Paper 1 A Preparation Guide
RUBRIC REQUIREMENT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
• A philosophical issue raised by
the stimulus is clearly and
21-25 explicitly identified. There is a
well-developed explanation of
how this issue relates to the
stimulus. Clear, effective and
specific references to the
stimulus are made regularly
throughout the response.
<<< WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Assessment objective 1: Knowledge and
understanding
• Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
of philosophical concepts, issues and
arguments.
•Identify the philosophical issues present in
both philosophical and non-philosophical
stimuli.
To achieve full marks here:
● Here is where revising the content comes
in really handy. In other words: you get
marks for knowing what you´re talking
about: was it Kuhn the one talking about
epistemes and Foucault the one about
paradigms? NOPE! Be precise and
detail-oriented. Show that you have
in-depth knowledge of the philosophical
issue
● Show full understanding of philosophical
concepts, issues and arguments. Even if
this is more related to analysis and
evaluation, this also means being able to
understand their implications and how to
apply them in relation to specific issues
and the broader issue of what it is to be
human.
● Philosophers and their positions, despite
having to be able to show you fully
understand them and that you have been
paying attention to the course, are what
you use to support your arguments: DO
NOT WRITE AN ESSAY ON A
PHILOSOPHER. This is what differentiates
the IB from the National approach. In IB,
you may want to flaunt your knowledge of
philosophers by, at the end of your
paragraph, stating philosopher(s) agreeing

• The response contains
well-developed critical analysis.
>>>>>>>>>
Assessment objective 2: Application and
analysis
• Explain and analyse philosophical concepts,
issues and arguments.
• Construct and develop clear explanations,
making use of relevant supporting examples.
• Construct and develop clear explanations,
making use of relevant supporting examples.
•Analyse the philosophical issues present in
both philosophical and non-philosophical
stimuli.
with your view,, and then giving a concise
summary of what they think, but make sure
that you evaluate the philosophers in order
to show WHY you agree/disagree, and thus
strengthen your own personal argument. If
you don't do this, you’re very likely to lose
marks in the following criteria.
● Remember to refer back to the stimulus
throughout your response. You can use it
as an example if it suits your explanation,
or refer to parts of it to clarify your
explanation.
To achieve full marks here:
● In terms of the analysis of philosophical
concepts, issues, arguments, the point here
is that, in terms of being able to explain
these, fleshing them out (assumptions,
frameworks, traditions, methodologies…),
you also show you have understanding of
the values and limitations of the
arguments. For example, if you’re going to
counterpose Plato’s epistemology to the
Aristotelian one (rationalism vs
empiricism), you can explain how, in the
case of Plato, his epistemology was
developed to fit his dualist metaphysics
(eidetic world vs this apparent world >>>
real knowledge vs opinion). However, in the
case of Aristotle, even if his metaphysics
also precede his epistemology, he is not
dualistic, so he doesn’t show this prejudice
against the physical and the apparent.
● In terms of the EXAMPLES, there are two
steps that guarantee high marks on this
criteria:
○ 1. Find RELEVANT ONES TO THE
POINT YOU´RE MAKING. For
example, if you’re going to
advocate for the human essentially
irrational nature, you can use an
example/illustration of anchoring
bias in economics (relying too
much on a piece of information
when making a decision): if the first
t-shirt you´ve seen is tagged as
$1200, you’re extremely likely to
think that a second t-shirt priced as
$200 is cheap (and not just
cheaper). How “rational” is that,
given that we understand rational
as objective and not relative to
particular instances, if not
universal?
○ 2. ANALYZE THE RELEVANT
EXAMPLE YOU’VE JUST GIVEN.
You´re trying to justify your view,
so state why this example
supports your point. To keep on
going with the aforementioned
example: This is an example of a
systematic error in our reasoning,
which shows that the idea of our
supposed objective, universal and
absolute rationality is, at the very
least, seriously jeopardized. Then,
spot any implications or
weaknesses of your example as

