A2 OCR Philosophy and Ethics example papers/tips? Watch

NaturalAndReal
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
It's coming up to the January exams, and i'm starting to panic a bit...

I haven't got more than a B in class for practice questions, usually averaging a C, but I need an A overall...

I got an A in both units at AS, and I suppose I'm doing better than I was this time last year, because I was getting Es pretty consistently...

My problem is that I just cant get to grips with the exam technique. It seems like as soon as I get my head round it, the goal posts are moved. I've asked my teacher a few times for some example papers or help with exam technique, but he's pretty much just told me not to worry about it because I can always resit -_-

So, yeah...

tldr version: I'm freaking out over my exam. Do you have any example papers or exam tips?
0
reply
Clareicles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Basically, you need to morph the a) and b) of AS into a coherent whole for A2. This is a lot easier than it sounds and most students find it a natural progression, so once you've begun working on it, it should get easier.

I have no idea if you're sitting the Philosophy or Ethics paper (or both) so I'm going to use Ethics as an example for now, but you can see the point and use it for Philosophy if you need it.

Sample question: Assess the view that conscience need not always be obeyed.

You'd need to first decide which scholars would argue it should and which would argue it shouldn't be obeyed.

Then pick which side of the argument you intend to start with. So, for this example, we'll go with "it should be obeyed" as a starting point, so you choose to use Butler. So you'd explain Butler's position on conscience and explain why he would argue conscience should be obeyed. You would then evaluate Butler's position and complement it with (say) Aquinas' position or that of Newman.

You could then go over to the other side of the argument, using Freud's view of conscience or maybe that of Fromm, Piaget or Kohlberg etc. You would need to explain their position before explaining why this would mean that conscience need not be obeyed. After you've done this, you would need to give your conclusion. Should conscience be obeyed? Justify your position with the strengths of the side you're choosing; so for instance, if you were to side with conscience not needing to be obeyed, you might conclude by saying something like:

"On balance it would appear that conscience need not be obeyed. While the earlier scholars asserted that conscience was divinely inspired in some way, modern psychology has demonstrated that conscience is a social construct and as such, it would seem that conscience is no longer a divine dictate. Obedience to one's conscience might ease a temporary feeling of guilt but this does not mean that it should be obeyed under all circumstances.

Hope this helps,






http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications.../rs/documents/
1
reply
eemjanee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Clareicles)
Basically, you need to morph the a) and b) of AS into a coherent whole for A2. This is a lot easier than it sounds and most students find it a natural progression, so once you've begun working on it, it should get easier.

I have no idea if you're sitting the Philosophy or Ethics paper (or both) so I'm going to use Ethics as an example for now, but you can see the point and use it for Philosophy if you need it.

Sample question: Assess the view that conscience need not always be obeyed.

You'd need to first decide which scholars would argue it should and which would argue it shouldn't be obeyed.

Then pick which side of the argument you intend to start with. So, for this example, we'll go with "it should be obeyed" as a starting point, so you choose to use Butler. So you'd explain Butler's position on conscience and explain why he would argue conscience should be obeyed. You would then evaluate Butler's position and complement it with (say) Aquinas' position or that of Newman.

You could then go over to the other side of the argument, using Freud's view of conscience or maybe that of Fromm, Piaget or Kohlberg etc. You would need to explain their position before explaining why this would mean that conscience need not be obeyed. After you've done this, you would need to give your conclusion. Should conscience be obeyed? Justify your position with the strengths of the side you're choosing; so for instance, if you were to side with conscience not needing to be obeyed, you might conclude by saying something like:

"On balance it would appear that conscience need not be obeyed. While the earlier scholars asserted that conscience was divinely inspired in some way, modern psychology has demonstrated that conscience is a social construct and as such, it would seem that conscience is no longer a divine dictate. Obedience to one's conscience might ease a temporary feeling of guilt but this does not mean that it should be obeyed under all circumstances.

Hope this helps,






http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications.../rs/documents/

I actually would argue that Freud believes that conscience should be obeyed, owing to the fact that he believes conscience is a product of the super ego, ego and ID, we must follow our conscience or our ID will take over.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (109)
17.3%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (68)
10.79%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (110)
17.46%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (92)
14.6%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (63)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (188)
29.84%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed