IB DP · Thinka-original Practice Paper

2023 IB DP Philosophy Practice Paper with Answers

Thinka May 2023 SL (TZ2) IB Diploma Programme-Style Mock — Philosophy

75 marks165 mins2023

An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the May 2023 SL (TZ2) IB Diploma Programme Philosophy paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from IB.

Paper 1 Section A: Core Theme

Answer one question. Each question in this section is worth 25 marks.

1 Question · 25 marks

Question 1 · essay

25 marks

Read the stimulus and write a philosophical response addressing what it means to be human. Stimulus: 'Every light-year we crossed required a bit more of me to be preserved. First, it was the damaged lobes of my temporal cortex, swapped for crystalline processors. Then, the motor pathways, the sensory relays. Now, sitting on this new world, I remember my childhood home in vivid detail, yet I know those memories are stored in copper and glass, not flesh. I feel joy, but it is calculated by an algorithm designed to prevent neural decay. I look at my hands, made of carbon fibers, and wonder: did the pilot who left Earth die halfway across the stars, or am I still him?'

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

A high-scoring response should begin by clearly identifying the core philosophical issues raised by the stimulus: the nature of personal identity, the mind-body problem, and the boundaries of human consciousness. The essay should address the 'Ship of Theseus' paradox of the mind: if every part of a human's biological brain and body is gradually replaced with synthetic substitutes, does the original person survive? To explore this, candidates can contrast different philosophical positions on personal identity. First, John Locke's psychological continuity theory can be discussed: as long as there is a continuity of memories and consciousness, the identity of the person is preserved, regardless of whether the physical medium is flesh or silicon. This supports the view that the astronaut is still the same person. Second, candidates can counter this with biological or somatic theories of identity (such as those of Bernard Williams or Eric Olson), which argue that psychological traits must be grounded in the same living biological organism to constitute the same self. If the biological organism dies, the person dies. Furthermore, the essay can analyze the mind-body problem through physicalism (or functionalism) versus dualism. If functionalism is true, the mind is a functional system (like software) that can be realized in multiple physical media (silicon or carbon); thus, the synthetic astronaut is fully conscious and human. However, from a dualist perspective or Thomas Nagel's view on subjective experience ('what it is like to be' something), or John Searle's Chinese Room argument, a purely algorithmic generation of 'joy' and memory may lack genuine phenomenal consciousness (qualia) and intentionality, rendering the astronaut a 'philosophical zombie' rather than a true human. Excellent essays will also engage with existential themes: how technology alters our self-understanding, the authentic self, and the meaning of survival.

Marking scheme

The essay is graded out of 25 marks according to the official IB Philosophy Paper 1 assessment criteria: Criterion A: Expression (5 marks) - Assess clarity, organization, and precise use of philosophical vocabulary. Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding (5 marks) - Assess the depth and accuracy of knowledge regarding philosophical concepts of personal identity, functionalism, and consciousness (e.g., Locke, Searle, Nagel). Criterion C: Identification and analysis of relevant material (5 marks) - Assess how effectively the stimulus is used to anchor the philosophical discussion, and how well relevant arguments are identified. Criterion D: Development and evaluation (5 marks) - Assess the quality of the argument, critical evaluation of the different positions (e.g., contrasting functionalism with biological realism), and the logical progression of points. Criterion E: Balanced perspective (5 marks) - Assess the student's ability to appreciate different viewpoints, showing that there is no easy consensus on whether the synthetic pilot is the original human.

Paper 1 Section B: Optional Themes

Answer one question. Each question in this section is worth 25 marks.

1 Question · 25 marks

Question 1 · conceptual essay

25 marks

To what extent is testimony a fundamental source of knowledge, rather than a secondary one that must be reduced to other sources?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

An excellent response will begin by defining testimony as the act of acquiring knowledge from the assertions of others (spoken, written, or signed) and outlining why it is crucial to human life (most of our historical, scientific, and everyday beliefs come from testimony). The central debate lies between reductionism and non-reductionism. Reductionists, such as David Hume, argue that testimony is not a fundamental source of knowledge; instead, its justification must be reduced to more basic sources like perception, memory, and inductive inference. Hume argues that we only trust testimony because we have observed a reliable correlation between what people say and what is true. Candidates should analyze the strength of this position, noting that it guards against gullibility, but also criticize it for its high intellectual demands (the 'infant objection'—children learn language and truths through testimony before they can perform complex inductive checks). In contrast, non-reductionists like Thomas Reid argue that testimony is a basic, non-reducible source of knowledge. Reid proposes the principle of veracity (a natural tendency to speak the truth) and the principle of credulity (a natural tendency to believe others). Under this view, testimony is innocent until proven guilty; we are justified in believing others unless we have defeaters (reasons to doubt). Candidates should evaluate this by addressing the risk of epistemic laziness or vulnerability to deception. Furthermore, contemporary developments like C.A.J. Coady's defense of non-reductionism, or Elizabeth Fricker's local reductionism (which argues for a 'monitoring' requirement), can be integrated. Finally, a strong essay might discuss the social dimensions of knowledge, such as epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker), where testimony is unjustly discounted due to prejudice, showing that testimony is not just an abstract logical problem but a deeply social and ethical one. The conclusion should offer a synthesized judgment, perhaps arguing that while testimony may be psychologically fundamental (non-reductionist), its normative justification in adult life requires some level of critical monitoring (local reductionist).

