Back To Philosophy

IA Playbook

Philosophy IA Criteria Guide

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

Assessment criteria

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.

Criterion A: Identification of issue and justification (3 marks)

How clearly a philosophical issue is identified in the stimulus and the connection is justified.

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 identification of issue and justification, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Clarity (4 marks)

How clearly and coherently the response is structured and communicated.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address clarity, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Knowledge and understanding (4 marks)

How accurately relevant philosophical ideas, arguments, and terminology are explained.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge and understanding, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Analysis (8 marks)

How rigorously the response examines arguments, assumptions, implications, and relationships.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion E: Evaluation (6 marks)

How effectively the response judges arguments and develops a supported philosophical position.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Identification of issue and justification (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for identification of issue and justification.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address identification of issue and justification, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Criterion B: Clarity (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for clarity.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address clarity, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion C: Knowledge and understanding (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for knowledge and understanding.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge and understanding, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion D: Analysis (8 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for analysis.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3-4Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
5-6The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
7-8The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: Evaluation (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Name the issue early

Translate the stimulus into one precise philosophical issue and justify why that issue is the right focus.

Step 2

Build a clean structure

Organize the response so the claim, reasoning, and transitions are easy to follow at every step.

Step 3

Use philosophical vocabulary accurately

Define the key terms you rely on and keep the language precise rather than decorative.

Step 4

Balance analysis and evaluation

Develop counter-arguments and alternative views instead of stopping at description.

Submission Checklist

  • The philosophical issue is explicitly identified and justified.
  • The response is structured and easy to follow.
  • Philosophical terms are accurate and relevant throughout.
  • Evaluation is clearly tied to the argument, not added at the end as an afterthought.

Quick Wins

  • Write the issue statement before drafting the body so the response stays focused.
  • Turn one descriptive paragraph into a claim-plus-counterclaim structure.
  • Use one sentence at the end of each paragraph to signal why it matters philosophically.

Did You Know?

Check Your Philosophy Draft Against The Rubric

Marksy gives independently written feedback showing where your analysis and evaluation can become more precise. 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.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get an estimated mark and feedback for every IA criterion.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criterion feedback highlights

Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback

See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.

Marksy list of fixes for an IB draft

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Start IA GradingSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IA Grading