This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]

Reply 40

10

Anyone know if they can ask you for the trademark argument / cosmological on paper one since it’s not named on the spec? Just says arguments for the existence of God

Reply 41

Saad06

10

Original post

by krenweeks77

Anyone know if they can ask you for the trademark argument / cosmological on paper one since it’s not named on the spec? Just says arguments for the existence of God

I think they can because the spec says Descartes’ arguments for god, and those three arguments appear in his meditations

Reply 42

Joe312

17

Original post

by krenweeks77

Anyone know if they can ask you for the trademark argument / cosmological on paper one since it’s not named on the spec? Just says arguments for the existence of God

Technically they could only ask you about 'Descartes' argument(s) for God' - they can't specify a particular one in epistemology.

Reply 43

krenweeks77

10

Also does anyone have an essay plan on epiphenomenalism?

Reply 44

DaviDhvsdijd

4

Anyone got any idea of what applied ethics issue could be most likely for the 25?

Reply 45

Cckccc

3

In a 5/12 marker can it ask what a response to an issue is? Because it says on the spec you have to know responses to issues but I thought that was only for 25 markers?

Reply 46

racracrac

7

Original post

by Cckccc

In a 5/12 marker can it ask what a response to an issue is? Because it says on the spec you have to know responses to issues but I thought that was only for 25 markers?

i think its probably unlikely based on past questions but cannot day for sure

Reply 47

krenweeks77

10

Original post

by Cckccc

In a 5/12 marker can it ask what a response to an issue is? Because it says on the spec you have to know responses to issues but I thought that was only for 25 markers?

Good rule of thumb is if it’s not on the spec they won’t ask it

Reply 48

racracrac

7

Original post

by krenweeks77

Also does anyone have an essay plan on epiphenomenalism?

i dont have one made but off the top of my head my points would be like:

•

definitions & avoids the interaction problem

•

problem of introspective self knowledge

•

^ possible response that a reliabilist definition of knowledge avoids this problem

•

problem that qualia provides no evolutionary benefit

•

^ possible response that this explanation if evolution is too simple/ideal. qualia is not disadvantageous or advantageous, so no reason that it would be selected against

•

last argument could be either about the phenomenology of mental life or the problem of other minds (knowing that other people actually have qualia & that they arent just philosophical zombies)

theres probably other people here who have better plans & arguments but!!!! i tried!!!! and hope it helps a little 🙂

Reply 49

Joe312

17

Original post

by Cckccc

In a 5/12 marker can it ask what a response to an issue is? Because it says on the spec you have to know responses to issues but I thought that was only for 25 markers?

For 5/12 markers - where the spec says responses you have to know them - where it doesn't say responses, you don't have to know them.

See the revision checklist here:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/philosophy/aqa-philosophy-revision-checklist/

Reply 50

ksrwani

2

hi guys how would we structure a 25 marker on applied ethics as an example, "how convincing is the utilitarian account on stealing" i know all the content necessary for util i just wouldn't know how to structure it you know?? someone help me out would be appreciated hahaha

Reply 51

unfailingtruck

10

Original post

by ksrwani

hi guys how would we structure a 25 marker on applied ethics as an example, "how convincing is the utilitarian account on stealing" i know all the content necessary for util i just wouldn't know how to structure it you know?? someone help me out would be appreciated hahaha

too narrow of a question to be asked imo

Reply 52

Joe312

17

Original post

by unfailingtruck

too narrow of a question to be asked imo

Seems less likely since it's narrow. More likely would be something like:

Is simulated killing wrong? [25]
Is it ever morally acceptable to eat animals? [25]
Could stealing be morally justified? [25]
“Lying is good” – assess this view [25]

But it is possible they could ask about the application for a specific normative (or even meta-ethical!) theory, to a specific applied ethics issue.

I've written advice about how to approach these questions here:

https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/model-essay-plan-for-applied-ethics/

Reply 53

Saad06

10

Original post

by Cckccc

In a 5/12 marker can it ask what a response to an issue is? Because it says on the spec you have to know responses to issues but I thought that was only for 25 markers?

I’m pretty sure they won’t ask specific questions for points where it says ‘and responses to these issues’ or ‘and issues arising from these responses’ etc. on the spec. They’re more for the essay (that’s according to a video on the aqa website at least). But they can ask for responses if they’re named like lockes response to indirect realism leading to scepticism.

Reply 54

Saad06

10

Original post

by Joe312

Seems less likely since it's narrow. More likely would be something like:
Is simulated killing wrong? [25]
Is it ever morally acceptable to eat animals? [25]
Could stealing be morally justified? [25]
“Lying is good” – assess this view [25]
But it is possible they could ask about the application for a specific normative (or even meta-ethical!) theory, to a specific applied ethics issue.
I've written advice about how to approach these questions here:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/model-essay-plan-for-applied-ethics/

If you were only to talk about one theory for these broad questions, how would you conclude it? Like if I said that utilitarianism didn’t adequately address the issue of stealing that wouldn’t mean that stealing is then morally permissible. Would I have to talk about multiple?

Reply 55

Joe312

17

Original post

by Saad06

I’m pretty sure they won’t ask specific questions for points where it says ‘and responses to these issues’ or ‘and issues arising from these responses’ etc. on the spec. They’re more for the essay (that’s according to a video on the aqa website at least). But they can ask for responses if they’re named like lockes response to indirect realism leading to scepticism.

That video is wrong!

See the spec here
Direct realism
The immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
Issues including:

•

the argument from illusion

•

the argument from perceptual variation

•

the argument from hallucination

•

the time-lag argument

and responses to these issues.

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/philosophy/a-level/philosophy-7172/subject-content/epistemology

And then see this question from the AQA specimin paper:

Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from illusion. [5 marks]
https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/philosophy/AQA-71721-SQP.PDF

Reply 56

olistudyvia

9

I know this is probably silly but can someone quickly help, for a conclusion on indirect realism, is it ok to not advocate for any of them in the end? Just say I don't find indirect realism convincing because XYZ (probably scepticism etc) and not mention my opinion on the other two? Or do you have to at least rule them out?

Reply 57

ksrwani

2

joe livingstone u r awesome thank u for hanging around here and helping if i knew you id offer to buy you a pint

Reply 58

hi12345679

8

im genuinely terrified for tomorrow, had exams today and yesterday so I'm going into my hardest paper yet with no energy too😭

Reply 59

Joe312

17

Original post

by olistudyvia

I know this is probably silly but can someone quickly help, for a conclusion on indirect realism, is it ok to not advocate for any of them in the end? Just say I don't find indirect realism convincing because XYZ (probably scepticism etc) and not mention my opinion on the other two? Or do you have to at least rule them out?

If the question is on indirect realism, then yes you can just conclude it is not convincing or not successful or not true (whatever strength of conclusion your arguments have justified) and leave it at that - no need to say another theory is better.

AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 (7582/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated