Paper 3: HL Extension

Markbands (HL only)

0

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

1-5

• The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task. Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.
• There is a very basic understanding of the view of philosophical activity raised by the unseen text. Few, if any, references are made to the text.
• There is limited reference to the student’s personal experience of philosophical activity but no comparison or contrast of this experience with the view(s) raised by the text.
• The essay is descriptive and lacking in analysis. Few of the main points are justified.

6-10

• There is some attempt to follow a structured approach, although it is not always clear what the answer is trying to convey.
• There is a limited understanding of the view(s) of philosophical activity raised by the text. Few, if any, references are made to the text.
• There is some evidence that the student has drawn on their personal experience of philosophical activity.
• The response identifies similarities and differences between the student’s personal experience of philosophical activity and the view(s) of philosophical activity presented in the text, although the analysis of these similarities and differences is superficial
• The response contains some analysis but is more descriptive than analytical. Some of the main points are justified

11-15

• There is a clear attempt to structure the response, although there may be some repetition or a lack of clarity in places. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
• There is a satisfactory understanding of the view(s) of philosophical activity raised by the text. Some references are made to the text.
• There is some evidence that the student has drawn on their personal experience of philosophical activity, with examples or illustrations used to support their points.
• There is some analysis of the similarities and differences between the student’s personal experience of philosophical activity and the view(s) of philosophical activity presented in the text, although this analysis needs further development.
• The response contains critical analysis rather than just description. Many of the main points are justified.

16-20

• The response is well organized and can be easily followed. Philosophical vocabulary is used, mostly appropriately.
• There is clear identification of the view(s) of philosophical activity presented in the unseen text. Some references are made to the text.
• The student draws on their personal experience of philosophical activity, using examples or illustrations to support their points
• There is clear analysis of both similarities and differences between the student’s personal experience of philosophical activity and the view(s) of philosophical activity presented in the text, although this analysis needs further development
• The response contains critical analysis rather than just description. Most of the main points are justified. The response argues to a reasoned conclusion.

21-25

• The response is well structured, focused and effectively organized. There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.
• There is clear identification of the view(s) of philosophical activity presented in the unseen text. Effective references are made to the text.
• The student draws explicitly on their personal experience of philosophical activity, using well-chosen examples or illustrations to support their points.
• There is clear analysis of both similarities and differences between the student’s personal experience of philosophical activity and the view(s) of philosophical activity presented.
• The response contains well-developed critical analysis. All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified. The response argues to a reasoned conclusion.