As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. I did however predict one topic Q spot on last year (analogy) and two other topic areas on Plato and Cosmological (not quite the right wording of the questions though)– so go me!

We have to be prepared that the exam board could ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first-year exams (e.g. they asked a Q on Descartes in 2023 and a very similar question on Descartes appeared the year before in the first-year exam). The examiners might also repeat topics over multiple years, so just because it was asked last year does not mean the topic wont also appear this year as well (e.g. a question on Religious Experience has been asked in both 2023 and 2024). The examiners could also use the same wording (repeat the same questions), so going over my ppt on previously asked questions will help prepare you further (https://youtu.be/qUHXa_3rlhA).

With all this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I were going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

1. Soul, Mind and Body: ‘Aristotle presents the most comprehensive view of the soul.’ Or Critically assess the view that the mind can be fully explained by material interactions. Or “The mind-body distinction is a category error” Discuss. My reasoning behind this choice is that it was not on last year’s paper and there are a number of obvious gaps from the spec that haven’t been asked before.
2. Ontological: Critically assess the view that existence can be treated as a predicate. Or ‘The ontological argument does not justify belief in God.’ Discuss. This is a top runner for me. Ontological has not been asked since 2021! There are also a considerable number of questions the examiners have never asked. You could also get a question on Kant (only asked in the first year 2018) or Gaunilo (asked in the second year 2021 or in the first year 2024 –they like to ask similar questions from the first-year exam in the following second year exam). Also ‘predicate’ is a clear part of the spec that has not appeared in the first-year exam either.
3. Problem of Evil: ‘Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy gives some purpose to natural evil’ Discuss. Or ‘The need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ cannot justify the existence or extent of evils.’ Discuss. It must come up!!!! I’ve been waiting for this one for years. I think the examiners have forgotten that this is part of the spec. Poor John Hick. Is this going to be the year?
4. Nature of God: “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human freewill.” Discuss. Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss. A number of areas of NOG that have not been asked, so two obvious questions would be Swinburne and/or benevolence. There is going to be at least one question from the second-year topics and since all areas of Religious Language 20^th century have been asked (no obvious gaps) and Religious Language: Analogy was asked last year, it seems that this year NOG seems likely.

Alternative Q (I think these are unlikely but if the examiners are wanting easy question options, these are obvious gaps from the spec that have not been asked):

As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. The exam board also deliberately ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first or second year exams (even the exact same wording could be used) or they may ask questions on areas of the specification never asked before. For example, last year the examiner’s asked a question on Descartes and a very similar question on Descartes appeared the year before in the first year exam. With this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I was going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

1. Plato/ Aristotle: Evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Prime Mover is far clearer than Plato’s Form of the Good (or rationalism vs empiricism).​ My reasoning is because Plato has not been asked in three years, a compare question was asked in the first year exam last year and Aristotle wasn’t on last year. Examiner’s also like compare questions as they are more challenging.
2. Arguments for Existence of God (I doubt you will be asked two questions from this section):
   • Teleological: “The challenge of evolution far outweighs the evidence of a designer God.” Discuss.​ Area of the spec that has never been asked in the first or second year exam.
   • Cosmological: “The logical fallacies in Aquinas’ first three ways cannot be overcome.” Discuss. Or “Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are effective.” Discuss. ​No Cosmological question has been asked in the second year.
   • Ontological: Critically assess the view that existence can be treated as a predicate.​ Only one question has been asked on the Ontological argument in the second year exam (Gaunilo – 2021), also ‘predicate’ is a clear part of the spec that has not appeared in the first year exams either.
   • Teleological/ Cosmological/ Ontological: “An a posteriori argument is far more persuasive than  an a priori argument.” Discuss.​ Discussion point on the spec that has never been asked – would be a challenging question if they did.
3. Religious Language Apophatic (Analogy): “Aquinas’ analogical approach does not support effective expression of language about God.” Discuss​ Part of the spec that has not been asked and Religious Language hasn’t been on exam since 2021 (not to be confused with Religious Language 20th century which was on last year).
4. Nature of God: “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human free will.” Discuss Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss​ A number of areas of NOG that have not been asked, so two obvious questions would be Swinburne and/or benevolence. There is going to be at least one question from the second year topics.

If you are asked three Q from first year topics, other alternatives might be: John Hick (POE), Materialism/ critics of the concept of soul (Body, Mind, Soul) or psychological/ physiological / critics of RE (Religious experience)​. These are clear areas of the spec that have not been asked before.

I hope your revision continues to go really well! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Sunday 9th June at 6.00 on YouTube for any last minute exam support. Good luck and remember you have worked very hard for the last two years so this is your time to show off!!

*Note: I sometimes refer to the exams by the first and second year. This is because OCR still set a paper for students who wish to sit the exam in the first year of the course (formerly known as the AS year), however most colleges no longer do this. The second year refers to the full A level exam (sat by everyone who completes the course) covering all 32 units.

As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first or second year exams (even the exact same wording could be used) or they may ask questions on areas of the specification never asked before. With this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I was going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

1. Cosmological: “The logical fallacies in Aquinas’ first three ways cannot be overcome.” Discuss. Or “Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are effective.” Discuss​
2. Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy: ‘Critically assess the view that Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy gives some purpose to natural evil.’ Or “The existence of evils does not justify the need to create a ‘vale of soul-making.’ Discuss.​
3. Religious experience critics: “Religious experiences can be explained as merely a psychological effect.” Discuss. Or ‘Critically assess the view that religious experiences are the product of a physiological effect.’ ​
4. Religious Language Apophatic (Via Negativa): “The apophatic way enables effective understanding of theological discussion.” Discuss. Or Religious Language Verification: “Ayer’s verification principle presents a convincing approach to the understanding of religious language.” Discuss.​

Possibilities: