IA Playbook
Identify the philosophical issue quickly, then build a clear and evaluated response from start to finish.
Use this guide to keep the stimulus connection explicit, the structure easy to follow, and the argument focused on justified philosophical analysis.
Philosophy IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How clearly you name the philosophical issue in the stimulus and justify why the stimulus raises it.
Stronger evidence
The issue is identified explicitly, with a clear justification of the link to the stimulus.
Early-stage evidence
The issue is implied rather than stated, and the link to the stimulus is not justified.
How well structured, focused, and clear the response is.
Stronger evidence
Well structured, focused, clear, and coherent.
Early-stage evidence
Poorly structured, or structured but barely focused on the task.
How accurate and relevant your philosophical knowledge is, how well you explain the issue, and how you use philosophical vocabulary.
Stronger evidence
Relevant, accurate, detailed knowledge, a well-developed explanation, and appropriate vocabulary throughout.
Early-stage evidence
Little relevant knowledge, a minimal explanation of the issue, and missing or misused philosophical vocabulary.
How developed your critical analysis is, how well examples support it, and how you handle counter-arguments.
Stronger evidence
Well-developed critical analysis, well-chosen examples, and counter-arguments analysed convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Mostly descriptive, with little analysis and few or no examples.
How well you evaluate other interpretations, justify your points, and reach a consistent conclusion.
Stronger evidence
Clear evaluation of other views, nearly all points justified, a consistent position, and a clear conclusion that matches the argument.
Early-stage evidence
Little evaluation of other views, some main points justified, and no relevant conclusion.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | The issue is implied rather than stated, and the link to the stimulus is not justified. |
| 2 | The issue is clearly identified, with some justification of the link to the stimulus. |
| 3 | The issue is identified explicitly, with a clear justification of the link to the stimulus. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Poorly structured, or structured but barely focused on the task. |
| 2 | Some structure, though the point is not always clear. |
| 3 | Structured, generally organized, and easy to follow. |
| 4 | Well structured, focused, clear, and coherent. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Little relevant knowledge, a minimal explanation of the issue, and missing or misused philosophical vocabulary. |
| 2 | Some knowledge with gaps in accuracy or relevance, a basic explanation, and vocabulary used only sometimes appropriately. |
| 3 | Mostly accurate, relevant knowledge and a satisfactory explanation; vocabulary is used, though not always appropriately. |
| 4 | Relevant, accurate, detailed knowledge, a well-developed explanation, and appropriate vocabulary throughout. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Mostly descriptive, with little analysis and few or no examples. |
| 3-4 | Limited analysis, more description than analysis, with some suitable examples. |
| 5-6 | Analysis that lacks development, suitable examples, and counter-arguments identified. |
| 7-8 | Well-developed critical analysis, well-chosen examples, and counter-arguments analysed convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Little evaluation of other views, some main points justified, and no relevant conclusion. |
| 3-4 | Some evaluation of other views, many points justified, and a conclusion that may not fully match the argument. |
| 5-6 | Clear evaluation of other views, nearly all points justified, a consistent position, and a clear conclusion that matches the argument. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Translate the stimulus into one precise philosophical issue and justify why that issue is the right focus.
Step 2
Organize the response so the claim, reasoning, and transitions are easy to follow at every step.
Step 3
Define the key terms you rely on and keep the language precise rather than decorative.
Step 4
Develop counter-arguments and alternative views instead of stopping at description.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your Philosophy work against IB criteria, gives criterion-level feedback, and shows where your analysis and evaluation can become more precise. 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.