Official IB Philosophy IA criteria

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is implied but not explicitly identified. There is no justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.

The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly identified. There is some justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.

The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly and explicitly identified. There is a clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task. Most points are vague and unclear.

The response contains an attempt to follow a structured approach although it is sometimes unclear what it is trying to convey. Many points lack clarity and precision.

The response is structured and generally organized, and can be easily followed. Points are generally clear and coherent.

The response is focused and effectively structured. All or nearly all of the points made are clear and coherent.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

There is little relevant knowledge. The explanation of the philosophical issue is minimal. Philosophical vocabulary is not used or is consistently used inappropriately.

Some knowledge is demonstrated but this lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a basic explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.

Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. There is a satisfactory explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, mostly appropriately.

The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge. There is a well-developed explanation of the philosophical issue. There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

The response is mostly descriptive. There is little analysis. Where examples are included, these are ineffective and/or irrelevant.

The response contains limited analysis but is more descriptive than analytical. Some examples are included.

The response contains analysis, but this analysis lacks development. Relevant examples are used to support the argument.

The response contains well-developed critical analysis. Relevant and clearly presented examples are used effectively to support the argument.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

There is little critical discussion of different points of view. Few of the main points are justified. There is no conclusion, or the conclusion is not relevant.

There is some critical discussion of different points of view. Some of the main points are justified. The conclusion is stated but is superficial or not entirely consistent with the argument.

There is clear critical discussion of different points of view. All or nearly all of the main points are justified. The response argues from a consistently held position. The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the argument.