IB Economics HL Internal Assessment Example

You include two highly relevant, accurate diagrams that directly support your discussion of fossil-fuel subsidies and welfare loss.

Your diagrams are clearly labelled and economically meaningful, showing prices, quantities, subsidy effects, and welfare-loss/government-expenditure areas.

You explain both figures fully and accurately, referring to specific labelled features rather than describing them generically.

The comparison between 2016 and 2023 adds useful analytical depth by showing how the scale of expenditure changes over time.

The presentation is a little crowded, so some labels could be made more conventional and easier to follow.

You could make the logic even tighter by stating explicitly why the subsidy changes private prices without changing the underlying external cost curves.

A brief note on the limits of the welfare-loss diagram in different output ranges would strengthen the conceptual precision further.

You use relevant economic terminology consistently and appropriately throughout the commentary.

Key terms such as negative consumption externality, marginal private benefit, marginal social benefit, marginal social cost, subsidy, and government expenditure are applied in context.

Your terminology supports the analysis rather than appearing as a list of definitions.

You maintain good precision in most places when linking prices, incentives, costs, and efficiency.

A few expressions could be more technically precise, especially where profit is discussed.

At times you could distinguish more clearly between accounting profit and economic profit.

Some phrases would benefit from slightly tighter wording to avoid implying that all producers are affected in exactly the same way.