Begin by clarifying the terms in the research question: what counts as a contemporary response to the Gettier problem, what is meant by the classical analysis of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB), and what you mean by the requirement of epistemic justification. Make concise working definitions in your own words and keep them visible as you write; these will guide selection of sources and prevent scope creep. Map out the logical structure you will test: JTB → knowledge, Gettier cases as counterexamples, and then each contemporary response as either modifying one of the J, T, or B conditions, adding a fourth condition, or reconceiving justification. Decide early whether you will treat “restore” as full reinstatement of JTB or a qualified restauration compatible with additional constraints — but do not rewrite the research question. Create an outline that moves from definitions to the problem, presentation of responses, comparative evaluation, and a conclusion that answers the research question directly and succinctly.

Research strategically: start with classic sources (Edmund Gettier 1963) and then select representative contemporary responses from different families: defeasibility accounts, reliabilist and externalist strategies, causal and virtue-theoretic accounts, safety and sensitivity conditions, and recent hybrid or pluralist proposals. Use philosophy databases (PhilPapers, JSTOR), handbooks, and major journals; include a couple of accessible secondary sources or encyclopedia entries to confirm interpretations. For each response, extract its core claim, the specific move it makes relative to JTB, and its own criteria for epistemic justification. Take careful notes that tag quotations with page numbers, and write short critical summaries that say whether and why the response preserves or sacrifices an internalist conception of justification. Keep track of common objections and replies so you can assess robustness rather than merely describe views.

When analysing and writing, compare responses according to clear criteria: fidelity to JTB, preservation of justificatory role (internalist vs externalist), explanatory power in ruling out Gettier cases, and practical plausibility. Use concrete Gettier-style examples to test each theory and show where it succeeds or fails. Structure paragraphs to combine exposition and critique: present the view, test it against an example, and draw an evaluative conclusion tied to the research question. In your conclusion, weigh which responses best restore JTB and whether they do so without sacrificing epistemic justification, making a reasoned judgment that synthesises your analyses. Keep prose concise, cite carefully, and ensure your final answer addresses the research question directly.

Start by clarifying the research question and the key terms it contains: “rule utilitarianism,” “act utilitarianism,” “scarce climate adaptation resources,” “distributive justice,” and “moral responsibility.” Define each term concisely using primary philosophical sources (e.g., classical utilitarian texts and contemporary commentators) and relevant literature on climate justice. Explain the moral and practical stakes of allocating scarce adaptation resources so your reader understands why the question matters. Outline the normative criteria you will use to judge “more justifiable” — for example, consistency with principles of equality, priority to the worst-off, aggregate welfare, accountability, and responsibility for harms — and justify why these criteria are appropriate for this research question. This paragraph sets up the conceptual toolkit you will apply in the rest of the essay; make sure every definitional move is tied back to the question so nothing feels tangential.

Next, plan a research strategy that combines philosophical argument with empirical context. Read primary texts on act and rule utilitarianism and influential critiques and defenses (classic and contemporary philosophers), then supplement with interdisciplinary sources on climate adaptation, scarcity, and distributive policy (scholarly articles, UN/IPCC reports, policy briefs). Use thought experiments and realistic case studies (e.g., who gets water infrastructure, managed retreat, or heat adaptation funds) to test the theories against real-world constraints. When analysing, apply your chosen normative criteria to each theory in turn: show how rule utilitarianism would generate rules for allocation and whether those rules better satisfy distributive justice and responsibility than the direct cost–benefit calculations of act utilitarianism. Be explicit about assumptions (value of lives, measurement of welfare, how responsibility is assigned) and explore plausible objections from both sides.

Finally, structure and write clearly with critical balance. Open with a precise thesis stating which theory you argue is more justifiable under the criteria you set, then roadmap the essay. Devote separate sections to conceptual groundwork, application to case studies, comparative evaluation, and rebuttals of main objections, ending with a reasoned conclusion that acknowledges limits and policy implications. Use clear signposting, tight paragraphing, and evidence-based claims: quote philosophers for conceptual claims, cite empirical sources for scarcity facts, and explain how each piece of evidence supports your evaluation. Meet IB formal requirements (word count, citations, bibliography) and include a short reflection on uncertainties or further questions to show intellectual humility and critical awareness.

