emilyandkate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 9 years ago
#81
(Original post by SCheng)
Yes the evaluative part of the question is usually in part (ii) where you have to put the strenghts/weaknesses, and then maybe conclude with your own opinion.

Personally i don't evaluate in part (i) unless the question asks for it. For example, in the June 2011 paper the question for the ontological argument was 'examine the ways the ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists'. So i would restate the claim (to show that my answer explicitly answers the questions), and then i would write about all of the key content, and now and again i would put a strength in there to highlight how it may prove to an atheist that God exists through the argument.

I think when i did this question in class, after i wrote about how the argument is analytic, i wrote the strength that Anselm's definition of God could be understood and accepted by both the beliver and the atheist, and then i jsut wrote about everything else.

Sorry this post is so long, but i hope it helps in some way
Ok thank you!! So basically youre saying dont evaluate in part i? it is definitely ok to be all factual? they wont say your 'being too descriptive'
0
reply
emilyandkate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 9 years ago
#82
(Original post by SCheng)
Yes the evaluative part of the question is usually in part (ii) where you have to put the strenghts/weaknesses, and then maybe conclude with your own opinion.

Personally i don't evaluate in part (i) unless the question asks for it. For example, in the June 2011 paper the question for the ontological argument was 'examine the ways the ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists'. So i would restate the claim (to show that my answer explicitly answers the questions), and then i would write about all of the key content, and now and again i would put a strength in there to highlight how it may prove to an atheist that God exists through the argument.

I think when i did this question in class, after i wrote about how the argument is analytic, i wrote the strength that Anselm's definition of God could be understood and accepted by both the beliver and the atheist, and then i jsut wrote about everything else.

Sorry this post is so long, but i hope it helps in some way
Ok thank you!! So basically youre saying dont evaluate in part i? it is definitely ok to be all factual? they wont say your 'being too descriptive'?
0
reply
emilyandkate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 9 years ago
#83
(Original post by headbands,)
Okay now I'm starting to worry is this enough to know / revise?

- Religious Experience
- Ontological Argument
- Atheism
- Religious Language
- Virtue Ethics
- Natural Moral Law
- Kantian Deontology
?
yepp more than enough, im only doing 6 and some in my class are only doing 5 definitely fine
0
reply
SCheng
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 9 years ago
#84
(Original post by emilyandkate)
Ok thank you!! So basically youre saying dont evaluate in part i? it is definitely ok to be all factual? they wont say your 'being too descriptive'?
Yeah i personally wouldn't evaluate in part (i) unless they ask for it, e.g, the question may ask you to write about an argument and its strengths and weaknesses.

I remember last year in my essays, i would evaluate, and my teacher who is also an examiner said it was not needed, and you only need to do it in part (ii). Also i remember reading in the back of my AS textbook, it had tips on how to answer the questions and it said that you don't gain any more marks for repeating material that you used in part (i) in your part (ii), so i take it that rule applies for the A2 course aswell.

Here's the mark scheme to last years paper that you might want to have a look at, and they want you to write in detail and be 'descriptive' in your part (i), and evaluate in yuor part (ii)
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...s_20110817.pdf
0
reply
12lightf
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#85
(Original post by SCheng)
Yeah i personally wouldn't evaluate in part (i) unless they ask for it, e.g, the question may ask you to write about an argument and its strengths and weaknesses.

I remember last year in my essays, i would evaluate, and my teacher who is also an examiner said it was not needed, and you only need to do it in part (ii). Also i remember reading in the back of my AS textbook, it had tips on how to answer the questions and it said that you don't gain any more marks for repeating material that you used in part (i) in your part (ii), so i take it that rule applies for the A2 course aswell.

Here's the mark scheme to last years paper that you might want to have a look at, and they want you to write in detail and be 'descriptive' in your part (i), and evaluate in yuor part (ii)
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...s_20110817.pdf
I would agree with you, but it is worth noting that they are supposed to mark AO1 & 2 material regardless of whether its in part i or ii. From experience with Foundations it's definitely better not to mix tho.
0
reply
Sadsnail
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#86
Report 9 years ago
#86
(Original post by emilyandkate)
yepp more than enough, im only doing 6 and some in my class are only doing 5 definitely fine
What 5 are you doing?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
reply
301lw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 9 years ago
#87
can someone help me with the westphall article in the implication paper? im a bit confused about kierkeegard, what is he actually saying in the last paragraph?
0
reply
Lojo1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 9 years ago
#88
Hello,

Is anyone else struggling on the essay structure for unit 4? Does anyone have a good idea of how long each question should be? As in a) 30marks B) 20marks?
How many pages? How many points? I've gathered from this thread that 50% should be about the selected extract and the rest about the wider article?
This paper is the devil.
0
reply
julia154
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 9 years ago
#89
Anyone know if myth and symbol count as one type of religious language? Like if it asks for 2 types would myth and symbol count as one, so I should talk about myth, symbols and say, language games?
0
reply
301lw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#90
Report 9 years ago
#90
(Original post by Lojo1)
Hello,

Is anyone else struggling on the essay structure for unit 4? Does anyone have a good idea of how long each question should be? As in a) 30marks B) 20marks?
How many pages? How many points? I've gathered from this thread that 50% should be about the selected extract and the rest about the wider article?
This paper is the devil.
well my teacher told us to try and pick out 5/6 points in section A, elaborate on each point and try to include stuff from the wider article if we can - each point is about a paragraph i also write an intro paragraph
0
reply
SCheng
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 9 years ago
#91
(Original post by julia154)
Anyone know if myth and symbol count as one type of religious language? Like if it asks for 2 types would myth and symbol count as one, so I should talk about myth, symbols and say, language games?
It depends on the question. I did a past paper question in class which said 'compare and contrast two types of religious language', and in that context myth and symbol were two separate beliefs. However, in the June 2010 paper in the question they bullet pointed 3 'types' of religious language, and said you had to 'examine the contributions that two of the following. . .'. Notice how they say 'contributions' and not 'types', it's because they put myth and symbol together, meaning if you pick that, you had to then pick either analogy or language games; and i think they know that if you picked myth and symbol and something else, you are in fact in that question analysisng three 'types' of RL.

I hope this post makes sense and helps, i'm not doing RL for the exam (although i have learnt it), but that's how i would answer it.
0
reply
julia154
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 9 years ago
#92
(Original post by SCheng)
It depends on the question. I did a past paper question in class which said 'compare and contrast two types of religious language', and in that context myth and symbol were two separate beliefs. However, in the June 2010 paper in the question they bullet pointed 3 'types' of religious language, and said you had to 'examine the contributions that two of the following. . .'. Notice how they say 'contributions' and not 'types', it's because they put myth and symbol together, meaning if you pick that, you had to then pick either analogy or language games; and i think they know that if you picked myth and symbol and something else, you are in fact in that question analysisng three 'types' of RL.

I hope this post makes sense and helps, i'm not doing RL for the exam (although i have learnt it), but that's how i would answer it.
That does help thank you! I was asking because of the 'compare and contrast' past paper actually so that's ideal. Ok, I'll have to decide when I see the question then. Hopefully they'll have a list of bullet points with something like 'Discuss the contributions made by two of these types of religious language' so it's clearly defined.
0
reply
savvy100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 9 years ago
#93
(Original post by headbands,)
Okay now I'm starting to worry is this enough to know / revise?

- Religious Experience
- Ontological Argument
- Atheism
- Religious Language
- Virtue Ethics
- Natural Moral Law
- Kantian Deontology
?
i dont want to panic you but we got told they can mix religion and morality in with an ethical theory question...so if youre only doing 1 ethics its best to revise all ethical theory and religion and morality. Your philopsohy seems covered though!

EDIT: just checked my past papers in june 2011 they mixed religion and morality with NML in a part b question
0
reply
savvy100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 9 years ago
#94
Just checking is anyone doing two ethics questions? Im doing ethical language as my second, feels like im the only one!
0
reply
Sadsnail
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#95
Report 9 years ago
#95
(Original post by savvy100)
i dont want to panic you but we got told they can mix religion and morality in with an ethical theory question...so if youre only doing 1 ethics its best to revise all ethical theory and religion and morality. Your philopsohy seems covered though!

EDIT: just checked my past papers in june 2011 they mixed religion and morality with NML in a part b question
But there's 2 questions in that block and religion and morality won't be in both questions


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
reply
12lightf
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#96
(Original post by Sadsnail)
But there's 2 questions in that block and religion and morality won't be in both questions


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
As he said, if you only do revise one ethical theory, it's a good idea to do M&R too. If you do more than one, no need
0
reply
SCheng
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 9 years ago
#97
In regards to Ethical Theory my teacher advised us to revise all three (NML, Deontology, and Virtue) and know them all equally well , plus two other topics and you will be fine
0
reply
Sadsnail
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 9 years ago
#98
(Original post by 12lightf)
As he said, if you only do revise one ethical theory, it's a good idea to do M&R too. If you do more than one, no need
Huh?! 1 ethical theory as in nml OR deon OR virtue ethics?! :s


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
reply
savvy100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 9 years ago
#99
i got told to revise the three ethical theories as well as religion and morality - it gives you a choice between the two blocks if one of the questions is really horrid, all im going on is what my teacher's have said really - combinations of the theories and religion and morality can throw some people - i wouldnt want that to happen in the exam. In last years paper virtue ethics didnt come up at all? isnt it a bit risky just revising one ethical theory?
0
reply
12lightf
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#100
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#100
(Original post by savvy100)
i got told to revise the three ethical theories as well as religion and morality - it gives you a choice between the two blocks if one of the questions is really horrid, all im going on is what my teacher's have said really - combinations of the theories and religion and morality can throw some people - i wouldnt want that to happen in the exam. In last years paper virtue ethics didnt come up at all? isnt it a bit risky just revising one ethical theory?
Yeah, my bad really. Personally I think learning M&R is a waste of time. It's easier just to learn all 3 ethical theories. They're not actually hugely dissimilar, all three are relatively deontological theories that use reason a lot. Plus, questions don't change enormously in reality. Ethical Theory is really my back up, but I think the best approach is to learn all three theories to a greater or lesser extent.

A bit of speculation here is that NML is most likely to come up with M&R just because it is religious, whereas Virtue & Kant don't necessarily have to be. Utter speculation there tho.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (75)
37.5%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (21)
10.5%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (13)
6.5%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (50)
25%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (25)
12.5%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (16)
8%

Watched Threads

View All