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):

• Plato/Aristotle: Evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Prime Mover is far clearer than Plato’s Form of the Good (asked in the first year 2023 – see past Q video for wording). Or a comparison on reason vs empiricism. Or Aristotle on his own such as ‘Critically discuss Aristotle’s understanding of reality’ (copied from the first year 2018 exam) Examiners like compare questions as they are more challenging. Aristotle has also not been asked in the second year since 2022 but there are no obvious gaps, probably a repeat Q if he does appear on his own.
• 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.
• 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 to control the description and keep it evaluative.
• Religious Experience: “Religious experiences can be explained as a psychological effect.” Discuss. Or “Religious experiences can be explained as a product of a physiological effect not God.” Discuss. I doubt this very much because that would mean Religious Experience has appeared in the last three exams (as it has already been asked in 2023 and 2024) but just in case, this is a massive part of the spec that has never featured on the exam.
• Religious Language: Critically discuss the view that the apophatic way enables effective understanding of theological discussion. (via negativa) I doubt this one either but it is the only part of Religious Language to never been asked in the exam. Also the examiners like to sometimes ask challenging questions, so by using the term ‘apophatic way’ this might catch a few students out if you are not prepared.

Good luck and remember you have worked extremely 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.

*Important Update* – in the AS exam they have asked ‘To what extent can materialism be said to be a full explanation of consciousness?’ So I got the right question just the wrong year. I doubt they will ask another materialism question in the second year. I think mind, body, soul is still a possibility – just not that Q. (The other questions were: Critically assess Paley’s teleological argument. ‘William James does not give any helpful insights into the nature and influence of religious experience.’ Discuss)