Help

[PhilosophyStudent123]

Hi Miss, I hope you’re well.

I have a couple of questions to ask:

Is an evaluative point at every paragraph necessary?
What paragraph structure to you best reocmmend
How detailed does A01 explanation need to be?
How do you reocmmend planning in the exam

[Aimee Horsley]

Is an evaluative point at every paragraph necessary? You get 24 marks for evaluation so it needs to be over half of your essay. You can either do full paragraphs of evaluation or integrate evaluation throughout. My advice is to add evaluation to every paragraph, as you should be only using description that is relevant to your line of argument/question and thus driven by evaluation/ argument anyway.

What paragraph structure to you best recommend? it totally depends on the question (e.g ethics application questions have a different structure) but generally 3-4 paragraphs works with a clear theme per paragraph – that links to the question – by theme I mean one area of the topic – outline the theme in 2-3 lines then evaluate it using names/ arguments for and against it.

How detailed does A01 explanation need to be? To score the full 16 marks it needs to show a depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding but does not have to cover everything you have learn in that topic (only what is relevant to the question). So extra details, wider reading, things beyond the usual are helpful for higher marks. the examiner’s have to know that you actually understand what it is you are talking about through the detail you use.

How do you recommend planning in the exam? Use the first few minutes (no more than 5) to write down line of argument and key points/ words you want to raise in your answer.

[PhilosophyStudent123]

Hi Ms Horlsey, thank you for this very thorough reply to my question.

My current teachers recommend this structure: 2 PACEs. Point, analysis, counter and evaluation. Each side has 3 pieces of evidence. I like your structure but I am not sure I have confidence in myself to consistently identify 3/4 themes. Like for example: “Assess Ayer’s verification principle”

Do you think essay plans like this are still good? Sometimes they get a bit too busy, and there might be a lot of concept-crowding, but I am not sure. Below are two plans

————————————————————–

Assess the view that God is not benevolent:

Paragraph one:

P- The Old Testament view

A-

Book of Job;

swinburne- overprotective parent;

petitionary worship and responding

C-

Boethius: a temporal view- meaningful engagement how?;

God is seen as capricious and impersonal (leviticus) inconsistent with his general attributes;

Anselm’s four dimensions- God is outside of time so events are anochronistic in his view

E-

Solved by Swinburne’s everlasting view

Aquinas- God’s omnipotence involves logically coherent powers: can still engage in sustained relations;

e-temporarily vs t-temporality

Paragraph two:

P- New Testament view

A-

God: agape- Jesus and sermon on the mount;

kenosis- “self-emptying”;

story of the bleeding woman

C-

Problem of evil: Mackie’s inconsistent triad;

Dysteleological suffering

E- Irenaean theodicy; epistemic distance and constantly adjusting the soul making requirements -> Kieersgaard analogy of slave and peasent girl

———————————————————————————————-

4* ‘Natural evil has no purpose.’ Discuss

Natural evil: the inflictions of harm by nature. Defined viscerally by Hume and Mill “nature’s daily performances” to torment. Animal suffering. This converges with the logical problem of evil- Mackie’s inconsistent triad. Has a purpose in soul-making and punishing human sin

P- Hick’s view of soul making

A- Irenean theodicy: God’s image to God’s likeness (as opposed to a vale of tears and suffering). Better in world where humans grow as opposed to pre-programmed

Hick: people choose God and there is an epistemic distance

Example of lung cancer

C-

Dysteleological evil and kamenev

The Brothers Kamenev

William Rowe- fawn dying in forest fire

DZ Phillips

E- Evaluative strengths: Kieirsgaard slave and peasant girl, Swinburne “Toy world” and evils in direct proportion

P- result of human sin

A- Augustine: “privation of Good”. Original sin because of Adam and Eve. Manichean upbringing

C- Pelagius; Jean Jacques Rousseau; unscientific and homunculus theory

E- “just yet inscrutable judgment of God”; GK Chesterson- empirically verifiable doctrine; shifts the blame

[Aimee Horsley]

I think your teacher’s structure works very well from the plans. I think the difference with my structure is that the themes are separated, whereas the one you follow merges different themes into the PACE structure which also works very well. Your paragraphs must be huge to cover all that information! All I would say is keep a strong line of argument throughout so your argument is clear from the start of the paragraph and this will help you avoid over concept crowding (does that make sense?)

[Author]

Posts