What separates a 5 from a 7 — and how to climb the ladder
If you remember one thing from this whole course, make it this:
The IB rubric for Criterion A (Analysis & Evaluation) measures one thing above all: whether you can explain the relationship between authorial choices and their effects on the reader.
Every sentence you write about a text sits on one of three rungs. Your goal is to climb to the top rung as often as possible.
"The writer uses a metaphor."
"The writer uses a metaphor that compares the leader to a disease."
"The writer's metaphor of the leader as a disease exposes authority as inherently corrupting, positioning the reader to distrust all claims to power before any wrongdoing is named."
| Ask yourself | If "no" — you're on rung… |
|---|---|
| Did I name a specific technique? | Below 1 (just summary) |
| Did I quote or describe what the author actually wrote? | 1 (Identification) |
| Did I explain the effect on the reader? | 2 (Description) |
| Did I link the effect to the bigger meaning of the text? | 3 — but only halfway up |
Three real moments from Orwell's Animal Farm. Same evidence — but watch what changes when we climb the ladder.
"Orwell shows Napoleon being called 'Leader'."
Just retells. No technique, no effect.
"Orwell's capitalised honorific — 'our Leader, Comrade Napoleon' — ritualises authority through language alone, conscripting even 'Comrade' into the machinery of hierarchy. The reader is positioned to distrust the farm's new vocabulary before any violence has been named, because the words themselves have already done the work."
Names technique (capitalised honorific / loaded vocabulary), quotes evidence, explains effect on reader, links to meaning.
"Boxer believes in Napoleon. This is bad for him."
Plot summary plus a verdict. No analysis.
"Orwell's deliberate reduction of Boxer's thought to a four-word motto — 'Napoleon is always right' — strips the horse of moral agency and invites the reader's sympathy rather than blame, redirecting criticism upward to the system that rewards such simplicity with loyalty."
Names technique (reduction / motto), quotes evidence, explains effect on reader (sympathy, not blame), links to bigger meaning (the system is the villain).
"The pigs look like humans now. This is scary because they used to be different."
Describes content. No technique named.
"Orwell's repetition of 'pig to man, and from man to pig' — and the relentless juxtaposition of the two species — mimics the other animals' scanning gaze and exhausts the reader's ability to distinguish oppressor from oppressed, reinforcing the moral that moral collapse is not an event but a process slow enough for its witnesses to miss it."
Names two techniques (repetition, juxtaposition), quotes the evidence, explains the sensory effect on reader, links to the moral message.
Below are three sample sentences of the kind students often write. For each one, diagnose which rung it sits on, then try to climb it. The reveal shows one possible upgrade — yours might be different and still excellent.
Diagnosis: Rung 1 — Identification only. The writer names what Napoleon does (greedy, keeps others ignorant) but does not name a technique Orwell uses, and does not say what effect Orwell's choice has on us as readers.
What is missing: a named technique + an effect on the reader.
Try rewriting it on rung 3. What technique is Orwell using when he has the pigs adopt words like "Leader", "Comrade", and "equal" for their own purposes?
"Orwell's choice to voice the pigs' authority in the revolution's own vocabulary — 'Comrade', 'Leader', 'equal' — uses ironic appropriation to expose tyranny without the narrator ever needing to condemn it. The reader is invited to judge the pigs directly from the hollowed-out words they keep using."
Diagnosis: Rung 2 — Description. The writer describes Boxer's psychology, but does not link this to Orwell's writing choices, and blames Boxer for being ruined, which is not what Orwell's text actually positions us to feel.
What is missing: a named technique Orwell uses + the actual effect on the reader, which is sympathy not blame.
Try rewriting it on rung 3. Hint: think about how Orwell's choice to reduce Boxer's thinking to the two mottos "I will work harder" and "Napoleon is always right" creates a particular feeling.
"Orwell's repeated reduction of Boxer to two mottos — 'I will work harder' and 'Napoleon is always right' — frames him as a victim of simplicity rather than a moral failure. The reader is invited to sympathise: Boxer obeys because the system has made him exactly the kind of worker who would, which redirects blame upward toward the pigs."
Diagnosis: Rung 1–2 — the writer has the right quote and describes what it means, but does not name Orwell's technique and does not explain its effect on the reader.
What is missing: name Orwell's technique (allegory? gradual revision? satire?) and say what the choice does to us as readers.
Try rewriting it on rung 3. Hint: think about how Orwell shows the change to the commandments — slowly, one rule at a time.
"Orwell's gradual revision of the Seven Commandments — until only the contradictory 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others' remains — uses creeping satirical allegory to make the reader complicit in the corruption. We notice each small change too late, mirroring the animals on the farm and amplifying the betrayal."
One page. Screenshot it, print it, keep it next to you when you write.
| Rung | What you wrote | Band |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Identification | "There is a metaphor." | 3–4 |
| 2 — Description | "The metaphor compares X to Y." | 5 |
| 3 — Analysis | "The metaphor of X creates Y effect, positioning the reader to Z." | 6–7 |
When you write the "effect on the reader" half of your sentence, reach for one of these verbs. Avoid the bland "the reader sees" or "the reader thinks".
Before you submit any analysis sentence, ask yourself:
If yes to all four, you are on rung 3. If you missed one, you have not yet earned the band you are aiming for.