IA Playbook
Use diagrams, terminology, and evaluation to build a strong economics commentary.
Keep the commentary focused on the article, the economic theory, and the quality of your reasoning from start to finish.
Economics IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.
How accurately and effectively economic diagrams support the commentary.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address diagrams, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How accurately and consistently relevant economic terminology is used.
Stronger evidence
Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address terminology, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How effectively economic theory is applied to the specific article and issue.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address application and analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How meaningfully the selected key concept is connected to the article and analysis.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address key concept, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How effectively the commentary weighs assumptions, consequences, perspectives, and policy limitations.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How well the submission meets the practical requirements for a valid commentary portfolio entry.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address rubric requirements, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for diagrams. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address diagrams, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for terminology. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address terminology, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for application and analysis. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address application and analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for key concept. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address key concept, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for rubric requirements. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address rubric requirements, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Choose the most relevant diagram early so your explanation stays precise and accurate.
Step 2
Keep the economic terms relevant to the article and use them throughout the commentary.
Step 3
Apply the theory to the real-world context instead of leaving it as abstract explanation.
Step 4
Show that your conclusion is reasoned, balanced, and supported by the evidence you selected.
Did You Know?
Marksy gives independently written feedback on your commentary's theory, application, analysis, and evaluation. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.