QCAA Philosophy & Reason common mistakes
QCAA Philosophy & Reason · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the IA1 extended response, the candidate writes a descriptive summary of the stimulus or of the philosophical position, listing what a thinker said without ever stating a thesis of their own.
Under time pressure candidates default to retelling content they have memorised, and because the stimulus is unfamiliar they treat 'explain it' as the task rather than 'argue about it'. The response reads as safe and full, so the weakness is not obvious to the candidate.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a single sentence of the form 'This response argues that X because Y'. Open with that claim, and make every subsequent paragraph begin with a reason that supports or qualifies it. If a paragraph only reports a view, convert it so it either supports the thesis or is explicitly rejected.
The candidate presents only their own side of a contested issue and never states the strongest opposing position or a serious objection.
Candidates equate philosophical writing with winning a debate, and they fear that describing an objection will weaken their case or waste limited exam time.
What to do instead
Build in a mandatory 'objection' paragraph: state the opposing view in its strongest form, in its own terms, then respond. Practise the steelman move in timed conditions so the paragraph takes five minutes rather than fifteen.
In the IA1, the candidate ignores a key element of the unseen stimulus (for example a distinction or a counterexample embedded in it) and argues from general knowledge instead.
Nervous candidates skim the stimulus for a familiar keyword, then reproduce prepared material on that topic, missing the specific problem the stimulus raises.
What to do instead
Spend the first three to four minutes annotating the stimulus: underline the central claim, circle any distinction or example, and write a one-line paraphrase of the question it poses. Explicitly quote or refer to the stimulus at least twice in the response so the marker can see the engagement.
In the IA2 analytical essay, the candidate analyses a text or argument without ever identifying the precise conclusion and the premises offered in support of it.
Candidates discuss themes and ideas at a general level because reconstructing an argument into premise-conclusion form feels mechanical, and they are unsure which sentences are load-bearing.
What to do instead
Draft an explicit argument map before writing: number the premises, state the conclusion, and mark any hidden premise. Use that map as the essay's skeleton, and include a short reconstruction paragraph so the reader can see exactly what is being assessed.
The candidate labels an argument 'weak' or 'invalid' without naming the specific inferential gap or fallacy, and without showing how the conclusion could be false while the premises are true.
Students learn fallacy names as vocabulary but not as diagnostic tools, so evaluation becomes a verdict rather than an argument about the link between premises and conclusion.
What to do instead
For each argument, write the sentence 'Even if all the premises were true, the conclusion might still be false because...' and complete it. Name the gap in plain language first, then attach any technical label. Test with a concrete counterexample before asserting invalidity.
The candidate treats a description of a philosopher's position as an evaluation of it, so the essay reports what a thinker argued but never assesses whether the reasoning succeeds.
Exposition is easier and feels authoritative, and candidates believe demonstrating knowledge of the source is what earns marks.
What to do instead
Apply a rule of one evaluative sentence for every two expository sentences. Phrase evaluation as a question about the reasoning: does the premise survive counterexample, is the inference licensed, does the conclusion overreach the evidence? Then answer it.
The candidate imports a conclusion from a different philosopher or tradition without showing that the premises transfer, producing an essay that juxtaposes thinkers rather than arguing.
Candidates revise by thinker and try to display breadth by adding a second or third name, without establishing a logical connection between their claims.
What to do instead
For every thinker introduced, write one sentence stating exactly what they contribute to the argument being built: a premise, an objection, a distinction, or a reply. Delete any thinker who cannot be assigned one of these roles.
In the IA4 analytical essay, the candidate argues about a broad issue (for example 'free will' or 'justice') rather than addressing the specific claim in the set question, so the essay could have been written without the question.
Prepared content is topic-shaped rather than question-shaped, and under exam pressure candidates unload the material they have rehearsed.
What to do instead
Unpack the question into its components: the key concept, the scope qualifier, and the stance being asked about. Write a thesis that could only answer this question, and check every paragraph against the question wording before moving on.
The candidate uses technical terminology (valid, sound, a priori, contingent, meta-ethical) loosely or incorrectly, undermining otherwise reasonable reasoning.
Terms are learned by gloss rather than by use, and candidates deploy them to signal sophistication without checking whether the conditions for their application are met.
What to do instead
Maintain a personal glossary with one correct example and one incorrect example for each term, and in drafting flag every technical term, asking whether the example in the essay actually satisfies its definition. Prefer plain language when the technical term adds nothing.
The candidate structures the essay as a sequence of summaries with no overall argumentative arc, so the conclusion simply restates the introduction or introduces a new idea.
Paragraphs are planned one at a time rather than as a chain, and the conclusion is treated as a formality rather than the payoff of the reasoning.
What to do instead
Write a one-line plan showing how each paragraph advances the thesis (premise, objection, reply, refinement) and check that the final paragraph answers the question posed in the introduction, stating what has been established and what remains contested.