>>>
• There is critical discussion of
different points of view. The
response argues to a reasoned
and clearly stated conclusion that
Assessment objective 3: Synthesis and
evaluation
• Evaluate philosophical concepts, issues and
arguments.
•Construct and develop relevant, balanced
and focused arguments, making use of
well, but then be sure to argue how
and why this does not
weaken/alter your view. For
example, one could wonder about
the necessity of this bias. Isn´t the
fact that we’re aware of them a sign
of the possibility of overcoming it,
and therefore, of our rational
nature? The problem here is that,
per its definition, a bias is a
systematic error, which means it is
not a random occurrence, but an
intrinsic error to our rational
system, which clearly undermines
the view of our perfect,
out-of-this-world, universal and
objective rationality. Even if we said
that these biases are manageable
and countered with research and
critical thinking, their systematic
character does undermine this
all-powerful understanding of
reason.
● In short, the point is to demonstrate your
ability to have a thorough and critical
discussion of EACH relevant example you
pick out.
To achieve full marks here:
● Sustain, develop and defend your thesis
throughout the essay: You MUST be
convincing. For example, if you’re trying to
argue for the existence of an essential self,
but all you can provide throughout your
is consistent with the arguments
presented.
relevant supporting evidence.
• Discuss different points of view and come
to reasoned conclusions.
● You´re supposed to develop an argument
● A personal approach is KEY: the IB wants
essay is reasons why it doesn’t exist, then,
it doesn't seem like your argument is very
good.
from a “consistently held and well-justified
perspective”. In order to do this, you need
to produce a balanced evaluation, and you
do this by means of counter arguments:
DO NOT SIMPLY ARGUE FROM YOUR
POINT OF VIEW. In order to get the higher
marks here is to make your essay
compelling and persuasive by providing
these counter positions and arguments,
but then analyzing them sparing no
weaknesses, turning them upside down
and making sure you’re showing how,
despite their strengths, they do not
undermine your position.
to know what you think, how you’re able to
apply your philosophical skills to issues.
Because of this, what Plato or Hegel say is
not enough. That's evidence for your
argument, but cannot be the argument
itself! Now, of course you’re thinking, but
even if I make it personal, the arguments
are still not fully mine! Yes, but still, you
need to give your point of view. You cannot
say: Descartes holds that the self is
founded by means of introspection, while
Hegel sustains that it is only by means of
recognition by the other. THIS IS NOT AN
ARGUMENT. Those are statements that,
first, require to be exemplified/illustrated

• The points made are clear,
coherent and effectively
organized.
•The response contains relevant,
accurate and detailed knowledge
of the core theme. Philosophical
vocabulary is used accurately and
Assessment objective 4: Selection, use and
application of appropriate skills and
techniques
•Produce clear and well-structured written
responses.
•Demonstrate appropriate and precise use of
philosophical vocabulary.
and then supported by arguments. What
makes one stronger than the other? How?
Why? That's what you need to be focusing
on.
● Don’t be afraid to make it personal. Use the
following:
○ 'It is my view that...'
○ 'Having considered this argument, it
is clear that...'
○ 'From the evidence considered...'
○ 'The conclusion this leads me to
is...' / 'This leads me to conclude
that..'
○ 'I propose that...'
○ 'The implications of this are...'
○ 'I would argue that...'
○ 'I support this claim because..'
○ 'My position is...'
○ 'I would hold that..'
○ 'The perspective I can draw from
this is...'
○ I would claim that...'
○ 'From my perspective...'
To achieve full marks here:
● Make sure you’re being clear and precise:
choose your words carefully: proof is not
the same as evidence, for example.
● Use appropriate philosophical vocabulary:
BE EXPLICIT, no euphemisms or rhetorical
figures
 precisely throughout. ● Answer the question coherently: First,
make sure that you´re taking a position and
maintaining throughout the response
● PLAN THE ESSAY: if you don´t it becomes
quite apparent you’re just jotting down
whatever thoughts coming to your head.
This is especially important when
introducing and concluding your argument,
so you can do it clearly and sustain it
throughout.
● Avoid contractions and overtly informal
language: no inside jokes, sarcasm, etc.
● COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY: besides
being clear and precise, you need to be
efficient, which means: AVOID
UNNECESSARILY LONG AND
CONVOLUTED SENTENCES. Get to the
point. If you have a sentence that is 5 lines
long, that's not a sign of philosophical
depth, but of not knowing how to write
correctly.

