IB Philosophy SL common mistakes
IB Philosophy SL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the Being Human essay, the candidate lists human capacities-reason, language, emotion, sociality-and concludes that humans are 'complex', without committing to a criterion of the human or testing it against a borderline case.
The core theme invites breadth, and a list feels safe; committing to a necessary or sufficient condition risks excluding infants, animals, or people with cognitive disabilities, so the candidate avoids the risk.
What to do instead
State a thesis in the introduction, such as 'reflective self-evaluation is necessary for being human', define the key term, then test it against at least one marginal case (infant, non-human animal, AI, profound cognitive disability) and revise or defend the criterion in light of the counterexample.
The candidate turns the Being Human question into an applied-ethics essay on abortion, euthanasia, or animal rights, spending most of the response on moral verdicts without linking each example back to a claim about human nature.
Those issues are familiar and emotionally vivid, and the candidate has likely practised them; moral examples feel like philosophical content, so they displace the metaphysical or anthropological question.
What to do instead
Use ethical examples only as tests of a claim about what humans are; after each example, write an explicit sentence linking it back, e.g. 'If personhood requires self-awareness, then this case shows that species membership is not the relevant criterion'. Keep the moral verdict subordinate to the account of being human.
The candidate moves from a descriptive premise such as 'humans are social animals' to a normative conclusion such as 'therefore humans ought to prioritise community over individual autonomy' without supplying a bridging premise.
Ordinary language often conflates what is with what ought to be, and slogans about 'human nature' make the inference feel obvious; the candidate may not have been trained to label premises.
What to do instead
Label each premise as descriptive or normative; when moving from one to the other, supply and defend a bridging principle, such as 'what is natural for humans is ethically authoritative', or explicitly reject the inference as a naturalistic fallacy.
In the optional theme, the candidate memorises two positions in advance and forces them onto whatever question appears-for example, writing a prepared utilitarianism-versus-deontology essay even when the question asks about moral luck or virtue.
Revision under time pressure encourages pre-packaged essays; the candidate fears having nothing to say, so familiar material becomes a template rather than a response to the exact demand.
What to do instead
Build a theme map with three or four positions and their objections, then in the exam spend two minutes underlining the command words, scope, and key term. Select only the positions that answer that question, and write a one-sentence thesis that names the exact debate before planning paragraphs.
In the optional theme, the candidate uses technical terms loosely-treating 'justified true belief' as interchangeable with 'knowledge', or 'art expresses emotion' as equivalent to 'art causes emotion'-and never gives necessary or sufficient conditions.
The terms sound familiar from ordinary discussion, and the candidate may have learned labels without learning the distinctions; precise definition feels like unnecessary preamble.
What to do instead
For each central term, write a definition in the form 'X is Y only if Z' or 'X is Y if and only if Z', then test it with a thought experiment. If the question concerns knowledge, distinguish justified true belief from knowledge by using a Gettier-style case; if it concerns art, distinguish expression from evocation.
The candidate answers only the first half of a two-part question, such as 'Evaluate the claim that science is objective and value-free', arguing only that science is value-free and never addressing objectivity.
The first clause is easier and consumes the planning time; under exam pressure the candidate writes until time runs out and treats the second clause as a restatement rather than a separate demand.
What to do instead
Underline every clause and command word before writing. Allocate at least one body paragraph to each clause, and make the conclusion answer both explicitly: 'Science can be objective in its testing procedures while still being value-laden in its choice of problems'.
In the prescribed-text study, the candidate retells the text's argument chapter by chapter, quoting famous lines, but never reconstructs the inference in premise-conclusion form or evaluates a premise.
Content coverage feels like the safest way to demonstrate reading; paraphrase and quotation look like evidence of knowledge, and argument reconstruction is harder to produce under time pressure.
What to do instead
Write an argument map for each central passage: list premises, the conclusion, and any hidden assumption. In the essay, present the reconstruction in prose, then evaluate one premise with a counterexample or an objection from the text, using a short quotation only as evidence for the reconstruction.
The candidate attributes a view directly to the author without distinguishing the author's voice from a character's or interlocutor's voice, and without locating the passage in the text.
Secondary summaries often say 'Plato argues' or 'Descartes proves', and dialogue or meditative form can tempt the candidate to treat every statement as the author's settled position.
What to do instead
Cite the section or step, and name the speaker: 'Socrates argues in the dialogue that...', 'Descartes' meditator initially claims...'. Note when an argument is dialectical, provisional, or attributed to an objector, and explain how that affects the author's own position.
For the internal assessment, the candidate selects a stimulus that is controversial or emotionally charged but lacks a clear philosophical problem, then writes an analysis that concludes with a practical recommendation such as 'we should recycle' or 'we should be kinder'.
The candidate equates philosophy with social commentary or opinion, and chooses a stimulus that feels relevant and easy to discuss; the assessment criteria about identifying a philosophical issue are overlooked.
What to do instead
Screen stimuli for a conceptual tension-free speech versus harm, authenticity versus commercial influence, expertise versus democratic participation-and write the philosophical question before starting research. Check that the question maps onto a named debate and that the analysis will examine assumptions, not just recommend behaviour.
In the internal assessment, the candidate summarises the stimulus in the first paragraph, then lists two philosophical theories in the second, without showing how the theories analyse the stimulus's assumptions, rhetoric, or implications.
A familiar essay formula-introduction, background, theory, conclusion-encourages description followed by theory dumping; the candidate may believe that mentioning philosophers satisfies the requirement for philosophical analysis.
What to do instead
Treat the stimulus as the object of analysis: identify its central claims, hidden assumptions, and rhetorical moves, then use a theory to test or reinterpret them. Balance description and analysis, and make every theoretical reference answer the question 'what does this show about the stimulus?'