Internal Assessment: Philosophical Analysis of a Non-Philosophical Stimulus
What is tested
The IA requires a philosophical analysis of a stimulus that is not itself philosophical-a news report, advertisement, film scene, policy document, meme, song lyric. HL is 1,600–2,000 words; the stimulus is appended and excluded from the count. It is internally assessed and externally moderated, and rewards a focused research question, accurate use of philosophy, and evaluation rather than description.
Core rules
- Select a stimulus dense enough to yield a genuine philosophical problem; a philosophical article or textbook extract is disallowed.
- State the issue and your thesis in the introduction, define contested terms, and signpost the argument.
- Use named philosophical positions accurately; a minimum of two or three well-understood sources beats a list.
- Present an objection, then respond; the conclusion should answer your question, not merely summarise.
- Reference consistently and append the stimulus.
Worked example
Stimulus: an advertisement claiming a memory-boosting app lets you "be the real you". Issue: does cognitive enhancement threaten or express authenticity? Thesis: it expresses authenticity only if the resulting self is reflectively endorsed. Use Parfit to argue identity is psychological connectedness rather than a fixed core, then Sandel's objection that enhancement treats traits as commodities to be optimised. Evaluate: Parfit's account makes authenticity a matter of narrative endorsement, which weakens Sandel's objection; but commercial framing of memory may distort the endorsement. Conclude that the app is permissible only under conditions of informed, unmanipulated choice.
Traps
Choosing a stimulus too thin or already philosophical; writing a commentary on the advert instead of an argument; exceeding the word limit through long quotations; failing to link each section back to the issue.