IB DP Digital Society HL Paper 3 Question 3: MAY 2025: Exam Practice Questions & Tips

Sample 8-Mark Evaluation IB DP Questions

Question 1

Evaluate the extent to which Intervention 1 (rule-based decision-making tool) addresses issues of fairness and bias when screening applicants from diverse backgrounds.

Question 2

Evaluate the effectiveness of Intervention 2 (AI-based decision-making tool) in creating transparent and accountable screening processes for employment applications.

Question 3

Evaluate the ethical implications of using rule-based decision-making tools for screening university applicants.

Question 4

Evaluate how Intervention 1 (rule-based decision-making tool) might impact applicants with disabilities in the hiring process.

Question 5

Evaluate the economic and social costs associated with implementing Intervention 2 (AI-based decision-making tool) for small to medium-sized organizations.

Question 6

Evaluate how Intervention 2 (AI-based decision-making tool) might affect equity in university admissions processes.

Question 7

Evaluate the feasibility of implementing rule-based decision-making tools in organizations with limited technical expertise.

Question 8

Evaluate how the AI-based decision-making tool might affect the privacy rights of applicants.

Guide to Answering IB DP Paper 3 Question 3 (8-Mark Evaluate)

Structure for Successful Responses

1. Introduction (1-2 sentences)

   • Briefly identify the intervention being evaluated

   • State your evaluation approach (which criteria you'll use)

2. Main Body (3-4 paragraphs)

   • Select 2-3 evaluation criteria from the framework (Equity, Acceptability, Cost, Feasibility, Innovation, Ethics)

   • For each criterion:

     • State how the intervention performs against this criterion

     • Provide evidence from research/case studies

     • Consider both strengths and limitations

     • Explicitly mention stakeholder perspectives

3. Conclusion (2-3 sentences)

   • Summarize your overall evaluation

   • Suggest 1-2 steps to improve the intervention

Question 1

Evaluate the extent to which Intervention 1 (rule-based decision-making tool) addresses issues of fairness and bias when screening applicants from diverse backgrounds.

Sample Response Framework (for Question 1)

Introduction: "Intervention 1, a rule-based decision-making tool for screening applicants, will be evaluated focusing primarily on equity considerations and ethical implications for diverse applicants."

Paragraph 1 - Equity: "From an equity perspective, the rule-based tool presents both opportunities and challenges. The structured nature of 'if-then-else' rules could potentially mitigate bias if rules explicitly avoid protected characteristics. For example, research by [reference] demonstrates that when rules are transparent and designed with diversity in mind, more equitable outcomes are possible. However, rule-based systems may lack contextual understanding, potentially disadvantaging applicants whose qualifications don't fit standard patterns, particularly those from underrepresented groups."

Paragraph 2 - Ethics: "Ethically, the rule-based approach offers transparency advantages but raises concerns about rigidity. The explicit rules enable applicants to understand decision criteria, enhancing accountability. The Rotterdam benefit fraud system referenced in the pre-release, however, demonstrates how rule-based systems can perpetuate existing biases when rules incorporate problematic assumptions about specific demographic groups."

Paragraph 3 - Stakeholder Perspectives: "From the applicants' perspective, the fairness of Intervention 1 depends greatly on how rules are designed and communicated. Organizations benefit from more efficient screening but may miss qualified candidates whose strengths aren't captured by predefined rules. Research by [reference] indicates that rigid rule systems often intercede in discrimination patterns but may create new forms of exclusion."

Conclusion: "While Intervention 1 has potential to enhance fairness through standardization, significant limitations exist regarding contextual understanding of diverse backgrounds. Key recommended steps include participatory design involving diverse stakeholders in rule creation and regular auditing of outcomes to identify and address emerging patterns of bias."

IB Digital Society students working on EXAM PAPER 3