IB Philosophy SL Internal Assessment Example

The connection to the stimulus is well justified here: the student links the scene’s memory gap directly to the contrast between bodily continuity and psychological continuity. That creates a philosophically productive route into the issue instead of using the film only as a narrative example.

The student states the philosophical issue explicitly and in question form, which gives the essay a clear focus from the outset. This is effective because it frames the rest of the argument around one precise problem rather than a broad theme.

This opening makes the structure easy to follow by signalling the first line of argument clearly. The student’s signposting helps the reader anticipate the move from stimulus to theory, which supports overall coherence.

The argument becomes harder to follow here because the move from bodily change to moral responsibility is not fully explained. The student should separate the claim about biological continuity from the moral claim, then show exactly why the first would support the second.

Consider using clearer sub-structure or shorter topic sentences when introducing each philosopher. That would make the essay’s progression more transparent and reduce the sense that ideas are being added in a continuous stream rather than developed in distinct stages.

The student shows sound knowledge of Locke’s view and explains it in relation to the key issue of continuity over time. This is a strong foundation because the theory is not just named but connected to the essay’s central question.

This oversimplifies the biological view by implying that ordinary bodily changes would break identity. A more accurate explanation would distinguish trivial alterations from changes that preserve the same living organism, otherwise the objection to the theory is not philosophically secure.

The student partly captures Hume, but the explanation slips into treating bundle theory as if it were mainly a positive account of what personal identity is. The stronger formulation is that Hume denies a substantial persisting self; that distinction matters for accurate philosophical understanding.

It would strengthen the philosophical precision to distinguish Leibniz’s principle from the claim that two distinct things can share every property. Clarifying that distinction would make the critique of Hume much more accurate.

This is effective analysis because the student does not stop at stating Locke’s claim; they immediately begin to test it. That move from explanation to critique is exactly what raises the writing beyond description.

This criticism is too broad and therefore weakens the analysis. The student should test the theory against stronger and more precise cases, because not every bodily change is relevant to organismic identity; otherwise the objection looks like a straw man.

This objection is promising, but it stays at the level of assertion. The student should explain how distorted memory specifically undermines Parfit’s account of identity, rather than simply stating that memories can be unreliable.

The student develops a clear line of analysis by linking Bucky’s hesitation to the philosophical claim about memory and identity. This works well because the scene is used to support an inference, not merely to illustrate a point already made.

If Hume denies a permanent self, what exactly is being compared when the student says Barnes and the Winter Soldier are ‘distinct bundles’? Thinking through that distinction would make the analysis more philosophically precise.

The student raises an interesting objection, but the reasoning is not yet rigorous enough. The criticism needs to be unpacked more carefully, because it is not clear that Hume is claiming all properties must be the same; the analysis should show why the stated interpretation follows from the theory.

Consider weighing this conclusion against an alternative reading: if memory is only one important feature among others, then the scene may show change in identity rather than proof that memory is essential. That comparison would deepen the evaluation.

The conclusion is clear, directly answers the question, and remains consistent with the line of argument developed throughout the essay. That consistency gives the response a satisfying philosophical finish.

The final synthesis overstates the extent of agreement among the theories. The student should be careful not to present Locke, Parfit, and Hume as saying the same thing, because the differences between their accounts are philosophically important.