Begin by clarifying the scope of the research question in your own words and deciding which senses of key terms you will use (for example, ‘continuity of memory,’ ‘personal identity,’ ‘psychological theories,’ and ‘bodily theories’). Treat the research question as fixed: do not propose changing or narrowing it. Map out the positions you must discuss—Lockean memory continuity, psychological continuity more broadly (including branching or overlapping memory cases), and bodily or animalist views—and identify central objections and supportive arguments for each. Create a reading plan that starts with primary philosophical texts (Locke, Reid, Parfit, Shoemaker, Olson) and then moves to high-quality secondary sources: peer-reviewed articles, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries, and established philosophy handbooks. Keep notes that separate claims, reasons, and supporting evidence; for each source record the thesis, the main arguments, relevant thought experiments, and how they bear on the research question. Make sure you can explain key thought experiments (e.g., teletransportation, brain-split cases, amnesia scenarios) in your own words and note which ones favor or undermine memory continuity as a sufficient criterion. When analysing the arguments, adopt a clear critical stance: set out the strongest possible form of the memory-continuity view and then test it against rivals. For each theory, state explicit sufficient and necessary conditions where applicable, then show how specific thought experiments or empirical facts either satisfy or violate those conditions. Use comparative analysis: ask whether memory continuity alone handles cases of memory fabrication, false memories, disconnected memories, or gradual bodily change better or worse than psychological continuity theories that include other psychological relations (character, intention, personality) and better or worse than bodily views that anchor identity in organismic persistence. Where appropriate, bring in empirical findings from cognitive science on memory reliability, implanted memories, and the neuroscience of memory to show how realistic constraints affect philosophical claims. Address potential counterexamples and consider responses from proponents of the memory view; assess whether adjustments (not to the research question but to the interpretation of memory continuity) rescue the view from prominent objections. In writing the essay, aim for a clear argumentative structure: introduction that states the thesis you will defend about the research question, concise exposition of each theory, systematic comparison using the same evaluative criteria, and a conclusion that weighs the evidence. Use topic sentences to guide readers through your analysis and ensure each paragraph advances your argumentative aim. Cite sources properly and integrate quotations sparingly to support key points rather than substitute for explanation. Conclude by summarising which theory you find most persuasive with reasons tied to your earlier analysis and note remaining difficulties or open questions that follow from your argument. Proofread for clarity, coherence, and adherence to IB formal requirements (word count, citations).

Begin by clarifying the research question and setting the scope of your essay in the introduction: restate the research question exactly as given and explain quickly what you take the key terms to mean (for example, 'justice as fairness', 'structural economic inequality', 'neoliberal democracies'). Do not rewrite or narrow the question; instead, say what range of issues you will examine so the reader knows what to expect. Outline your structure briefly so examiners can follow your argument—typically: explanation of Rawls’s theory, characterisation of contemporary neoliberal economic structures and policies, and critical engagement showing where Rawls’s principles can or cannot justify particular policy responses. Include a concise thesis statement that answers the research question provisionally, indicating whether you will argue adaptation is effective, limited, or conditional, and on what grounds you will judge effectiveness (moral justification, feasibility, political acceptability, or outcomes for justice).

Start by clarifying what your research question is asking: identify the key concepts—Austin’s performative/constative distinction, Searle’s rules and commitments, and the normative status of promises and commitments specifically in digitally mediated, social media contexts. Map out what counts as a promise or commitment on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Discord or WhatsApp (public posts, replies, pinned statements, DMs) and gather clear illustrative examples to use as case studies. Use primary texts from Austin and Searle to extract the conditions for successful speech acts and the mechanisms by which they generate obligations, and complement these with recent peer-reviewed articles, legal or philosophical analyses of digital communication, and reputable interdisciplinary work in media studies. Keep a running bibliography and annotate sources with short notes on how each one bears on the success conditions, institutional background, and normativity of promises online. Prioritise texts that directly discuss social media or digital promises, and be explicit when you use an example drawn from contemporary platforms so markers can see relevance and application to the research question.

When analysing, structure your argument around comparative criteria that flow from Austin and Searle themselves: for example, felicity conditions, conventional background, and the role of authority or constitutive rules. For each criterion, explain how Austin’s account would interpret the online example and then how Searle’s account would do so, noting strengths and gaps. Pay attention to features of social media that challenge classical accounts—anonymity, asynchronous timing, performativity for audiences, platform algorithms, and the hybrid public/private status of posts—and evaluate whether those features undermine, modify, or can be assimilated into each theory. Use counterexamples and thought experiments to test robustness: imagine a deleted tweet, a public promise that never reaches followers, or a bot issuing commitments, and show precisely why a theory succeeds or fails to attribute normativity in each case.

When writing, aim for clarity and balance: open with a short roadmap that states you will compare Austin and Searle with targeted social media examples, then develop reasoned comparative sections before delivering a concise evaluative conclusion that answers the research question directly. Explain technical terms briefly, footnote or cite primary sources consistently (MLA/APA/Chicago as required by your school), and ensure each claim about normativity is backed by textual evidence or a carefully explained example. Keep the essay tightly focused on the research question throughout, and finish with a reflective paragraph that summarises which aspects of normativity each theory explains well, where they fall short online, and what this implies for future philosophical or empirical inquiry.