Overall Paper Difficulty Verdict

This sitting of the Economics SL Paper 1 represents a highly accessible and predictable paper (rated 2 out of 5 stars). Students who thoroughly revised core syllabus diagrams and definitions would have found comfortable options in all three sections. The paper did not feature any unusual twists, relying instead on well-established, classic examination prompts.

Where the Marks Are Won or Lost

As is standard with Paper 1, the distinction between a middle-tier grade (4–5) and a top-tier grade (6–7) lies heavily in the execution of the 15-mark part (b) questions. In Question 1(b), top marks required a balanced evaluation of price elasticity of demand (PED) from the dual perspectives of both firms and governments, accompanied by real-world examples (such as excise taxes on cigarettes or pricing strategies for airlines). In contrast, candidates who only focused on one of these stakeholders were strictly capped at a maximum of 9 marks.

Similarly, for Question 3(a), candidates were capped at a maximum of 6 marks if they explained only infant industry protection or only anti-dumping measures. High-scoring scripts clearly divided their explanations to address both rationales with appropriate, fully-labeled international trade diagrams.

Examiner Pitfalls & Strategy

  • The 'And' Trap: The IB loves using the word 'and' to join two syllabus elements in 10-mark prompts (e.g., 'substitutes and whether a good is a necessity'). Missing one element results in a severe mark ceiling. Always highlight conjunctions in the prompt.
  • Weak Diagrammatic Accuracy: For Question 3(b), a generic supply-demand diagram is insufficient. Candidates must draw the international tariff diagram correctly showing domestic supply, world supply (\(S_w\)), and world supply plus tariff (\(S_w + t\)), demonstrating clear welfare loss triangles.
  • Synthesizing vs. Explaining: Part (b) demands evaluation. For Question 2(b), simply listing the benefits of growth is not enough; candidates needed to critique growth by discussing negative externalities, income inequality, and non-monetary quality of life indicators.

Predictions & Areas of Focus

Given that international trade protection (tariff) and microeconomic elasticities were heavily tested here, upcoming papers are highly likely to pivot toward market failure (externalities/public goods) and monetary/fiscal policy impacts, which were absent in this sitting. Focus recovery efforts on drawing negative externality diagrams and evaluating demand-side versus supply-side interventions.