Bulgaria DZI Philosophy common mistakes
Bulgaria DZI Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to analyse a short philosophical passage, the candidate summarises what the text says in everyday language and stops there, without identifying the thesis, the premises offered in its support, or the argumentative move being made.
Candidates treat 'text analysis' as a comprehension exercise carried over from language exams, so they paraphrase content and never reconstruct the logical skeleton; they also lack a routine for separating claim from support under time pressure.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-pass routine for every passage: (1) write the author's central claim in one sentence beginning 'The author argues that...'; (2) list each supporting premise as a numbered statement; (3) name the inference type (deductive, inductive, analogical, reductio) and any unstated assumption. Practise on five short passages per week and check whether your premise list could stand alone as an argument.
The candidate answers a question about a named position (e.g. Kantian ethics, Cartesian dualism, Plato's theory of Forms) by free-associating from the name, attributing to it claims that belong to a neighbouring thinker or to a later critic.
Revision is done by memorising labels and slogans rather than the actual theses and their argumentative motivation, and thinkers who are usually taught in opposition (Descartes/Hume, Kant/Mill, Plato/Aristotle) blur together because they were studied as pairs.
What to do instead
For each major figure, build a one-page card with four fields: the problem they were answering, their core thesis in their own terms, the argument that supports it, and the standard objection. When answering, first state the problem, then the thesis, then the argument. Cross-check by asking 'what would this thinker say about their usual opponent's position?'
In ontology questions the candidate uses 'being', 'existence', 'substance', 'essence' and 'reality' interchangeably, producing an answer that slides between senses of the terms without noticing.
These words are near-synonyms in ordinary Bulgarian and English usage, and candidates transfer everyday usage into a domain where the distinctions carry the whole argument; textbooks introduce the distinctions early and candidates assume they have absorbed them.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend two minutes defining each key term in a sentence and note which sense the question targets. Learn the contrast pairs explicitly (existence vs essence, substance vs attribute, being-there vs being-such) with one example each. In the answer, use the technical term consistently and flag any shift of sense with a phrase such as 'in the sense of essence, not existence'.
On epistemology questions the candidate defines knowledge as 'true belief' or 'justified true belief' and treats the definition as uncontroversial, ignoring the Gettier-type problem and the distinction between justification, truth and certainty.
The tripartite definition is the first thing taught and often the only thing retained; candidates do not realise the exam expects awareness of its difficulties, and they conflate 'I am justified' with 'I am certain' or with 'it is true'.
What to do instead
Memorise the three conditions separately with a counterexample for each failure mode (true but unjustified, justified but false, justified true but accidentally so). Be able to state one Gettier-style case in two sentences and explain which condition it pressures. Practise distinguishing 'justified', 'true' and 'certain' in your own written sentences.
In logic and methodology answers the candidate names a fallacy or method (e.g. affirming the consequent, falsification, induction) but cannot show how it works, and mislabels valid forms as fallacies or vice versa.
Fallacy names are learned as a vocabulary list rather than as patterns of inference, so recognition is superficial; candidates also confuse the question 'is this argument valid?' with 'is this conclusion true?'
What to do instead
For each fallacy, write the abstract form with placeholders (If P then Q; Q; therefore P) plus one original example, and test yourself by form rather than by name. For methodology, be able to state in one sentence what falsification demands of a hypothesis and one concrete objection to it. Always separate validity from truth in your written answer.
The candidate writes a personal opinion essay in response to ethics or political philosophy questions, asserting that something is right, just or fair without reconstructing the normative theory or the argument that would support the judgement.
These domains feel like matters of values where everyone is entitled to an opinion, so candidates substitute conviction for argument; they also fear that taking a theoretical stance will be marked wrong, and hedge with unsupported generalities.
What to do instead
Structure the answer as: state the question, present two competing theoretical answers with their strongest reasons, then argue for one and address the best objection to it. Use explicit normative vocabulary (consequentialist, deontological, virtue-based; contractarian, libertarian, egalitarian) and tie each claim to a named argument. Personal judgement is acceptable only as the conclusion of a stated argument.
When a question spans domains, the candidate answers only the part matching the domain they revised most, leaving the second half of the prompt untouched, or produces two disconnected halves with no link between them.
Prompts such as 'freedom and determinism' or 'justice and the good life' sit between domains, and candidates plan their answer around a single textbook chapter; under time pressure they write what is fluent rather than what was asked.
What to do instead
Underline every distinct task word in the prompt before writing and allocate a sentence budget to each. Draft a one-line bridge that names the connection between the domains (e.g. how a claim about human nature constrains a claim about moral responsibility) and place it at the transition. Check at the end that each underlined task has an explicit paragraph.
On aesthetics and philosophy of religion the candidate reduces the topic to psychology or sociology, explaining beauty as 'what pleases the viewer' or religious belief as 'what people were taught', without engaging the philosophical question of whether the judgement or belief can be justified.
These domains are the least drilled in most courses, so candidates fall back on everyday explanatory frameworks; the descriptive question 'why do people hold this?' is easier to answer than the normative question 'is it warranted?' and gets substituted for it.
What to do instead
Learn the central positions in each domain as answers to a justification question: for aesthetics, objectivism, subjectivism and the claim that aesthetic judgement is universal yet non-conceptual; for religion, the classical arguments, the problem of evil and faith-and-reason positions. In every answer, separate the descriptive claim from the normative one and address the normative one explicitly.
The candidate writes history-of-philosophy answers as chronological narratives ('then came Descartes, then came Hume') rather than as reconstructions of problems and arguments, so the answer lists names and dates but never explains what a thinker argued or why it mattered.
Survey courses reward chronological coverage, and timelines are easier to memorise than arguments; candidates reproduce the structure of their lecture notes instead of the structure of the question.
What to do instead
Reorganise revision by problem rather than by century: for each problem (the source of knowledge, the nature of substance, the foundation of morality), list the positions taken and the argument each position answers. In the exam, open with the problem, present positions as responses to it, and use dates only as labels, never as content.
The candidate runs out of time because they write long introductions restating the question and general background, then compress or omit the argumentative core and the conclusion.
Candidates believe length signals effort and use the introduction as a warm-up while anxiety settles; without a plan they discover their main argument only halfway through the answer.
What to do instead
Spend the first three to five minutes writing a skeleton: thesis, three or four premise headings, anticipated objection, conclusion. Keep the introduction to two sentences that state the thesis directly. Write to the skeleton, and reserve the final minutes for a conclusion that states what was established, not a summary of what was mentioned.