IB Philosophy HL Internal Assessment Example

The philosophical issue is clearly and explicitly identified in a form that is broad enough to frame the whole inquiry. This question keeps the response focused on expectation, obligation, and the value of social participation, which gives the later comparison of Durkheim, Marx, and Stirner a strong conceptual anchor.

The student makes a clear connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue by explaining why the image matters personally. The move from a concrete family experience to a general question about society turns the stimulus into a genuine justification for inquiry rather than a decorative prompt.

The connection to the issue is promising, but the reasoning would be stronger with cleaner phrasing and a more direct link between the stone-house image and the philosophical tension. The student should make explicit whether the focus is recognition, obligation, or mutual benefit so the introduction sets up a sharper line of argument.

This paragraph opens the main body in a focused way and signals the thinker being discussed immediately. That clear topic sentence helps the reader follow the structure and prepares the argument for the later comparison with Marx and Stirner.

The shift from Durkheim to Marx is easy to follow because the student explicitly marks the contrast. This kind of signposting improves coherence by showing the reader how each philosopher answers the same central question differently.

The conclusion is clear, but the final paragraph would be more coherent if the student added one sentence that directly reconciles the tension between rejecting reward and describing society as a meaningful space. Clarifying that difference would make the ending feel more deliberate and philosophically controlled.

The discussion is broadly accurate, but the term should be handled more precisely: the student writes 'collective conscious' elsewhere, and the concept needs clearer distinction from individual consciousness. Tightening the terminology would strengthen the philosophical accuracy of the explanation.

This is a strong use of textual evidence and philosophical vocabulary. By pairing the quotation with the house-building example, the student shows understanding of organic solidarity as mutual dependence rather than merely naming the concept.

This overstates Stirner slightly. He is concerned with the ego’s relation to imposed abstractions, but saying he requires rejection of 'any societal expectations' makes his position sound more absolute than it is. The student should distinguish between rejecting domination by spooks and rejecting every form of social relation.

The key idea is present, but the explanation would be stronger if the student defined 'spooks' in a more disciplined way and then tied the definition to the argument about society. A concise definition followed by one concrete consequence would improve conceptual precision.

The student does more than describe Marx; the house example is used to show why wage labour can reproduce dependency. That move from theory to implication is genuinely analytical because it explains how exploitation works rather than merely naming it.

This is one of the stronger critical moves in the response because it tests Durkheim against a real objection rather than simply restating Marx. The student shows analytical depth by showing that social cohesion can conceal power inequalities, which directly addresses the evaluation demanded by the question.

The criticism of Stirner is relevant, but it remains somewhat one-sided because it is stated as a verdict rather than argued through. The student should explain why cooperation is philosophically unavoidable, or how Stirner might answer the charge, so the objection becomes a real analysis rather than a conclusion in disguise.

What would change in the argument if Marx were read as giving a primarily economic analysis rather than a complete theory of all oppression? Considering that distinction could help the student sharpen the criticism and make the counter-argument more convincing.

This is a clear evaluative judgment that engages directly with an alternative viewpoint. The student does not just compare thinkers; they assess the consequence of Durkheim’s position and explain why that consequence matters for the overall answer.

If society is necessary and socially rewarding in itself, does that count as an expectation in some form? Clarifying this tension would help the student make the conclusion more philosophically precise and avoid seeming to deny the very value they defend.

This conclusion is clear, but the justification is still too compressed for the strength of the claim. The student should explain why expecting recognition necessarily reduces autonomy, since that premise is doing a great deal of work in the final judgment.

The student presents a defensible evaluation that is tied to the argument developed earlier. By contrasting social participation with transactional reward, the response shows a clear attempt to synthesize the competing viewpoints into a final position.