QCAA Philosophy & Reason cheat sheet

Extended-response structure: a defensible thesis, then premises with explicit inferential links, then objection and reply, then a conclusion that restates what the argument has established.

Valid vs sound: validity concerns only the form (conclusion cannot be false when premises are true); soundness adds that all premises are actually true.

Deductive forms to name explicitly: modus ponens (P→Q, P, therefore Q), modus tollens (P→Q, not-Q, therefore not-P), disjunctive syllogism (P or Q, not-P, therefore Q).

Formal fallacies to avoid and to name in critique: affirming the consequent (P→Q, Q, therefore P) and denying the antecedent (P→Q, not-P, therefore not-Q).

Inductive strength is graded, not binary: assess sample size, representativeness, and whether counter-evidence is addressed; strong induction can still have a false conclusion.

When the stimulus is a scenario or quote, quote only short phrases and attribute reasoning moves ('the author infers X from Y') rather than summarising the whole passage.

Counterexample test: a universal claim ('all A are B') is refuted by one clear case of an A that is not B; a statistical claim is not refuted by a single case.

Mark allocation logic: analysis of the argument's structure and evaluation (strengths, weaknesses, alternatives) carry more weight than description or restatement of content.

Time discipline: allocate roughly one-quarter of writing time to planning the argument map so the response has a visible chain of reasoning rather than a list of points.

Analytical essay thesis must be contestable and precise: state the claim and the criterion by which it will be judged (e.g. coherence, explanatory power, consistency with evidence).

Standard form reconstruction: number each premise (P1, P2...) and the conclusion (C), supply unstated premises only when the argument is clearly relying on them, and flag any such addition.

Argument mapping conventions: linked premises support a conclusion jointly (both needed); convergent premises support it independently (each sufficient on its own).

Evaluating premises: distinguish empirical premises (testable by evidence), conceptual premises (tested by consistency and meaning), and normative premises (tested by principles and implications).

Objection–reply–assessment cycle: state the strongest objection, give the reply available to the author, then adjudicate which is more plausible and why.

Thought experiments are used to test a principle by intuition; assess them by asking whether the case is relevantly analogous and whether the intuition is widely shared.

Distinguish explaining a view from justifying it: exposition sets out what a philosopher claims; analysis evaluates whether the reasons support it.

Fallacy diagnosis must include the mechanism, not just the label: show which premise fails to support the conclusion and why the inference breaks.

Referencing discipline: cite primary text positions accurately and keep direct quotation minimal; paraphrased reconstruction with accurate attribution is preferred.

Unit 4 essays typically require sustained engagement with competing positions: represent each position charitably before criticising it (principle of charity).

Conceptual analysis method: identify necessary and sufficient conditions for a concept, then test with borderline and counterexample cases to expose over- or under-inclusion.

Distinguish descriptive claims (what is the case) from normative claims (what ought to be the case); an argument that derives an ought from an is alone commits the is–ought gap.

Evaluative criteria to apply explicitly: internal consistency, logical validity, explanatory scope, simplicity, and fit with considered intuitions.

When two theories are empirically equivalent, adjudicate on theoretical virtues (simplicity, coherence, explanatory power) and state which virtue you weight and why.

Address the strongest opposing view, not a straw version; a rebuttal only counts if it engages the opponent's best reason.

Structure the body around argumentative moves (claim, support, objection, response, verdict), not around summarising one thinker after another.

Use precise philosophical vocabulary (a priori/a posteriori, necessary/contingent, sufficient/necessary) and define contested terms at first use.

Conclusion should state a qualified position: what the analysis establishes, what remains unresolved, and what evidence or argument would change the verdict.