Exam Intelligence · 3 Official Documents Analysed

How to Score Higher in IB Higher Level Philosophy (HL)

Evidence-based IB Higher Level Philosophy exam guide built from official examiner reports and mark schemes.

Evidence-BasedBuilt from 3 official examiner reports & mark schemes (2024–2025)

What Are Assessment Objectives (AOs)?

Before we dive in, you need to understand how the IB actually marks your answers.

AO stands for Assessment Objective. Think of AOs as the different “skills” the IB tests you on in every single question. When an examiner marks your paper, they don't just give you a mark out of 12 based on how “good” your answer feels — they allocate specific marks to each AO separately.

For example, a 12-mark question might be split as: AO1 (2 marks) + AO2 (2 marks) + AO3 (2 marks) + AO4 (6 marks). If you write a perfect textbook answer but don't evaluate, you can only score 6 out of 12 — because the other 6 marks are specifically reserved for evaluation.

This is why understanding AOs matters: they tell you exactly what the examiner is looking for and how many marks each skill is worth. Here are the 4 AOs for this subject:

AO1

Knowledge and Understanding

Paper 1 Section A and B, Paper 2 Part A, Paper 3 Part A, Internal Assessment Criterion C

Demonstrate accurate, relevant and detailed knowledge of philosophical positions, arguments, philosophers, and prescribed texts. Use precise philosophical vocabulary (epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, dialectic, ascetic ideal, harm principle, etc.) rather than common-sense paraphrase. Subject specialists reward depth and precision over breadth — listing many philosophers without development scores poorly.

AO2

Application and Analysis

Paper 1 Section A and B, Paper 2 Part B, Paper 3 Part A and B, Internal Assessment Criterion D

Apply philosophical knowledge to break down and examine the elements of an argument, theory or text. Unpack premises, assumptions, and implications. Critical analysis means examining the structure of arguments, not merely describing or summarising the philosophical position.

AO3

Synthesis and Evaluation (Critical Discussion)

Paper 1 evaluative questions, Paper 2 Part B, Paper 3 Part B, Internal Assessment Criterion E

Engage in critical discussion: compare, contrast, interpret, weigh strengths and limitations, and consider broader implications. Argue from a consistently held position with justification of main points. The new Criterion E (M25 onwards) replaces 'evaluation' with 'critical discussion' — a slightly broader skill that includes interpretation and counter-positions.

AO4

Use of Philosophical Method and the Personal Voice

Internal Assessment Criterion A and B, Paper 3 (PEEPA)

Identify a clear philosophical issue from a non-philosophical stimulus and justify the link (IA Criterion A). For HL Paper 3, draw on Personal Experience of Engaging in Philosophical Activity (PEEPA) to inform a critical discussion of the usefulness of philosophy through the Nature, Function, Method, Meaning (NFMM) framework. Develop your own evaluation rather than over-relying on famous criticisms.

The key takeaway: Most students lose marks not because they lack knowledge (AO1), but because they skip the higher-order skills — applying to context (AO2), building chains of reasoning (AO3), and making supported judgements (AO4). Everything below shows you exactly how to hit each AO based on what examiners have written in their reports.

🚫

Top Mistakes in Higher Level Philosophy

The most common reasons students lose marks in Higher Level Philosophy , cited directly from official examiner reports across multiple sessions.

Organising the essay around the stimulus instead of around the philosophical issue (IA)

Flagged as a major recurring issue across IA reports in every session · Affects: Internal Assessment

What examiners say

“Organising the essay around the stimulus: This was again a major issue in some centres this year, where students had clearly not been explained the nature of the task properly. The structure of the essay should be centred on an analysis of the philosophical issue, not an analysis of the stimulus.”
— IA, May 2025 TZ2/TZ3

“Structuring essays around the stimulus (i.e. traits of a fictional character) usually results in low philosophical content because it emphasises narrative description over philosophical analysis.”
— IA, May 2024 TZ1

How to fix this

Use the stimulus as a launchpad, not as the subject. After your introduction extracts the philosophical issue, the stimulus should fade into the background. Build body paragraphs around theories that address the philosophical issue — NOT around scenes, characters, or details of the stimulus. If you find yourself drawing parallels between the stimulus and various theories, you are heading in the wrong direction.

Failing to address the specific demands of the question — applying memorised content instead

Central problem across Paper 1 and Paper 2 in every report · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“A central problem was the failure to carefully consider the specific demands of the question. Some answers ignore the question entirely, applying what they have learnt and reshaping the question's aims to suit a memorised answer. Many answers pay no attention to the central instruction given by the command words 'discuss' or 'evaluate'.”
— Paper 1, May 2025 TZ3

“A failure to address the examination questions precisely as formulated.”
— Paper 2, May 2024 TZ1 and May 2025 TZ2

How to fix this

Underline the command word AND the specific terms of the question before writing. If the question asks about 'the relationship between liberty and authority', you cannot write a generic Mill essay — you must focus on that specific relationship. Re-read the question every two paragraphs and ask: am I still answering THIS question, or am I drifting into what I prepared?

Using too many theories or philosophers — listing instead of analysing

Recurring across IA, Paper 1, and Paper 2 in every session · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2, Internal Assessment

What examiners say

“Use of too many theories: Attempting to discuss too many theories (more than three) in one essay can lead to shallow explanations and superficial analysis and evaluation. This often happens because students run out words to explore each theory in depth.”
— IA, May 2024 TZ1

“Tendency to populate the script with as many authors or theories as possible, with a limited analysis of them. An extension of elements usually corresponds to a superficial view of them and the impossibility of an in-depth analysis. Students seem to consider the mention of piles of names, which end by taking the shape of a mere listing.”
— Paper 2, May 2025 TZ3

How to fix this

Limit yourself to TWO or THREE theories/philosophers in any essay. Depth always beats breadth in IB Philosophy. Three theories explored with detailed analysis, evaluation of premises, and consideration of counter-positions will outperform six theories listed in summary. If a name does not earn its place through analytical work, cut it.

Paper 2 Part B: Repeating descriptively in Part B what was already explained in Part A

Flagged in every Paper 2 report — the single most common Paper 2 weakness · Affects: Paper 2

What examiners say

“A tendency to repeat descriptively in the part B response what has already been explained in the part A response to a question.”
— Paper 2, May 2024 TZ1 and May 2025 TZ2

“When evaluation is present, it is often limited to mentioning one or two philosophers, without a real justification or connection with the whole text and question.”
— Paper 2, May 2025 TZ3

How to fix this

Part A = explain (knowledge). Part B = critically discuss (evaluation + alternative perspectives). After your Part A, DO NOT restate the same arguments in Part B. In Part B, take the position from Part A and assess it: identify alternative interpretations, weigh strengths and limitations, bring counter-arguments from other philosophers or your own reasoning, and reach a justified conclusion. The mark scheme reserves the higher bands of Part B for genuine critical discussion, not extended description.

IA Criterion A: Identifying an issue OR justifying the link — but not both

Single most common reason students lose Criterion A marks across all sessions · Affects: Internal Assessment

What examiners say

“There are two parts to this criterion: Identifying a clear philosophical issue, which is key to constructing the whole analysis... A clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the issue. A justification involves some unpacking and cannot just be 'this picture made me think of this issue'. Many students tend to have one or the other, which only warrants a 2.”
— IA, May 2025 TZ2

“However, this is an area where teachers sometimes tend to be too generous.”
— IA, May 2024 TZ1

How to fix this

Your introduction must do TWO distinct jobs: (1) name the philosophical issue clearly enough that any reader can identify it after the first page (e.g. 'whether free will is compatible with determinism'); (2) explain WHY the stimulus raises this issue with a small unpacking discussion — not just 'this stimulus made me think of this issue'. Spend a paragraph on each. For Section A of Paper 1, also link the issue to the question of what it means to be human.

Paper 1 Section A: Failing to link the philosophical issue to 'what it means to be human'

Recurring across every Paper 1 report · Affects: Paper 1

What examiners say

“It was not uncommon for students either to fail to explicitly identify the link between the stimulus and the philosophical issue, or to fail to link the philosophical issue to the question of what it means to be human.”
— Paper 1, May 2024 TZ1

“Many students did not relate their philosophical issue to what it means to be human, and this may be an area for development.”
— Paper 1, May 2025 TZ2

How to fix this

Section A is anchored in the core theme 'Being Human'. Your introduction must contain THREE explicit links: stimulus → philosophical issue → the question of what it means to be human. Make it concrete: if your issue is consciousness, explain why consciousness is constitutive of (or required for) being human. Drop a sentence in the conclusion that returns to the human-nature link. Subject specialists cannot reward what you do not state.

Paper 2: Limited use of the prescribed text itself — no specific quotations or references

Flagged in every Paper 2 report across both years · Affects: Paper 2

What examiners say

“Limited use of the text itself and/or a failure to make either specific or even general references to relevant ideas and themes drawn from text.”
— Paper 2, May 2025 TZ2

“There is evidence that some students have neither read nor studied the selected prescribed text or have not done so in detail. This leads to responses in both parts A and B that make little or no use of the text, display little or no knowledge of the text, fail to address the requirements of the questions set and often offer little more than a collection of personal, common sense reflections on the issue(s) set out in the wording of the questions.”
— Paper 2, May 2024 TZ1

How to fix this

Paper 2 is not 'write what you know about Descartes' — it is 'demonstrate detailed knowledge of THIS specific text'. Embed direct quotations or paraphrased text references in BOTH Part A and Part B. From M25 you can bring a clean copy of the text into the exam — use it. Track key passages/page numbers as you study. A response with zero text references cannot reach the upper mark bands.

Paper 3 Part B: Substituting personal opinion for critical analysis on philosophical activity (HL)

Flagged across both M24 and M25 Paper 3 reports — HL specific · Affects: Paper 3

What examiners say

“Many of the responses identified a few statements about doing philosophy in the text and responded to them by providing their own illustrations of doing philosophy without further development. Some students still refer to the unseen text as a stimulus or prompt and respond accordingly, discussing their experience of the subject as if it was a reflection of their time doing DP Philosophy.”
— Paper 3, May 2024 TZ1

“Many responses substituted conceptual engagement for opinion or summary, and few demonstrated sustained critical reasoning and constructive engagement with different points of view.”
— Paper 3, May 2025 TZ2

How to fix this

Paper 3 Part B requires THREE simultaneous demands: (1) explicit references to the unseen text, (2) PEEPA — your own experience of engaging in philosophical activity, (3) relevant examples used to support a critical discussion. Use the NFMM framework (Nature, Function, Method, Meaning) to ground your discussion. Personal experience must illustrate or test claims about the usefulness of philosophy — not be an end in itself. Avoid 'I asked questions when I was younger' style anecdotes.

Apply what you've learned

Practice identifying these mistakes in real papers. Try a recent paper and mark yourself — you'll spot these patterns immediately.

All Papers

✅

What Higher Level Philosophy Examiners Reward

Patterns that consistently earn high marks in Higher Level Philosophy , based on examiner report commentary on top-scoring answers.

Focus on two or three theories with depth, not many theories with summary

'Focus on two or three clear theories only, allowing for depth in criteria C, D and E. Analysis is detailed and systematic, with obvious logical progression between arguments. Thorough critical discussion is present and contains some of the student's own points.' Successful IAs and essays consistently restrict scope to allow depth.

Source: IA, May 2024 TZ1 and May 2025 TZ2/TZ3

Develop your own evaluation rather than over-relying on famous criticisms

'Get students to practise developing their own evaluation so they do not over-rely on famous counter arguments or criticisms and are able to demonstrate their philosophical skills. The most successful students used some well-known counter arguments and criticisms but also weighed in with their own evaluative comments and developed justification of those comments.' Top responses construct their own critique.

Source: IA, May 2024 TZ1

Argue from a consistently held position throughout the essay

'Level 5-6 of this criterion is quite demanding. It involves justifying the points made and arguing from a consistently held position throughout the analysis. Students who performed well for E usually weaved in some evaluation throughout the essay rather than leaving it to a small last paragraph or conclusion.' A consistently held position is the gateway to top Criterion E marks.

Source: IA Criterion E, May 2024 TZ1 and May 2025 TZ2

Use precise philosophical vocabulary and the idiom of the prescribed text

'Stronger students exhibited familiarity with the arguments of the text relevant to the question set, the use of appropriate philosophical language and of the idiom of the text, and an awareness of the arguments developed by the authors of the text.' Top Paper 2 responses adopt the technical terms used by the philosopher (e.g. 'methodological doubt', 'ascetic ideal', 'wu wei', 'harm principle', 'ressentiment') rather than common-sense paraphrase.

Source: Paper 2, May 2025 TZ3

Engage with the question premise FIRST before introducing alternatives

'The strongest responses showed a deft handling of the demands of the assessment, genuine knowledge of philosophy that was well used and well chosen, effective inclusion of their own experiences of having studied philosophy, thoughtful reflection on and discussion of the nature, function, meaning, and method of philosophy.' Engage with what the question states before pivoting to counter-arguments.

Source: Paper 3, May 2025 TZ2

Paper 3: Integrate text references, PEEPA, and own knowledge into one coherent response

'In Part B students frequently struggled to balance the competing demands of: discussing the prompt claim in the question, engaging with the unseen text, meaningfully exploring the nature/function/method/meaning of philosophy, connecting to notions of the usefulness of philosophy, incorporating references to their own experience of having studied philosophy. Even strong students would often only be able to bring in a subset of these factors and handle them effectively and robustly.' Top responses weave all three sources together; weak responses pick one or two.

Source: Paper 3, May 2025 TZ2/TZ3

📝

Higher Level Philosophy Answer Frameworks

Structured approaches for each Higher Level Philosophy question type, derived from mark scheme requirements.

Paper 1 — Core Theme + Optional Themes (HL: 3 essays / SL: 2 essays)

HL: 2h 30m for 3 essays / SL: 1h 45m for 2 essays

Structure

Introduction (extract issue from stimulus + justify link + connect to 'being human') → Two or three theory paragraphs each with critical discussion → Counter-position → Conclusion linking back to being human | Section B (Optional Theme): Introduction interpreting the question's specific demands → 2-3 analytical paragraphs each addressing a position → Critical discussion of alternatives → Argued conclusion

•Triple link the introduction: stimulus → philosophical issue → 'what it means to be human'
•Justify the stimulus-issue link with a small unpacking discussion, not 'this picture made me think of this issue'
•Limit to 2-3 theories or philosophers — depth wins over breadth
•Pay attention to the command word — 'discuss', 'evaluate', 'to what extent' all require different approaches
•Engage with the SPECIFIC question, not the broad theme — do not write a generic 'utilitarianism essay' if the question asks about character vs. action
•Use named philosophers and their precise terms (Kantian deontology, Mill's harm principle, Plato's divided line, ontological argument)

Paper 2 — Prescribed Text (Part A explain + Part B critical discussion)

1h total — split ~25 min Part A, ~35 min Part B

Structure

Part A (10 marks): Direct engagement with the concept named in the question → Explanation grounded in specific text references → Connection to surrounding arguments in the text | Part B (15 marks): Brief framing of the issue → Critical analysis of the text's position → Alternative interpretations / counter-arguments → Personal evaluation with justification → Conclusion consistent with the discussion

•Focus on knowledge and explanation — NO argument or evaluation required here
•Embed direct quotations or specific text references — vague summary scores poorly
•Use the philosopher's own technical vocabulary (methodological doubt, wu wei, ressentiment, harm principle)
•Do NOT repeat Part A descriptively — Part B is for critical discussion, not restatement
•Identify and explore at least one relevant alternative interpretation, view, or counter-argument
•Avoid mere personal opinion — justify your evaluation by reference to the text and other perspectives

Paper 3 — Open Philosophical Activity (HL only)

1h 15m total

Structure

Part A (10 marks): Establish understanding of the prompt → Explain the relevant concept/issue/argument from the unseen text → Integrate own knowledge of philosophy of technology and environment → Coherent series of explanatory steps | Part B (15 marks): Engage the prompt → Identify the NFMM aspect highlighted by the text → Critical discussion drawing on (1) text references, (2) PEEPA, (3) examples → Argue toward a position on the usefulness of philosophy

•Part A is EXPLANATION only — no argument, no critical analysis
•Use the unseen text as a springboard, not a stimulus — refer to it specifically (line numbers acceptable)
•Bring in own knowledge of philosophy of technology and environment (Heidegger, Marx, Arendt, Foucault, Marcuse, McLuhan, Floridi, Næss)
•Use the Nature, Function, Method, Meaning (NFMM) framework — but do NOT mechanically work through all four
•PEEPA references must illustrate or test claims, not be free-standing anecdotes
•Specific and explicit references to the unseen text are required for top-band marks

Internal Assessment (max 2000 words)

Drafted across the course

Structure

Introduction (issue + stimulus link + scope) → Theory 1 with detailed analysis → Theory 2 with critical analysis → Critical discussion comparing the positions with own examples → Conclusion with consistently held position

•Choose a NON-philosophical stimulus (no philosophical dialogues, no whole films/series — single scenes/images/quotes work best)
•Criterion A demands BOTH issue identification AND justified link — do both
•Limit to 2-3 theories — depth in C, D, E requires scope discipline
•Develop YOUR OWN evaluation — over-reliance on famous criticisms costs Criterion E marks
•Use your own examples (not from the stimulus, not borrowed from philosophers) to demonstrate transfer in Criterion D
•Argue from a consistently held position throughout — flagged by subject specialists as the gateway to top Criterion E bands

💬

Higher Level Philosophy Command Words Decoded

Each command word in Higher Level Philosophy is a scoring instruction. Understanding what examiners expect is critical to earning full marks.

explainPaper 2 Part A (10 marks), Paper 3 Part A (10 marks)

Give a detailed account of a philosophical concept, issue, or argument including reasons or causes. Explanation requires a coherent series of points that demonstrates depth of knowledge and understanding — like 'stepping stones from no understanding to sufficient understanding'. NO argument is required, only clarity.

Common mistake

Treating 'explain' as 'argue' and presenting a position with critique. Explanation is descriptive and analytical, not evaluative. Save argument for Part B.

discussPaper 1 essays, Paper 2 Part B (15 marks), Paper 3 Part B (15 marks)

Offer a considered, balanced review with supporting evidence, reasoning and examples. Multiple perspectives must be presented and weighed.

Common mistake

Presenting only one philosopher's position without alternative perspectives. 'Discuss' demands at least two competing views with critical engagement.

evaluatePaper 1 essays, Paper 2 Part B (15 marks)

Make an appraisal by weighing strengths and limitations of a position or argument. Reach a substantiated judgement, not a description.

Common mistake

Describing strengths and limitations without making a final judgement. Evaluation must end somewhere — a conclusion that adjudicates between the positions presented.

analysePaper 2 Part B, IA Criterion D

Break down a concept, theory or argument into its constituent elements and examine them in detail. Critical analysis involves unpacking premises, assumptions, and implications.

Common mistake

Confusing analysis with summary. Summary restates; analysis breaks down the structure of the argument and examines how each part functions and relates to the conclusion.

to what extentPaper 1 and Paper 2 Part B essays

Assess the validity of a claim by considering both supporting and opposing arguments. Reach a substantiated judgement on how far the claim holds.

Common mistake

Either fully accepting or fully rejecting the claim without engaging with its strongest version. Always engage with the claim's merits before introducing counter-arguments.

compare and contrastPaper 2 Part B essays

Identify similarities AND differences between two or more positions, theories or interpretations. Use explicit linkage rather than two separate descriptions.

Common mistake

Writing two separate accounts (philosopher A, then philosopher B) without making direct links. Use 'both...however...' structures throughout.

⚠️

Topics Students Struggle With Most In Higher Level Philosophy

These Higher Level Philosophy topics consistently produce the lowest scores. Prioritise these in your revision.

Aesthetics (Paper 1 Optional Theme)

'The optional theme that appeared most challenging to the students seemed to have been Aesthetics. This optional theme was one of the less popular themes and, although some of the responses in this theme were excellent, others lacked philosophical knowledge and development.' Most attempts lacked engagement with the full range of art forms or with positions like Kant's third Critique.

Affects: Paper 1

Philosophy of Science — knowledge of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend (Paper 1)

'Very few responses on this theme. Hardly any responses to Question 14.' When attempted, responses showed knowledge of Popper but rarely the broader debate (paradigm shifts, falsificationism, methodological anarchism). The theme is consistently under-prepared.

Affects: Paper 1

Philosophy of Religion — religious language and verificationism (Paper 1)

'At the heart of many responses to Question 12 was the claim that religious language is meaningless, which stems from a position on how assertions are verified.' Students often assert positions without engaging with the underlying epistemological framework (logical positivism, verification principle).

Affects: Paper 1

Paper 2 Part A: Underdeveloped explanations relative to Part B

'Particularly, in the cases of weak responses, it is Part A that offers the worst performance, while Part B tends to be the best part of the response. This is probably due to the fact that schools and students got to know the importance of evaluation (maybe because more marks can be gained in Part B), but tend to underestimate the descriptive and explanatory part of the question.' The pendulum has swung too far toward Part B.

Affects: Paper 2

Paper 2: Identifying alternative interpretations and approaches

'Another weakness in Part B responses was the ability to identify and assess relevant alternative approaches and interpretations.' Students rarely engage with secondary literature or alternative readings of the prescribed text — Part B becomes evaluation in isolation.

Affects: Paper 2

Paper 3: Distinguishing critical analysis from personal opinion (HL)

'Critical analysis supporting an argument is the most challenging part of any philosophy course. Many of the responses identified a few statements about doing philosophy in the text and responded to them by providing their own illustrations of doing philosophy without further development.' Personal anecdote replaces analytical engagement.

