Internal assessment - philosophical analysis of a council notice
For the IA, a student, M., selects a non-philosophical stimulus: a 2024 city council notice banning sleeping tents in public parks, with the line 'public space must remain available for all residents.' M. writes a 1,600-word analysis arguing that the notice presupposes a conception of public space as a resource for 'productive' citizens and excludes unhoused people. The teacher notes that M.'s analysis is mostly political advocacy, uses the phrase 'obviously unjust', and cites no philosophical sources. The IB criteria require identification of a philosophical issue, analysis of concepts, and use of examples. M. insists the notice itself is the stimulus and that personal voice is allowed. The teacher must decide whether the draft meets the IA criteria or needs major revision, with two weeks before submission.
1. Identify the philosophical issue in the stimulus and assess M.'s framing.
Read the worked answer
Issue: the notice raises questions about public space, justice, citizenship and the scope of state authority. The line 'public space must remain available for all residents' implicitly defines who counts as a resident and what 'available' means.
M.'s framing: M. treats the notice as presupposing a 'productive citizen' model and excluding unhoused people. That is a philosophical claim, but it is asserted rather than argued. 'Obviously unjust' is a verdict, not an analysis. M. needs to distinguish: (a) the notice's literal meaning; (b) its likely effects; (c) the conception of public space it assumes.
Concepts to analyse: public/private, negative liberty as non-interference versus positive liberty as capacity to use space, equality, utility and rights. M. could ask whether 'available for all' is consistent with banning those who have no alternative.
Verdict: the issue is genuine and philosophically rich; M.'s framing is advocacy, not yet analysis. The draft needs conceptual work, not a different stimulus.
2. Evaluate whether M.'s personal voice undermines the analysis.
Read the worked answer
Criterion: the IA allows personal engagement; it does not require neutrality. But personal voice must be part of an argument, not a substitute for one.
M.'s use: phrases such as 'obviously unjust' close down analysis. A personal voice can be effective if M. says 'I will argue that...' and then gives reasons, evidence and counterarguments. The first-person perspective can also illuminate lived experience, but it must be connected to philosophical concepts.
Test: remove the phrase 'I think' - does the argument still stand? If yes, the voice is stylistic; if no, it is doing evidential work it cannot bear.
Verdict: personal voice does not undermine the analysis; M.'s unargued assertions do. The teacher should not ask M. to become neutral, but to make the normative commitments explicit and defend them. This is a revision of method, not of personality.
3. Recommend a revision plan.
Read the worked answer
Two-week plan:
- Week 1: rewrite the introduction to state a philosophical question, for example 'Does the notice's conception of public space treat unhoused people as equal citizens?' Define three concepts: public space, citizenship and justice. Add one philosophical source - for example Rawls on the basic structure or Arendt on the public realm - and use it to frame the analysis.
- Week 2: add a counterargument, such as public safety, competing uses or the rule of law, and respond to it. Replace 'obviously unjust' with a reasoned claim. Include two concrete examples from the notice and local data. Add a short 'scope and limitations' section.
Criteria check: philosophical issue identified; concepts analysed; examples used; personal voice retained but subordinated to argument.
Decision: the draft needs major revision, not a new stimulus. With this plan, M. can meet the IA criteria; without it, the essay remains advocacy. The teacher should give written feedback against the criteria, not just comments on style.