VCE Philosophy common mistakes
VCE Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to 'explain' or 'evaluate', the candidate writes a one-sentence summary of a philosopher's position and stops, giving no reasons, no premises, or no worked example, so the response names a view rather than arguing for or against it.
Candidates revise by memorising labels ('Descartes is a rationalist', 'Mill is a utilitarian') and treat naming the position as the task, because recall feels like understanding and the command word is skimmed rather than decoded.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the command word and convert it into a required output list. For 'explain', the list is: state the view, give the reasoning (premises), give one example or illustration. For 'evaluate', add: one strength, one objection, a reply to the objection, and a judgement. Tick each element off in the answer. Practise by rewriting three past answers as bullet lists first, then converting the bullets to prose.
The candidate describes a thought experiment (the experience machine, the trolley, the cave, the evil demon) as a story and never states what intuition the case is meant to trigger, what principle it is meant to test, or what conclusion the philosopher draws from it.
Thought experiments are the most memorable and narratable content in the course, so revision notes become plot summaries. Students often do not realise the case is an argument form with a premise (our response to the case) and a conclusion (a claim about value, knowledge or mind).
What to do instead
For every thought experiment in the study design, write a three-line card: (1) the setup in one line, (2) the intuitive response the philosopher expects, (3) the philosophical conclusion that response is meant to support, plus the target theory it is designed to refute. In essays, always include a sentence of the form 'This case is intended to show that ... because our response to it is ...'.
The candidate attributes an argument to the wrong philosopher or merges two positions into one, for example crediting the 'veil of ignorance' to Kant, calling Descartes an empiricist, or treating Singer's and Mill's accounts of happiness as identical.
Content is revised thematically ('free will', 'justice') rather than by thinker, and similar-sounding vocabulary across thinkers encourages blending. Under time pressure, the most recently revised name gets attached to any argument that resembles it.
What to do instead
Build a one-page attribution grid with philosophers as rows and standard columns: core claim, key argument, key objection, key term, one distinctive example. Test yourself by covering the columns and reciting from the name alone, then reversing the drill (given the argument, name the thinker). In exams, write the thinker's name in the margin next to each paragraph before drafting so mismatches are visible.
The candidate uses technical terms loosely or interchangeably, for example treating 'valid' and 'true' as synonyms, calling a sound argument 'strong', using 'a priori' to mean 'obvious', or describing any consistent view as 'logical'.
These terms are learned as vocabulary items rather than as tools with definitions and tests, and everyday English usage pulls in the wrong direction ('that's a valid point'). Students rarely practise applying the terms to unfamiliar arguments.
What to do instead
Keep a definitions sheet with a test for each term: valid = conclusion cannot be false if premises are true; sound = valid plus all premises true; a priori = knowable without experience. Then drill on short invented arguments, labelling each as valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and explaining the label in one sentence. In essays, define a technical term the first time it appears.
When reconstructing an argument, the candidate lists premises that do not actually support the conclusion, leaves out a hidden premise the argument needs, or includes rhetorical flourishes and examples as if they were premises.
Students copy sentences from the stimulus in order rather than asking what the conclusion requires. They also confuse illustration with justification, because examples appear next to claims in the text and look like support.
What to do instead
Use a fixed procedure: identify and write the conclusion first, then for each candidate premise ask 'if this were false, would the conclusion still follow?' Keep only lines that pass. Then ask 'what is assumed but unsaid?' and add the missing premise explicitly. Mark examples with an 'e.g.' tag and exclude them from the numbered premise list.
The candidate's evaluation of an argument attacks a caricature: they refute an exaggerated or simplified version of the position, or they object to a conclusion the philosopher never drew, rather than engaging the strongest form of the argument as stated.
It is easier and faster to defeat a weak version, and students often have a stock objection memorised against a simplified summary from their notes rather than against the actual argument in the question. Time pressure rewards the first objection that comes to mind.
What to do instead
Before objecting, write the target argument in premise-conclusion form and check the objection contradicts one of those specific premises. Use the phrase 'the strongest version of this view would say ...' and restate the position charitably in one sentence before criticising it. If the objection does not touch a named premise, discard it and find one that does.
The candidate offers an evaluation consisting only of unsupported opinion ('I think this is wrong because everyone has free will', 'this seems right to me'), with no reason, no principle, and no link back to the argument under discussion.
Students conflate 'evaluate' with 'give my view' and have not been taught that an evaluation is itself an argument needing a premise. Personal conviction feels like sufficient justification, and no counter-consideration is expected in their prior writing experience.
What to do instead
Use an evaluation template with three slots: the criterion (what would make this argument succeed or fail), the application (does this argument meet the criterion, and where exactly), and the verdict (how far, and with what qualification). Ban the phrases 'I think' and 'I feel' from drafts and replace each with 'This is because ...'. Aim for a verdict with a degree, e.g. 'the objection weakens but does not defeat the view, because ...'.
The candidate answers only the first half of a two-part question, for example explaining a distinction but omitting the application, or comparing two theories but never reaching the required judgement about which is preferable.
Under timed conditions candidates write until time runs out on the part they find easiest, and multi-part stems are read once at speed. The second part is often the harder evaluative element, so it is the one dropped.
What to do instead
Spend the first thirty seconds converting the question into a numbered checklist and allocate a rough time or word budget per part. Write the checklist at the top of the answer page and tick parts as completed. In the final two minutes, reread the question stem and confirm every part has at least one dedicated sentence.
The candidate writes about the philosopher's historical context, biography, or the general importance of the issue instead of addressing the philosophical problem, producing paragraphs that could be deleted without weakening the answer.
Introductory material feels safe and easy to generate, and students believe length signals quality. They may also be reproducing background from textbooks because it is the best-remembered content.
What to do instead
Apply a deletion test to every paragraph: if removing it leaves the argument intact, cut it. Open with a direct answer to the question in one sentence, then move immediately to reasons. Restrict background to a single clause where genuinely needed, and use the saved time for an objection and reply, which earn marks.
The candidate treats a philosopher's conclusion as established fact and builds later paragraphs on it without defending it, so the essay asserts rather than argues, and objections raised earlier are never resolved or weighed.
Once a position is understood, it feels obviously correct, so its premises go unstated. Students also treat objections as items to list rather than as challenges requiring a response, because they have practised describing objections but not adjudicating them.
What to do instead
For each position, write its two or three load-bearing premises and, for each, the standard objection and the best reply. In essays, after presenting an objection, always add a reply paragraph beginning 'A defender could respond that ...' and then state which side is stronger and why. Never leave an objection unanswered in the final paragraph.