To anybody doing OCR Philosophy of Religion at AS, and sitting the exam this summer, what on earth do you plan on doing if confronted with questions like "Explain Mill's challenge to the Teleological argument"?
This kind of question is not all over the past papers, but it has certainly appeared a couple of times. It seems to me that such topics as Mill's challenges to the T. argument, irreducible complexity and (possibly the worst) what Aristotle meant by the final cause, are nothing like substantial enough topics to gain 25 marks by. I am not expressing a lack of knowledge of these things, merely that I cannot fathom how one would extend them into a proper 25 mark question. Contrast these kind of questions with explaining Freud's moral argument, the Analogy of the Cave, and the science and religion relationships and you see that there is an unthinkably large discrepancy between the substance of the topics that come up in the exam.
Am I simply not approaching these questions broadly enough? I would love to know if this is the case; perhaps it is that you are meant to subtly go off-topic a little and, if we take the first example, explain the Teleological argument as well as Mill's challenge to it. But I have always been told to stay focused on the question in a 25-marker, and so seeing questions like these pop up on past papers is very, very frustrating.