Paper 2: Prescribed text

(1 hour)

Weight: 20% (SL) 25% (HL)

Paper 2 is identical for SL and HL students. The paper consists of two questions for each of the prescribed philosophical texts. Each question is split into two parts: part A and part B.

Students are required to answer one question, and to answer both part A and part B of that question. Part A is worth 10 marks, and part B is worth 15 marks.

Paper 2A Markbands (SL and HL)

0

  • The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1-2

  • There is little relevant knowledge of the specified idea/argument/concept from the text.
  • The explanation is minimal.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.

3-4

  • Some knowledge of the specified idea/argument/concept from the text is demonstrated but this lacks accuracy, relevance and detail.
  • The explanation is basic and in need of development.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.

5-6

  • Knowledge of the specified idea/argument/concept from the text is mostly accurate and relevant, but lacking in detail.
  • There is a satisfactory explanation.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.

7-8

  • The response contains accurate and relevant knowledge of the specified idea/argument/concept from the text.
  • The explanation is clear, although may be in need of further development.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is mostly used appropriately.

9-10

  • The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge of the specified idea/argument/concept from the text.
  • The explanation is clear and well developed.
  • There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.

Paper 2B Markbands (SL and HL)

0

  • The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1-3

  • There is little relevant knowledge of the text.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.
  • The response is mostly descriptive with very little analysis.
  • There is no discussion of alternative interpretations or points of view.

4-6

  • Some knowledge of the text is demonstrated but this lacks accuracy and relevance.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
  • There is some limited analysis, but the response is more descriptive than analytical.
  • There is little discussion of alternative interpretations or points of view.
  • Some of the main points are justified

7-9

  • Knowledge of the text is mostly accurate and relevant.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
  • The response contains analysis, but this analysis lacks development.
  • There is some discussion of alternative interpretations or points of view.
  • Many of the main points are justified.

10-12

  • The response contains accurate and relevant knowledge of the text.
  • Philosophical vocabulary is mostly used appropriately.
  • The response contains clear critical analysis.
  • There is discussion and some assessment of alternative interpretations or points of view.
  • Most of the main points are justified.

13-15

  • The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge of the text.
  • There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.
  • The response contains clear and well-developed critical analysis.
  • There is discussion and assessment of alternative interpretations or points of view.
  • All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified.