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)
Paper 2A Markbands (SL and HL)
0
0
- The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2
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
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
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
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
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)
Paper 2B Markbands (SL and HL)
0
0
- The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-3
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
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
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
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
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.