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…
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.