the five-figure summary uses inconsistent column spans and ambiguous labels; revise for a clearer, more concise presentation.

The calculation of mean population spans four rows and mixes explanatory text; condense into a single line or use ellipsis to maintain readability.

List the computed five-figure summary values explicitly after describing the method to improve clarity and avoid forcing readers to infer results from the box plot only.

In the outlier test, the lower boundary’s notation uses misplaced periods instead of commas, which can lead to misinterpretation; correct the numeric format.

The five-figure summary for homicides is well presented, but consider adding a brief comment on comparative spreads to link back to population analysis.

Axes on the scatterplot are too small and labels are hard to read; enlarge labels and consider axis gridlines to improve interpretability.

The caption notes use of Google Sheets, demonstrating effective use of software for graphical representation to support your analysis.

The hypothesis section effectively bridges political insight and statistical inquiry, but could more clearly define the directionality expected in variable relationship.

The Pearson formula is displayed correctly using clear notation, reflecting strong mathematical communication.

Many Σ columns remain blank in the Pearson application table; provide complete sums for transparency and to allow independent verification.

The moderate negative correlation r=–0.612 is correctly reported, but ensure consistency between this and the earlier discussion of trend direction.

The introduction demonstrates genuine personal engagement through your connection to Spain and peacekeeping ambitions, which strengthens the exploration’s motivation.

Acknowledging the invalid r-value and opting to use the calculator shows reflective awareness of limitations in manual computation.

Clarify why exact numbers were preferred over rates; discuss how scale differences might affect correlation and whether normalization could be explored.

Calculation of IQR is correct and clearly communicated, demonstrating accurate application of the interquartile range formula.

The interpretation of skewness is reversed: if the median is closer to Q₃, the distribution is positively skewed, not negatively; revise the analysis.

The mean homicide calculation correctly yields 423.59 and communicates result succinctly, demonstrating accuracy in statistical computation.

Obtaining r = –185 is a conceptual error; the coefficient must lie between –1 and 1. This indicates misuse of the formula at the scale of data.

Regression parameters a and b lack contextual units; interpret slope in terms of homicides per person to ground the model in real-world meaning.