Revising for the AQA A Level Philosophy exam
There are lots of memory tricks for learning information for exams. This section isn’t about those. Revision isn’t just about learning information, but also about learning how to use that information well in the exam.
In revising for the exam, you need to bear in mind the structure of the exam and the Assessment Objectives (see the handout ‘The AQA A Level Philosophy Exam’). First, the five questions in each section are all compulsory, and cover different areas of the syllabus, so you’ll need to revise the whole syllabus. Second, thinking about the 25-mark questions, structure your revision around the central questions or topics that the syllabus covers. In Epistemology, these are knowledge, perception, innate knowledge, rational intuition and deduction, and scepticism. In Moral Philosophy, they are the three normative theories (utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Aristotelian virtue theory), the four applied issues (stealing, eating animals, simulated killing, lying), and the debates in metaethics between cognitivist and non-cognitivist theories (covering naturalism, intuitionism, error theory, emotivism, prescriptivism). In Metaphysics of God, they are the concept of God, the arguments for and against God’s existence (ontological, design, cosmological, problem of evil), and religious language. In Metaphysics of Mind, they are the six main theories about the mind and body (substance dualism, property dualism, philosophical behaviourism, type-identity theory, eliminative materialism and functionalism), supplemented by the concepts of consciousness/qualia, intentionality and physicalism.
AO1 tests your understanding of central concepts and claims in these areas and how arguments are constructed for or against claims. We can break this down further. For the short-answer questions,
R1: Learn the concepts and definitions that are central to the philosophical theories studied.
For the 5- and 12-mark questions,
R2: Learn who said what. What are the most important claims they made? What arguments did they use to defend their claims?
However, AO1 tests your understanding, not just your knowledge, of these claims and arguments. So you will need to show how the arguments are supposed to work. What are the premises and conclusion, and how is the conclusion supposed to follow from the premises?
R3: Spend time identifying the main claims and arguments involved in each issue you have studied, putting arguments in your own words, stating clearly what the conclusion is and what the premises are, and constructing argument maps. Explain how the reasoning is supposed to work.
This is difficult, because philosophical ideas and arguments are abstract and complicated, so it can be hard to know just what they mean. But the examiners also want precision. So it is worth thinking further about whatever you find hardest to understand.
R4: Revise those concepts, claims and arguments that are hard to understand. Try to identify the differences between different interpretations. Which interpretation is best and why?
The exam questions do not explicitly ask for examples, but examples can prove very helpful when explaining a claim, objection or theory. If you are going to use examples, you want them to be good – clear, relevant, and supportive of the point you want to make. You can either remember good examples you have read, or create your own. In either case, you should know precisely what point the example is making. An irrelevant example demonstrates that you don’t really know what you are talking about.
R5: Prepare examples beforehand, rather than try to invent them in the exam. They must be short and they must make the right point – so try them out on your friends and teachers first.
What about AO2? How do you revise evaluation? 25-mark questions test you on how well you build an argument, deal with objections, and come to a supported conclusion. The best way to prepare for it is to spend time thinking about the arguments and issues. For example, you might know and even understand Hume’s arguments against rationalism, but you may never have stopped to really work out whether you think they are any good. Get involved!
So think about the different kinds of objection that can be raised to claims and arguments. Relate a particular argument to other arguments and viewpoints on the issue, and reflect on whether the objections to an argument undermine it. Work through the arguments so that you understand for yourself the pros and cons of each viewpoint.
R6: Think reflectively about the arguments and issues. Practise arguing for and against a particular view. Think about the place and importance of the arguments for the issue as a whole.
Your answer needs to work as an argument itself, a coherent piece of reasoning. This means that what you write should also take the form of premises and conclusion. The premises will be your judgements as you go along, in response to this view or that objection. These judgements need to add up to a conclusion. You shouldn’t end your essay with a totally different point of view than your evaluations in the essay support. In other words, do the judgements you reach reflect the arguments you have presented?
R7: Think about how your judgements on the various arguments you have studied add up. Do they lead to one conclusion, one point of view being right? Or do you think arguments for and against one position are closely balanced?
These first seven revision points relate to taking in and understanding information. There are two more points that will help you organise the information, learn it better, and prepare you for answering exam questions. This is especially important in relation to the 25-mark questions.
25-mark questions are open-ended, and so you will need to choose to discuss what is relevant to the question being asked. Knowing what is relevant is a special kind of knowledge, which involves thinking carefully about what you know about the theories in relation to the question asked. A good way of organising your information is to create answer outlines or web-diagrams for particular issues.
For example, you could create an outline or web-diagram for mind-brain identity theory. Think about the essential points, and organise them, perhaps like this:
1. What does the claim that mental states are ontologically reducible to brain states mean?
2. Who argued that mental states are reducible to brain states? What are the main arguments?
3. Who argued against this claim, in favour of non-reductivism? What are the most important and powerful arguments?
4. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the claim that mental states are ontologically reducible to brain states?
5. What is your conclusion on the issue, and why?
With an outline structured like this, you should be able to answer any question that comes up on the mind–brain type identity theory.
R8: Create structured outlines or web-diagrams for particular issues. Try to cover all the main points.
Finally, once you’ve organised your notes into an outline or web-diagram, time yourself writing exam answers. Start by using your outline, relying on your memory to fill in the details. Then practise by memorising the outline as well, and doing it as though it were an actual exam. You might be surprised at how quickly the time goes by. You’ll find that you need to be very focused – but this is what the examiners are looking for, answers that are thoughtful but to the point.
R9: Practise writing timed answers. Use your notes at first, but then practise without them.