Your IB English cohort is the first to sit Paper 2 under a reworked marking grid—and there are no past-student scripts, grade boundaries, or settled folklore to lean on. The real problem isn’t where the criteria live; it’s the gap between rubric language and the exam-room decisions it actually requires, which is exactly where marks get lost under any new assessment design.
The change is not cosmetic. The paper is still marked out of 25, but those marks are now split evenly across five criteria, and comparison has been pulled out as its own scored line rather than something that can be implied. Mid-band students who keep practicing under the old mental model risk over-explaining content and under-building the analysis, comparison, and language control the new grid actually rewards.
The Five-Criterion Grid
Splitting 25 marks evenly across five criteria changes the underlying calculus of the essay, not just its format. Paper 2 now scores understanding, analysis, comparison, organization, and language as five separate 5-mark elements—A, B1, B2, C, and D—and a generally strong response no longer earns credit everywhere by default. Every deliberate essay choice needs to be traceable to at least one criterion; teacher-practitioner guides from ClassLens and Lead Academics both interpret the new grid on exactly those terms.
Criterion A—understanding and comparison of works—has been cut from 10 marks to 5. You still need accurate, developed knowledge of both texts, but loading paragraphs with plot recap or broad thematic surveys no longer makes strategic sense. A solid band-4 performance shows clear, secure understanding; band-5 responses add perceptive, nuanced interpretations that notice tensions, ambiguities, and less obvious angles on the question.
More significantly, the old single analysis criterion has been divided into B1 and B2. B1 rewards how well you analyze each work on its own terms—close attention to literary and linguistic features and how they create meaning. B2 now scores the comparative argument as a distinct element, so comparative thinking can no longer be left implicit in parallel paragraphs. A band-4 B2 performance offers relevant, accurate comparisons; band-5 makes comparison purposeful and sustained, using juxtapositions to drive the essay’s central interpretive claim. Leaving that comparative work to the final paragraph—a habit that used to earn partial credit under the old model—now has a specific mark gap attached to it.
Criterion D now explicitly scores language, including register and style, and it carries more visible weight than before. To reach the top band you need a consistent literary-critical voice, precise and varied vocabulary, and syntax that helps rather than blurs your analysis; sliding into chatty summary mid-paragraph is more clearly penalized. Criterion C, by contrast, is continuity: organization marks still go to arguments that develop coherently, but you are no longer rewarded simply for rigidly balancing similarities and differences if that structure does not serve your claim.
Planning Sequence
Five separate criteria require deliberate effort allocation—a generally strong essay won’t distribute marks for you.
- Read the question and mark the key words that define its interpretive demand.
- Draft a thesis that is already comparative, stating what the two works together suggest about that demand.
- Sketch your body paragraphs and tag each as mainly B1 or B2. B1 paragraphs focus on one work; B2 paragraphs must open with a comparative claim, include one short well-chosen piece of evidence with analysis from each work, and close with a payoff sentence that states what the juxtaposition proves about the question. Three hinge stems you can use as draft language: (1) ‘Where [Work 1] uses ___ to suggest ___, [Work 2] reframes this through ___, which shifts the reader’s sense of ___.’ (2) ‘This difference matters because it changes how the question’s idea of ___ is presented: in [Work 1] it becomes ___, while in [Work 2] it becomes ___.’ (3) ‘Taken together, these choices imply ___ about ___, rather than two separate observations.’ Pair both works in the same paragraph when the point depends on a shared device or direct contrast; split into adjacent paragraphs only when each needs its own B1-heavy analysis first, and open the second paragraph with a one-sentence bridge that states the comparison and why it matters for the question.
- Decide where you will mention tone, diction, syntax, or register so Criterion D is met inside paragraphs, not tacked on.
- Check that your structure follows your argument rather than a forced ‘similarities vs differences’ pattern, and that at least two body paragraphs are deliberately built as B2 comparison paragraphs.
A lopsided plan might give each work a long ‘background and themes’ paragraph but only one paragraph of real analysis, overloading Criterion A and starving B1 and especially B2. A grid-aware plan keeps knowledge brief, leads with a comparative thesis, and ensures at least two body paragraphs are built as full B2 comparisons instead of leaving most of the comparison work to the conclusion.
Adapting Preparation Habits
The new grid doesn’t discard foundational essay skills—it redirects them. A focused, arguable thesis, specific and embedded textual evidence, and a logically sequenced line of reasoning remain central to high-scoring responses regardless of how the marks are distributed across the grid.
Three adjustments matter most. First, make your comparative argument structurally visible: because B2 now has its own line on the grid, comparison has to be explicitly stated and developed, not just implied by pairing similar paragraphs on each work. Second, audit language and register in every practice essay, since Criterion D now carries a full 5 marks; look for slips into informal phrasing or plot retell and revise them into concise analytical sentences. Third, stop forcing mechanically symmetrical ‘similarities/differences’ layouts; give both works substantial B1-level analysis, and let your structure follow the argument. But knowing what to adjust and being able to verify it in your actual essays are two different problems—and that second one doesn’t solve itself.
Self-Evaluation Checklist
After any timed or drafted essay, treat the new grid as a post-draft audit. The questions per criterion don’t need to be complicated: on Criterion A, have you moved beyond accurate understanding to make an interpretive claim about both works? Criteria B1 and B2 call for a sharper look—does each work receive at least one paragraph of close literary and linguistic analysis rather than plot summary, and is the comparative argument explicitly stated and developed in more than one place, not just implied? Two final checks close the audit: whether the argument actually builds after the introduction (Criterion C), and whether every paragraph holds a consistent literary-critical register without drifting into informal retelling (Criterion D). A ‘no’ on B2 is your highest-leverage single adjustment—it usually signals practice still calibrated to the previous model and demands a change in how you plan and structure comparisons before you draft, not just minor editing afterward. Use the Paper 2 Practice Loop (15 minutes after every timed essay) to turn those answers into a repeatable improvement routine.
- Pick one target (2 minutes): choose the first criterion that failed your audit, using this priority rule: B2 → B1 → D → C → A.
- Score quickly (3 minutes): for B2, count comparative payoff sentences that state what the juxtaposition proves (aim for at least two across the body); for B1, count device- or language-based analyses for each work (at least one per work); for D, note register slips into retelling or informality (aim for zero or trending down); for C, look for at least one explicit ‘build-on’ move after the first body paragraph; for A, spot any non-obvious interpretive moves in thesis or topic sentences.
- Fix one thing (8 minutes): write a one-sentence diagnosis for your chosen criterion and one concrete next-essay action that would change your planning or drafting behavior.
- Decision rule (2 minutes): keep the same single target until it passes twice in a row; if B2 fails again, redesign at least two body paragraphs as explicit B2 comparison paragraphs before you draft your next essay.
Treat this loop as a consistency tracker and a way to prioritize what to fix next, not as a replacement for examiner or teacher marking; its pass-or-fail checks are there to flag repeat issues, not to predict an exact band score.
Putting the New Paper 2 Criteria into Practice
Paper 2 isn’t designed to reward a generally good essay—it’s designed to reward a specifically comparative one, written in a register that never lets the reader mistake literary criticism for plot summary. The five-criterion grid makes that demand explicit and scoreable at every stage: comparison isn’t a thread you weave into the conclusion; it’s B2, with its own five marks. Run the post-essay loop, fix one criterion at a time, and make B2 the last thing failing—not the first thing you defer. The difference between a mid-band and a top-band response under this rubric is rarely a matter of effort. It’s usually a matter of visibility.
