PHILOSOPHY · IB Diploma Programme
PHILOSOPHY/11
(Core & Optional Themes)
Philosophy · 2023 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: International Baccalaureate Organization
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.5 / 5
50
105 min
What it means to be human: dualism, technology, and social intersubjectivity
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
50
Duration
105 min
Session difficulty
3.5 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
In IB Philosophy, marks are allocated based on the holistic assessment markbands, not a point-by-point checklist.
High-scoring responses succeed on three main fronts: precise conceptual mapping, sustained critical dialogue, and a clear personal thesis.
In Section A, the top marks went to students who didn't just mention the stimulus once in their introduction, but integrated it throughout their analysis.
For instance, in Question 1 (the robot holding a human brain), top-tier essays used the physical/mechanical features of the robot to analyze the tension between physicalist neurobiology and Cartesian dualism.
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Formulating a Structure
Weight: 4100%Using philosophic
Weight: 375%Analysing and Evaluation
Weight: 250%Referencing Thematic s
Weight: 125%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
IB subject report — grade distributions, IA weighting, and HL/SL distinctions
Level 7
Excellent — top band for competitive university offers
Level 6
Very good — strong HL performance
Level 5
Good — solid pass at higher level
Level 4
Satisfactory — minimum for many university credits
Level 3
Mediocre
Level 2
Poor
Level 1
Very poor
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Weigh arguments for and against with evidence; end with a supported judgement.
Present multiple perspectives with evidence; balance breadth and depth.
Match the expected response style for “extent” questions.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 2
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Being human (Core theme)
25 marks this session
Epistemology (Optional themes)
5 marks this session
Ethics (Optional themes)
5 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Being human (Core theme)
René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Epistemology (Optional themes)
Ethics (Optional themes)
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 (Standard Level):
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Being human (Core theme)
25 marks this session
Practise in RevuiEpistemology (Optional themes)
5 marks this session
Practise in RevuiEthics (Optional themes)
5 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
In IB Philosophy, marks are allocated based on the holistic assessment markbands, not a point-by-point checklist.
- 2Message
High-scoring responses succeed on three main fronts: precise conceptual mapping, sustained critical dialogue, and a clear personal thesis.
- 3Message
In Section A, the top marks went to students who didn't just mention the stimulus once in their introduction, but integrated it throughout their analysis.
- 4Message
For instance, in Question 1 (the robot holding a human brain), top-tier essays used the physical/mechanical features of the robot to analyze the tension between physicalist neurobiology and Cartesian dualism.
- 5Message
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2023 2023
Philosophy
In IB Philosophy, marks are allocated based on the holistic assessment markbands, not a point-by-point checklist. High-scoring responses succeed on three main fronts: precise conceptual mapping, sustained critical dialogue, and a clear personal thesis. In Section A, the top marks
In IB Philosophy, marks are allocated based on the holistic assessment markbands, not a point-by-point checklist.
High-scoring responses succeed on three main fronts: precise conceptual mapping, sustained critical dialogue, and a clear personal thesis.
In Section A, the top marks went to students who didn't just mention the stimulus once in their introduction, but integrated it throughout their analysis.
- Total marks
- 50
- Duration
- 105 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.5 / 5
Session analysis
In IB Philosophy, marks are allocated based on the holistic assessment markbands, not a point-by-point checklist. High-scoring responses succeed on three main fronts: precise conceptual mapping, sustained critical dialogue, and a clear personal thesis. In Section A, the top marks went to students who didn't just mention the stimulus once in their introduction, but integrated it throughout their analysis. For instance, in Question 1 (the robot holding a human brain), top-tier essays used the physical/mechanical features of the robot to analyze the tension between physicalist neurobiology and Cartesian dualism.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 (Standard Level):
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
70% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Stimulus-based Essay
25·2·50%
Conceptual Essay
25·14·50%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Difficulty trend
Compare difficulty across recent years.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Section A (Core The
0.50 m/minTotal marks
25
Total time
50 min
Avg pace
0.50
Cumulative marks ladder
The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
AI and Personhood (Core Theme)
90%90%
Epistemic Injustice and Trust (Epistemology)
80%80%
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 2h 30min
- Total marks
- 75
- Question types
- Stimulus Inquiry, Thematic Essay
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.