SACE Stage 2 Philosophy common mistakes
SACE Stage 2 Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
The candidate answers an essay question on, say, free will by summarising what compatibilists and libertarians say, then ends with a one-sentence personal opinion, without ever building a sustained argument that supports a determinate conclusion.
Expository habits carried over from other subjects feel safe: describing a debate seems to demonstrate knowledge, and committing to a position risks being judged wrong. Under time pressure, description is also faster than constructing premises and inferences.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis and two or three supporting premises on the planning page, then allocate roughly one body paragraph per premise. Each paragraph should state a claim, give a reason, and answer an anticipated objection. Reserve the final paragraph for showing how the premises jointly entail the thesis, not for introducing a brand-new opinion.
When presenting a philosopher's argument, the candidate writes 'Kant argues that lying is always wrong' and moves on, without stating the premises, the inference, or the principle that licenses the move from premises to conclusion.
Candidates often treat named positions as conclusions to be reported rather than as arguments with inferential structure. They have memorised verdicts rather than reconstructions, so the logical skeleton is missing from their notes.
What to do instead
In revision notes, record every major position in premise-conclusion form (P1, P2, therefore C) and label the inference type (deductive, inductive, abductive, inference to the best explanation). In the exam, reconstruct the argument explicitly before evaluating it, so the examiner can see exactly what is being assessed.
The candidate evaluates a theory by asserting that its implications are 'counterintuitive' or 'unacceptable' without explaining whose intuitions, why those intuitions should carry evidential weight, or whether a plausible revision of the theory could accommodate them.
Intuition-talk is a convenient shorthand that feels like philosophical evaluation, and candidates have often absorbed it from secondary summaries without learning what makes an appeal to intuition legitimate or vulnerable.
What to do instead
Convert every intuition claim into an explicit argument: state the case, the judgement it elicits, the general principle the judgement relies on, and then test that principle against other cases. If the principle yields results the candidate rejects elsewhere, that is a genuine objection; if not, the intuition is doing no work.
The candidate treats a thought experiment (a brain in a vat, a trolley scenario, a ship rebuilt plank by plank) as straightforward evidence, concluding 'so the theory is false' or 'so the theory is true' merely because the scenario was described.
Thought experiments are memorable and easy to narrate, so they get used as rhetorical trump cards. Candidates rarely ask what the scenario is supposed to isolate, whether it is coherent, or whether the intuition it generates is reliable.
What to do instead
For each thought experiment, articulate the target conclusion, the principle it tests, and the intuition it is meant to elicit. Then ask: is the scenario described consistently; does the intuition depend on irrelevant framing; and would a rival theory predict the same intuition? Only then decide what evidential weight it bears.
The candidate uses technical terms such as 'valid', 'sound', 'a priori', 'empirical', 'necessary', 'subjective' and 'relativism' interchangeably or incorrectly, for instance calling an argument 'invalid' when the premises are false but the inference is fine.
These terms appear frequently in readings and sound authoritative, so candidates adopt them without checking their precise definitions. Confusion between validity (form) and truth (content) is especially common because everyday speech uses 'valid' to mean 'acceptable'.
What to do instead
Build a glossary with a one-line definition and a contrasting example for each term. In the exam, before writing 'valid' or 'sound', silently check: validity concerns the inference only; soundness requires all premises true and the inference valid. Apply the same discipline to a priori/a posteriori (how a claim is known) versus necessary/contingent (whether it could be otherwise).
The candidate offers a definition of a contested concept such as knowledge, justice, art or personhood, then uses it throughout as though it were neutral, without noticing that the definition already settles the substantive question at issue.
Definitions feel like safe preliminaries, and candidates want a firm footing before arguing. They do not realise that stipulating a definition can beg the question by building the conclusion into the starting point.
What to do instead
Test each definition against a rival: does it exclude cases the opponent reasonably counts as instances, and does it do so by fiat? Where a concept is essentially contested, present two competing analyses, show what turns on the choice, and argue for one rather than presupposing it. Flag explicitly when a definition is stipulative.
In ethics answers, the candidate moves straight from 'most people disapprove of X' or 'X is illegal' to 'X is morally wrong', treating descriptive facts about attitudes or laws as if they entailed normative conclusions.
Moral reasoning in everyday life often proceeds this way, and the gap between is and ought is easy to overlook when the descriptive premise is uncontroversial. Candidates may also be conflating moral relativism with tolerance.
What to do instead
Whenever a descriptive premise appears, ask what additional normative premise would be needed to reach the conclusion and whether that premise is defensible. If it is not stated, either supply and defend it or revise the conclusion. Practise labelling premises as descriptive or normative before evaluating the argument.
The candidate writes a one-sided answer: objections to the favoured position are stated weakly or in strawman form, and no reply is offered, so the essay never engages with the strongest version of the opposing case.
Candidates fear that a strong objection will undermine their thesis, and constructing a steelman takes more effort than dismissing a caricature. Time pressure encourages the easiest target.
What to do instead
Deliberately formulate the objection in its most charitable form, using the principle of charity, then respond: deny a premise, show the inference fails, or concede and qualify the thesis. A concession followed by a refined position scores better than an unqualified claim defended against a weak opponent.
The candidate answers a question about justification by describing causes or origins: explaining how a belief was formed, or which psychological or social factors produce it, and treating that as an answer to whether the belief is justified or true.
Causal explanations are abundant in the material and feel explanatory, and the genetic fallacy is easy to commit because origin and warrant are often discussed in the same passage.
What to do instead
Separate the question 'how did this belief arise?' from 'what reasons support it?'. After any causal claim, ask explicitly whether it bears on truth or justification, and if it does, state the bridging principle. Where origins are irrelevant, say so and move to the evidential question.
The candidate runs out of time because they spend most of the allocation on lengthy exposition and leave no space for evaluation, or they misallocate between short-answer and extended-response sections and leave an essay unfinished.
Exposition feels productive and low-risk, so it expands to fill available time. Candidates also underestimate how long structured evaluation takes and do not practise under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Rehearse with timed past-paper-style questions, budgeting roughly one third of the time for exposition and two thirds for argument and evaluation. In the exam, write the conclusion of the essay plan first, keep exposition to a tight paragraph per position, and check the clock at the midpoint of each section to decide what to cut.