Affects: Paper 3

Paper 3: Engaging with the prompt's nuanced points (HL)

'The accessible points were low-hanging fruit, and many responses only focused on these, distracting them from engaging in the more nuanced points and their possibilities. As a result, the nuanced claims about DP/PA were passed over, stifling a quality discussion about the nature of philosophical activity.' Students gravitate to easy claims and avoid the nuanced philosophical content.

Affects: Paper 3

IA Criterion E: Justifying main points and arguing from a consistently held position

'Students often found this criterion quite difficult, scoring in the lower two bands. Level 5-6 of this criterion demands clarity of the critical discussion; almost all main points are justified (again, this is key and the main issue in many cases). Note that a consistently held position is unique to this band.' Most students lose marks on justification and consistency.

Affects: Internal Assessment

Target your weak areas

The topics above are where most marks are lost. Use past papers and mark schemes to practice these specific areas until they become second nature.

Past Papers & Mark Schemes

Frequently Asked Questions

What papers make up IB Philosophy Higher Level?

Paper 1 (Core Theme + Optional Themes): 75 marks, 2h 30m — one essay on a stimulus from the core theme 'Being Human', plus TWO essays from two different optional themes (Aesthetics, Epistemology, Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, Political Philosophy, Social Philosophy / Philosophy and Contemporary Society). Paper 2 (Prescribed Text): 25 marks, 1h — one question from one of 12 prescribed texts (Part A explain, 10 marks; Part B critical discussion, 15 marks). Paper 3 (Open Philosophical Activity, HL only): 25 marks, 1h 15m — Part A explain (10) + Part B critical discussion on the usefulness of philosophy (15) anchored in an unseen text on philosophy itself. Internal Assessment: 25 marks, max 2000 words — philosophical analysis of a non-philosophical stimulus.

How is Paper 3 (HL only) different from the other papers?

Paper 3 is meta-philosophical — it asks you to reflect on philosophy itself rather than to apply philosophy to a topic. The unseen text discusses the Nature, Function, Method, and Meaning (NFMM) of philosophical activity. Part A asks you to EXPLAIN a concept/issue from the prompt (no argument required); Part B asks you to critically DISCUSS the usefulness of philosophy, drawing on (1) explicit text references, (2) your Personal Experience of Engaging in Philosophical Activity (PEEPA), and (3) relevant philosophical examples. The format changed in M25 from responding to multiple text claims to a single-issue NFMM-anchored discussion, so older past-paper responses follow a different structure.

How should I choose and use a stimulus for the Internal Assessment?

Choose a NON-philosophical stimulus — a single image, photograph, cartoon, scene, song lyric, news article, or quote. Avoid philosophical dialogues (e.g. The Good Place), entire films, books or TV series — subject specialists explicitly penalise these under Criterion A because they make the link to philosophy too easy. The stimulus is a launchpad: extract a focused philosophical issue, justify the link with a small unpacking discussion (not just 'this made me think of...'), then organise your essay around the philosophical issue, NOT around the stimulus. Once you have established the link, the stimulus should fade into the background.

What is the most effective Paper 2 strategy for the prescribed text?

Part A and Part B are different tasks: Part A demands explanation grounded in specific text references (no argument); Part B demands critical discussion with alternative interpretations and your own evaluation. Allocate time according to the marks (10 vs 15 — about 25 vs 35 minutes). Embed direct quotations or specific text references in BOTH parts — from M25 you can bring a clean unannotated copy of the text into the exam. Do NOT repeat Part A content descriptively in Part B. Indicate clearly where Part A ends and Part B begins. Use the philosopher's own technical vocabulary (methodological doubt, harm principle, wu wei, ascetic ideal, capabilities approach) rather than common-sense paraphrase.

How do I avoid the 'opinion-not-philosophy' trap that subject specialists flag every year?

The most common feedback is that students offer personal views rather than philosophical analysis. To avoid this: (1) ground every claim in a named position or argument from a philosopher or tradition; (2) use philosophical vocabulary — premise, conclusion, dialectic, ontology, epistemology, instead of 'I think', 'in my opinion'; (3) when you offer your own evaluation, JUSTIFY it by reference to other positions or by exposing assumptions in the argument; (4) for Paper 3 PEEPA, anchor personal experience to a specific philosophical claim about NFMM — 'when I worked through Descartes' meditations I encountered the methodological challenge of...'; (5) argue from a consistently held position throughout — flagged as the gateway to top-band Criterion E marks.

Put It All Into Practice

You now know exactly what examiners reward and penalise. The next step is deliberate practice with real IB past papers for Higher Level Philosophy.

View All Past Papers