Topic I.3.2 · SL and HL
Evaluating: notes and practice questions
Summary
- This topic focuses on critically assessing the outcomes and methodology of a scientific investigation.
- Evaluate hypotheses by comparing them with processed data and accepted scientific contexts.
- Identify and discuss the sources and impacts of both random and systematic errors.
- Evaluate the implications of methodological weaknesses, limitations, and assumptions on the conclusions drawn.
- Explain realistic and relevant improvements that could be made to an investigation.
How it is examined
Paper 1B, and the source of the most predictable lost marks. The May 2025 Paper 1B TZ1 mark scheme for question 1(a) refused "repeat measurements", "improving precision" and a bare mention of "parallax error" as answers, and required a way to address the problem. Apply the same bar when marking: an evaluation must name the specific source of error in this apparatus and say what it does to the result, or name a specific change and say what it fixes.
Key ideas
- Evaluate hypotheses.
- Identify and discuss sources and impacts of random and systematic errors.
- Evaluate the implications of methodological weaknesses, limitations and assumptions on conclusions.
- Explain realistic and relevant improvements to an investigation.
Practice questions
0 questionsNo question on this page matches those filters. Try another difficulty or paper.
Every Evaluating question, marked for you
Every answer is marked mark by mark, IB-style, and the AI tutor helps when you are stuck.
Where marks are lost
- Stopping one step short of the conclusion. Two numbers and no sentence is two marks out of three.
- Answering a procedure question with a platitude.
- Losing precision in Paper 1B. Uniquely to this paper, quoting the right number badly loses marks.
