This subject report is listed under Philosophy in the 2017 examination archive. The catalogue session is May 2017. The information below helps you identify the document before opening the complete PDF. Subject, year and session labels come from the archive catalogue; the original cover remains the reference if a label differs. A file is not automatically suitable for your current syllabus simply because its subject name matches.
For coursework research, read this document as a reference rather than a template to submit. Notice how the question, evidence and explanation connect. If a paired commentary or subject report is available, compare it with the original work instead of assuming a polished essay received a particular mark. Historical examples may belong to an earlier assessment framework.
The public preview contains file information and, where reliable text extraction is available, a limited opening excerpt. It is not a summary of unseen questions or a replacement for the original document. Create a free email account to read or download the complete file. No payment is required to unlock this archive resource.
This original usage overview is based on the archive metadata. It does not claim to summarise the complete file.
Opening excerpt
Opening text only, limited to at most 20% of pages, two page-equivalents and 2,200 characters. Clearly labelled personal identifiers have been removed. Text extraction may omit equations, tables or figures.
May 2017 extended essay reports
Page 1
Philosophy
Overall grade boundaries
Grade: E D C B A
Mark range: 0-7 8-15 16-22 23-28 29-36
The range and suitability of the work submitted
The following comments are the result of the shared examiners’ views which present the
relevant characteristics of the candidates’ achievements in this exam session within the
context of the accumulative experience coming from previous sessions; they are intended to
contribute to improve the performance of future candidates.
The submit ted essays cover all levels of success, from essays of excellent performance,
better than satisfactory, to clearly less than satisfactory or even very poor. The stronger
essays had a clear, well -focused, and sufficiently narrow research question; the quest ion was
researched using a solid reference bank comprising relevant primary and secondary sources,
which were integrated thoughtfully and carefully to support the developing argument;
displaying an effective use of philosophical terminology, clarity, and c onciseness of
expression. The best essays were logically structured, with an analytically clear and coherent
flow of ideas, conceptual distinctness, and an effective and sophisticated application of
evaluative skills which were conducive to the development of a well -reasoned and cogent
argument. The weaker essays were mostly narrative and descriptive in their approach; many
times, they merely listed, in a perfunctory manner and with a limited clarity, series of opinions
collected from secondary sources.
Some of the main problems encountered this session are: a) Problems in dealing with
philosophical information: some students did not work with primary texts. This hurt many
students on criteria C, D and sometimes I; b) Problems in referencing: many essays di d not
quote page numbers or philosophers' works, and they work and quote only secondary
bibliography; c) A group of essays that show that they are simply doing something different,
according to own ideas, without taking into account at all what the EE guide advises. Within
this context the following issue appeared in a relevant number of cases deserving special
File information
Subject
Philosophy
Document type
Subject report
Year
2017
Session
May 2017
Level
Not labelled in the archive
Paper
Not labelled
Examination zone
Not labelled in the archive
Language
English
File size
63 KB
Pages
5
FREE FULL RESOURCE
Read the complete document.
Register or sign in with your email to unlock the full PDF. No payment, password or membership is needed.