Planning Paper 1 A: What is a Human Being?

● Remember Paper 1 A is always focused on the same thing, “What is a Human Being?” and always gives you the same prompt: “In reference
to the stimulus and your own knowledge, discuss an issue related to what it is to be human? What does this mean? YOU ALWAYS KNOW
WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT. Sure, the stimuli change, and they can be confusing sometimes, or clearly (or more evidently)
related to issues you haven’t prepared so well. SOLUTION? You could try to wing it and attempt to justify an issue you’ve prepared better OR
you can create outlines of potential responses for each unit. NOTE: outlines, not fully fleshed out responses, this is dangerous because it
pre-determines your response, and you need to be prepared for the unknown. Come on, philosopher! Be creative.
○ First, figure out your position:
 ■ Human Nature: rational?, irrational? tabula rasa? nature versus nurture?
■ Personhood: is there a sufficient condition? What would be the necessary conditions? Humans and Non-Human Animals,
Humans and computers
■ Mind-Body: Dualism? Monism? Nondualism? Rationalism? Idealism? Naturalism?
■ The Self & the Other: Essential self? Existential? Mere illusion? The Role of others?
■ Free Will: Libertarianism? Existentialism? Soft-determinism? Hard? Biological and Sociological conditioning?
■ Identity: Individuality? Enduring Self? Memories? Body? Soul/Mind? Sociocultural Identity? Substance? Action?
○ Philosopher allies?/Philosopher enemies?
○ Strengths and weaknesses of both perspectives
● Now, for the steps on how to tackle the prompt and plan your essay:
○ What is going on in the image/fragment? In the case of the image, consider what is going on, or how you can describe it, or the
message you’re receiving from it. In the case of the fragment, try to identify the keywords and main thesis. What is it talking about?
○ Once you have identified the “content” of your stimulus, what philosophical issue can you tie it to? What is your take on it? This is the
claim you’re going to be defending throughout the essay.
○ Now that you have your thesis, which philosophers/concepts/theories will rally to your cause? Which ones will succumb to your
reasoning? It’s quite important that you understand these theories and people as your allies, but your essay cannot simply be a
description of what Cicero says versus what Aristotle says. This is about what YOU think on the matter, aided by these powerful
people.
○ It’s also very important to consider the counterargument(s) to your thesis. If you’re prepared for the exam (see outline planning
above), you know the weaknesses of your argument. This is key, and is what is going to allow you to provide a balanced response.
○ Plan your structure. Yes, a regular essay goes as intro-body-conclusion, but philosophy papers are a little different in that the classical
approach is intro-claim-counter-claim-counter-conclusion. In each of your claims, you should never be only describing philosophical
theories. Remember this is an argument: analyze, break it down, evaluate!
○ Once you have your plan, the writing is the easiest part. Believe me: if you have trouble writing the essay, it’s because you didn’t plan
ahead!
○ Revise, revise, revise, REVISE! This is key. Check for spelling and grammar mistakes, colloquialisms, chlichés. Even if no one is directly
assessing your grammar or spelling here, it truly predisposes the reader badly towards your essay. It simply doesn’t look good and can
affect your clarity marks.
IMPORTANT note: Except for differences in content and types of prompts, this paper structure is useful as well for Paper 1 B, Paper
2 B and Paper 3! (Paper 2 A is an exception, because here, they’re asking you to detail and explain the contents and approaches of
the prescribed title). You’ll however have separate clarified rubrics for each of your papers.