Marking scheme

Marks are awarded according to the IB Philosophy assessment criteria for Paper 1 (25 marks total). [1 to 6 marks]: The response shows limited understanding of the question, perhaps merely defining testimony or listing examples of believing others without philosophical depth. [7 to 12 marks]: The response identifies the central debate (e.g., trust vs. skepticism) but lacks structured philosophical arguments. Key terms like reductionism are absent or poorly defined. [13 to 18 marks]: The response is structured and clearly distinguishes between reductionist (e.g., Hume) and non-reductionist (e.g., Reid) approaches. There is clear analysis of at least one position, though the evaluation may be somewhat unbalanced. [19 to 25 marks]: The response shows excellent philosophical insight, critically evaluating both reductionist and non-reductionist arguments with precision. It successfully integrates relevant philosophers and may explore contemporary nuances like epistemic injustice or monitoring. The argument is well-structured, coherent, and leads to a balanced, justified conclusion. There are no method vs accuracy marks as this is a holistic essay; instead, marks are allocated based on four criteria: Knowledge and Understanding, Analysis, Evaluation, and Clarity/Structure.

Paper 2: Prescribed Texts

Answer both parts (a) and (b) of one question. Each question is worth 25 marks total.

2 Question · 25 marks

Question 1 · essay

10 marks

Explain Descartes' use of the piece of wax example in the Second Meditation to show that the mind is better known than the body.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

In the Second Meditation, after establishing the certainty of his own existence (the Cogito), Descartes seeks to understand what this 'I' is and how it knows things, particularly physical objects which seem much more distinct than the mind. To investigate how we know bodies, Descartes introduces the example of a piece of wax fresh from the honeycomb: 1) The Sensory Properties: Initially, the wax has a specific taste, scent, color, shape, and size. It is cold, hard, and makes a sound when struck. These qualities are perceived by the senses. 2) The Transformation: When placed near a fire, the wax melts. All of its sensory qualities change: the taste is gone, the smell vanishes, the color changes, the shape is lost, it becomes hot and liquid, and it no longer makes a sound when struck. 3) The Persistent Identity: Despite all these sensory qualities changing, we still judge it to be the same piece of wax. 4) Rejection of Senses and Imagination: Descartes argues that this knowledge of the wax's identity cannot come from the senses, because all sensory data has changed. It also cannot come from the imagination, because the wax can take an infinite number of different shapes and sizes (extension), and the imagination is incapable of running through an infinite number of variations. 5) Intellectual Perception (Inspectio Mentis): Therefore, the wax is perceived not by sight, touch, or imagination, but by an inspection of the mind alone. Our belief that we 'see' the wax with our eyes is actually a judgment made by the intellect based on what we perceive. 6) Conclusion: This leads to Descartes' conclusion that the mind is better known than physical bodies. Every time the mind perceives or judges the existence of a physical object like the wax, that act of judgment itself provides far more certain and clear evidence of the mind's own existence and nature as a thinking thing. While the existence of the physical wax can still be doubted at this stage of the Meditations, the existence of the mind making the judgment is absolutely certain.

Marking scheme

Band 9-10: Excellent. The response shows a comprehensive, highly accurate, and clear understanding of the wax experiment. It clearly outlines the sensory properties of the wax, the physical transformation, the failure of both sensory perception and imagination to account for identity, and the role of the intellect (inspectio mentis). It successfully links this analysis to Descartes' ultimate conclusion that the mind is better known than the body. Band 7-8: Very Good. The response explains the wax example clearly and covers the main transitions (sensory change, intellectual judgment). It links the argument to the superiority of intellectual knowledge over sensory knowledge, though the final connection to why the mind is better known than the body might be slightly less developed. Band 5-6: Satisfactory. The response describes the wax example and notes that the intellect is responsible for recognizing the wax's identity. However, it may overlook the critique of imagination or provide a less clear explanation of why this process proves that the mind is better known than the body. Band 3-4: Basic. The response shows a superficial understanding of the wax example. It describes the physical changes of the wax but struggles to articulate the philosophical implications regarding the mind and the senses. Band 1-2: Weak. The response is highly confused, inaccurate, or contains only a minimal mention of the wax example without philosophical context.

Question 2 · essay

15 marks

Evaluate Descartes's argument in Meditation VI for the real distinction between the mind and the body.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Introduction
In Meditation VI of Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents his final argument for substance dualism, asserting that the mind (a thinking, non-extended substance) is really distinct from the body (an extended, non-thinking substance), and can exist without it.

Reconstruction of Descartes's Argument
Descartes's argument for the real distinction rests on several key premises:
1. Everything that I clearly and distinctly understand can be created by God exactly as I understand it.
2. If I can clearly and distinctly understand one thing without another, this is sufficient to make me certain that the two are distinct, since they can be separated at least by God.
3. I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing.
4. I have a clear and distinct idea of body, in so far as it is simply an extended, non-thinking thing.
5. Therefore, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it.
Descartes also supplements this with the argument from divisibility: the body is by its very nature always divisible, whereas the mind is utterly indivisible.

Strengths of the Argument

Intuitive Appeal: The argument captures the robust first-person qualitative character of conscious experience (qualia), which seems fundamentally different from physical matter.
Conceptual Independence: It provides a strong foundation for the possibility of personal identity surviving physical death (immortality of the soul), which was a central theological and philosophical goal for Descartes.
Scientific Utility: By separating mind from matter, Descartes cleared the physical world of Aristotelian final causes and souls, allowing for the rise of mechanistic physical science.

Weaknesses and Critical Counter-arguments

The Interaction Problem (Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia): If the mind is completely non-extended and immaterial, and the body is physical and extended, how do they causally interact? How can a non-physical decision cause a physical arm to move? Descartes's appeal to the pineal gland as the seat of interaction is widely considered a failure because it merely localizes the interaction without explaining its mechanism.
Arnauld's Objection (The Triangle Analogy): Antoine Arnauld argued that someone might clearly and distinctly understand that a right-angled triangle has the property that the square of its hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides, yet they might not know this properties' necessity or might conceive of a triangle without knowing this relation. Just because Descartes can conceive of his mind existing without his body does not guarantee that it is ontologically possible for it to do so in reality.
The Mind-Brain Identity / Physicalist Critique: Modern neuroscience shows a deep, systematic correlation between mental states and brain states. Phineas Gage and other cases of brain damage demonstrate that altering physical brain structure fundamentally alters personality and thinking capacities, suggesting the mind is not an independent substance but an emergent property of physical matter.

Conclusion
While Descartes's argument is highly influential and elegantly structured on his epistemological foundations of clear and distinct perception, it suffers from severe metaphysical challenges. The interaction problem remains one of the most persistent difficulties in the philosophy of mind, suggesting that Descartes's radical separation of mind and body creates more conceptual problems than it solves.

Marking scheme

Marking Rubric (Total: 15 Marks)

Excellent (13–15 marks):
- Comprehensive and highly accurate understanding of Descartes's argument in Meditation VI (including the role of clear and distinct perception, God's omnipotence, and divisibility).
- Thorough, critical, and nuanced evaluation of the arguments, drawing on key counterarguments (e.g., Princess Elisabeth, Arnauld, physicalism).
- Well-structured, clear philosophical vocabulary, and a sustained, coherent thesis throughout.

Good to Very Good (10–12 marks):
- Accurate explanation of the real distinction argument with minor omissions.
- Clear evaluation that addresses at least two major criticisms with good philosophical analysis.
- Clear structure and effective use of appropriate terminology.

Satisfactory (7–9 marks):
- Explains the basic elements of substance dualism in Descartes's work, but may lack precision in the specific steps of the Meditation VI argument.
- Provides a general evaluation (e.g., mentions the mind-body problem or modern science) but lacks depth or logical rigor in critical analysis.
- Mostly structured but may wander or rely on descriptive summaries rather than evaluation.

Basic to Poor (1–6 marks):
- Demonstrates limited or superficial knowledge of Descartes's Meditations.
- Critical evaluation is minimal, highly repetitive, or absent.
- Lacks clear structure or appropriate philosophical terminology.

Wondering how well you actually know this?

Thinka is an AI practice app for DSE students — unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Want more questions like this? Practice unlimited on Thinka — instant answers included.

Start Practising Free