[Kaskade]

(Original post by miss_boyes)
Yeah they do do January papers but it might not really be done by a lot of people as its a lot of work to do in half a year :/ Most people will do them in the summer. Not sure if its the same for religious studies but in history the teacher said they tend to put slightly nastier questions in January to get them out the way (as so few people do them)

Here's Ayer in January 2010 from the edexcel website, couldn't find what this years one was though
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...e_20100129.pdf

hey, how many minutes would you suggest per question?
I was thinking 10 minutes plan, 40 minutes one section a, 25 minutes section B. Also, do you know if the marks stay the same every year? i.e. A (24) B (16). Thanks, anyones help appreciated!

[diamonddust]

(Original post by CordeliaDesdamona)
revising for this is indeed a 'risky business'

Damn right. I don't even know where to start! I'm giving myself study leave tomorrow so I can revise but I don't know what I should give priority to, Ayer or Westphal...

(Original post by emilyrose018)
Any advice... I am desperate

...

Thank you

*seconds this question*

[Emmaharvs]

(Original post by emilyrose018)
Any advice... I am desperate

I've just really mucked up my developments paper, really badly. therefore i need to do really well in this exam does anybody have any tips on how to achieve the top marks because we have spent barely any time on this paper at school so any teacher tips or any general advice would be seriously appreciated

Thank you

You might want to edit this... no exam talk til midnight cos of the exams across the world or something. You dont want to get warned...

[scotzbhoy]

(Original post by Kaskade)
hey, how many minutes would you suggest per question?
I was thinking 10 minutes plan, 40 minutes one section a, 25 minutes section B. Also, do you know if the marks stay the same every year? i.e. A (24) B (16). Thanks, anyones help appreciated!

It's 30 marks for part A and 20 for part B.
I would suggest 5 minutes plan, 40 minutes section A and 30 minutes on section B.

[Kaskade]

(Original post by scotzbhoy)
It's 30 marks for part A and 20 for part B.
I would suggest 5 minutes plan, 40 minutes section A and 30 minutes on section B.

See I thought it was 30 marks for A, 20 for B, but this january exam states otherwise... http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...e_20100129.pdf

Only last year january so unless it's changed...?

[Bluemonster3]

The nerves are really starting to kick on now D: I have been revising implications for about a month and a half and I cannot remember anything! I done a mock exam a few days ago and got a rubbish mark D:
Please by Ayer.
Please!!

[emilyrose018]

(Original post by Emmaharvs)
You might want to edit this... no exam talk til midnight cos of the exams across the world or something. You dont want to get warned...

Had no idea about that, but I wasn't talking about anyway

I'm just asking for advice for wednesdays implications paper

[sendintheclowns]

(Original post by Kaskade)
See I thought it was 30 marks for A, 20 for B, but this january exam states otherwise... http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...e_20100129.pdf

Only last year january so unless it's changed...?

It has changed. As I've explained elsewhere, but can't find the link now, there are NO January exams for Edexcel A2 RS units. The paper you cite was a one off to allow students who had studied the Revised Curriculum 2000 spec to re-sit so that they weren't getting in the way of Edxcel's first GCE 2008 spec students in the summer of 2010. That's why there is a January 2010 paper (the only January paper in existence) and why the mark scheme is different from the one that you should have from all the practice papers that you've done this year. Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

[sendintheclowns]

(Original post by scotzbhoy)
It's 30 marks for part A and 20 for part B.
I would suggest 5 minutes plan, 40 minutes section A and 30 minutes on section B.

It depends how confident you feels with the extract of course, but I advise my students to prep for AT LEAST 10 minutes (which is what the exam board advises too). The examiner isn't expecting you to write for any more than that. Feedback from the Chief Examiner always begins with his observation that candiates who planned clearly were often able to outperform others who had notionally better material because they used it well.
Effective structuring and ordering of ideas (which requires good planning unless you're an absolute genius) is a good way of showing higher level understanding of the material.
A clear line of argument and a building up of evidence for whatever case you are making in the AO2 is also going to get you higher marks and needs good planning.
SAY LESS - BUT SAY IT WELL.

[Emmaharvs]

(Original post by emilyrose018)
Had no idea about that, but I wasn't talking about anyway

I'm just asking for advice for wednesdays implications paper

It says in the red announcement thing at the top... but the example it uses is 'i found it hard' so I thought id let you know just because idk how strict they are but you don't wanna be warned.

[Kaskade]

(Original post by sendintheclowns)
It depends how confident you feels with the extract of course, but I advise my students to prep for AT LEAST 10 minutes (which is what the exam board advises too). The examiner isn't expecting you to write for any more than that. Feedback from the Chief Examiner always begins with his observation that candiates who planned clearly were often able to outperform others who had notionally better material because they used it well.
Effective structuring and ordering of ideas (which requires good planning unless you're an absolute genius) is a good way of showing higher level understanding of the material.
A clear line of argument and a building up of evidence for whatever case you are making in the AO2 is also going to get you higher marks and needs good planning.
SAY LESS - BUT SAY IT WELL.

Thanks, that was really useful Just to clarify, as i've heard a variety of different things - question a) 24 marks Question b) 16 marks? Right? Also, question a) 40 minutes, question b) 25 minutes? Thanks

[diamonddust]

(Original post by Bluemonster3)
The nerves are really starting to kick on now D: I have been revising implications for about a month and a half and I cannot remember anything! I done a mock exam a few days ago and got a rubbish mark D:
Please by Ayer.
Please!!

