IB Philosophy HL study plan

Map the Core theme 'Being human' into its component debates (mind and body, self and other, freedom and determinism, reason and emotion, identity and change) and write a one-page concept map linking each debate to at least two named philosophers.

Reconstruct and contrast two opposed positions on the mind–body problem in your own words, stating each position's strongest premise and its weakest inference.

Draft five original exam-style questions on Being human and answer one of them under 40-minute timed conditions without notes.

Build a running glossary of 15 Core-theme technical terms with a one-sentence definition and one illustrative example each.

Argue both sides of the free will and determinism debate, then defend a single verdict with two counter-objections anticipated and rebutted.

Analyse how personal identity persists through change by testing two rival criteria against a single worked counterexample you construct yourself.

Compare two philosophers' accounts of the self–other relation and identify the precise point where their arguments diverge.

Write a 500-word response that integrates a counter-perspective rather than merely listing it.

Distinguish aesthetic judgement from mere taste by reconstructing at least two positions on objectivity in beauty and stating what evidence each would accept.

Explain the intentional fallacy and the problem of interpretation, then apply both to one artwork you describe in text only.

Define knowledge, belief, justification, and truth, and test a Gettier-style counterexample against the justified-true-belief analysis.

Contrast rationalism and empiricism on the source of knowledge and identify one decisive objection to each.

Write four flash summaries (80 words each) that could serve as essay openings for Aesthetics and Epistemology questions.

Compare consequentialist, deontological, and virtue-ethical reasoning on one concrete moral dilemma and show where each framework gives a different verdict.

Evaluate the is–ought gap and at least one metaethical position (e.g. moral realism versus anti-realism) with a stated objection.

Analyse a contemporary social issue philosophically, connecting it to at least one Core-theme concept and one ethical theory.

Draft an essay plan that moves from exposition to evaluation within three paragraphs, with a thesis stated in the first.

Sit a 60-minute timed essay spanning Ethics and Philosophy and contemporary society.

Reconstruct and assess at least two arguments for and two against the existence of God, naming the type of inference each relies on.

Examine the problem of evil and one proposed theodicy, and state whether the theodicy succeeds and why.

Contrast two accounts of scientific method (e.g. falsificationism versus paradigm-based accounts) and identify the anomaly each struggles to explain.

Explain the problem of induction and the underdetermination of theory by evidence, and show how each threatens scientific realism.

Write a comparative paragraph that sets a religious argument and a scientific argument side by side on the same epistemic question.

Identify the central argument of your prescribed text and reconstruct its premises and conclusion in numbered form.

Extract and explain five key passages in your own words, stating each passage's role in the wider argument.

Situate the text in its historical and philosophical context and name at least two thinkers it responds to.

Generate three likely prescribed-text questions and outline a response to each in bullet form.

Write one full prescribed-text essay under timed conditions with quotation used only where you can recall it accurately.

Select a non-philosophical stimulus (a news item, advertisement, film scene, or policy document) and extract the implicit philosophical assumptions it makes.

Formulate a clear philosophical question from the stimulus and justify why it is contestable rather than empirical.

Draft the internal assessment analysis with an explicit thesis, structured argument, and at least one counter-position addressed.

Revise the draft for precision, removing unsupported assertions and replacing vague terms with defined ones.

Revisit two Core-theme debates and check that your analysis connects to at least one of them.

Sit two full mock papers under exam timing and mark them against a self-built criteria checklist.

Consolidate the glossary into a single revision sheet covering all domains, pruning duplicates.

Identify your three weakest domains from mock results and write targeted corrective notes for each.

Rehearse essay openings for every optional theme so that each can be started within two minutes.

Finalise and proofread the internal assessment analysis for submission.