Read the official IB Philosophy Internal Assessment criteria with markbands, guiding questions, and notes. Use the selectors to switch subject, level, or component; the optional AI grading prompt stays at the bottom for self-review.
Step 1 — what are you working on?
Step 2 — narrow it down
Group
Subject
Level
Official criteria
Philosophy · All · Philosophical analysis of a non-philosophical stimulus
5 criteriaTotal 25 marks
Criterion A: Identification of issue and justification
3 marks
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
Criterion B: Clarity
4 marks
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
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.
2
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.
3
The response is structured and generally organized, and can be easily followed. Points are generally clear and coherent.
4
The response is focused and effectively structured. All or nearly all of the points made are clear and coherent.
Criterion C: Knowledge and understanding
4 marks
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
There is little relevant knowledge. The explanation of the philosophical issue is minimal. Philosophical vocabulary is not used or is consistently used inappropriately.
2
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.
3
Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. There is a satisfactory explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, mostly appropriately.
4
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.
Criterion D: Analysis
8 marks
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The response is mostly descriptive. There is little analysis. Where examples are included, these are ineffective and/or irrelevant.
3–4
The response contains limited analysis but is more descriptive than analytical. Some examples are included.
5–6
The response contains analysis, but this analysis lacks development. Relevant examples are used to support the argument.
7–8
The response contains well-developed critical analysis. Relevant and clearly presented examples are used effectively to support the argument.
Criterion E: Evaluation
6 marks
0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
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.
3–4
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.
5–6
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.
Optional: AI grading prompt
For self-review only
A copyable prompt that embeds the criteria above and asks an AI to grade the work criterion by criterion. Use it as a draft sanity check — not a substitute for teacher or examiner feedback.
Common questions
Where do the criteria come from?
The criteria are stored locally in a structured database that mirrors the official IB descriptors. The page only displays them — descriptor wording is preserved as written, with no paraphrasing.
Why pick subject, level, and component?
The criteria differ by assessment type, subject, level, and component. The selectors at the top filter the database to the criteria set that applies to your specific submission.
What is the AI grading prompt at the bottom for?
It is an optional helper. The prompt embeds the same criteria you see above and asks an AI to evaluate the work criterion by criterion. Useful for a quick self-review before teacher feedback.
Is my work sent anywhere?
No. The page only loads criteria. If you choose to use the AI prompt, you copy it manually and paste it into the AI tool of your choice — nothing leaves this page.
More IB resources
Other tools that pair well with the official criteria.