Are you me? I've been averaging 35/50 and I need an A and I don't know how to do this exam and we've spent months on it so there's no reason for me not to know it!

[periwinkle304]

okay people im confused. so it was ayer 2008, westphal 2009 and dononvan 2010 summer, and there were no january papers??

[CordeliaDesdamona]

Does anyone know which philosopher came up on the new a-level specimen paper?

[miss_boyes]

(Original post by Emmaharvs)
It says in the red announcement thing at the top... but the example it uses is 'i found it hard' so I thought id let you know just because idk how strict they are but you don't wanna be warned.

Wow, thanks, I had no idea about this! http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/anno...hp?f=133&a=629

[toniSPICE]

so there's no jan past papers anymore?
But then Ayer could still be likely on wednesday?

[miss_boyes]

(Original post by periwinkle304)
okay people im confused. so it was ayer 2008, westphal 2009 and dononvan 2010 summer, and there were no january papers??

There was only a one off special January paper in 2010 and thats it. Even that exam was for certain people so when the examiners set this exam for Wednesday they probably didn't really take that into consideration when choosing which article.

[miss_boyes]

(Original post by sendintheclowns)
It depends how confident you feels with the extract of course, but I advise my students to prep for AT LEAST 10 minutes (which is what the exam board advises too). The examiner isn't expecting you to write for any more than that. Feedback from the Chief Examiner always begins with his observation that candiates who planned clearly were often able to outperform others who had notionally better material because they used it well.
Effective structuring and ordering of ideas (which requires good planning unless you're an absolute genius) is a good way of showing higher level understanding of the material.
A clear line of argument and a building up of evidence for whatever case you are making in the AO2 is also going to get you higher marks and needs good planning.
SAY LESS - BUT SAY IT WELL.

Thanks for the advice. Do you think Ayer will come up on Wednesday?

[Emmaharvs]

Anyone else majorly worried for tomorrow? :/

Also, how much are we supposed to focus on the passage they gave us and how much on the whole article? Because my teahcers have been saying basically just talk about the whole thing, but I've heard other people saying actually the majority of the essay should be on the bit they give you... but theres no way I could write a whole essay on one paragraph :/

Waaa Help please!!

[sendintheclowns]

(Original post by miss_boyes)
Thanks for the advice. Do you think Ayer will come up on Wednesday?

If I was a betting man I'd be placing a lot of money on Ayer. He hasn't come up for 3 years; Teacher INSETs have been focussing on him quite a lot according to anecdotal evidence; the same guy sets the Philosophy of Religion Developments paper, in which we could have reasonably expected a standalone Verfication/Falsification question, it having not been there for three years either, he didn't set it there - dioes that mean he's trying to avoid the criticisms from three years ago when he set Ayer in Paper 4 AND had a Positivism question in paper 3? I think so.

The key to doing the Ayer passage well, is to know the whole passage and to make sure that when explaining the bit that is set, you are able to say how that bit fits in to trhe rest of the extract (and if you know it, how it fits in to the rest of what Ayer says in language Truth & Logic).
Make sure that you write your essay by themed paragraphs where each paragraph only has one theme or key idea. Ensure that you locate the idea as EITHER being in the quoted extract OR implicit in / needed by what the quotation says.
Once you've done that explain what it means in abstract philosophical terms. Then apply it prefereably by giving some (PLURAL) examples of how it applies to language. Use specific examples of things somebody might say and explain how they work / don't work / are meaningless etc according to Ayer.
Remember to use religious exemplification (it is an RS exam) but go beyond religion to other areas too).
One way of clarifying ideas is often to say what is NOT being said by Ayer to show the limits of what he is saying. Such clarification would constitute its own paragraph. For example:

This is not to say that Ayer rejects the possibility of moral statements. For example he himself makes clear use of moral language to reject Mike Tyson's intimidating behaviour towards Naomi Campbell. However, in rejecting the cognitive meaningfulness of claims such as "Men ought to talk rationally about their disagreements" because they neither empirically verifiable nor self-authenticating, Ayer is not denying their centrality to social discourse, education or public behaviour.

It's not an award-winning paragraph I grant you, but you get my idea I hope.

Stay fairly brief in each paragraph and look to write a number of separate paragraphs (i.e. cover a good number of separate points) so that the examiner can see that you understand all the parts of the argument as well as how they fit together to make Ayer's main point. The rules I offer my students for clear and consise paragrpahs that are relevant: State it, contextualise it, explain it, exemplify it, move on.

In the AO2 the same basic principle applies. The key questions tend to be:
Do you agree with Ayer's view of the 'rules of the game'? If yes why, if not why not, or is it more complex than that (e.g Ayer's rules are accurate as a description of the rules of the factual language game under the stystem instituted by Wittgenstein)?
What is the significance of this for
a) Philosophy (Ayer begins LTL by saing that all the philsophy b4 him has been a wasted effort, and that his contribution now clarifies what Philosophy is really about i.e. language rather than ideas)
b) Metaphysics (no soul, no afterlife, no free-will - only science has any authority because only it can be demonstrated)
c) Religion (just food for the psychiatrist's chair - not even possibly true. Of course somebody like Dawkins is just as foolhardy for Ayer as he spends so much time talking about God - if I set up foundations to argue for the non-existence of round squares would I expect to be taken seriously? as one Positivist put it)
d) Morality (if no morality is true, then is any morality acceptable? the ultimate victory for relativists?)

Hope that gives you and everybody else some useful food for thought. Good luck tomorrow.