Cameroon GCE A-Level Philosophy common mistakes
Cameroon GCE A-Level Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In logic questions, the candidate evaluates an argument's conclusion as true or false and then declares the argument valid or invalid based on that truth value, instead of checking whether the premises guarantee the conclusion.
Everyday reasoning conflates truth and validity; candidates are used to judging claims by whether they agree with the conclusion, and under exam pressure they revert to this habit rather than applying the definition of validity.
What to do instead
Before answering any validity question, rewrite the argument in premise-conclusion form and ask: 'Is there any possible situation where all premises are true and the conclusion false?' If yes, invalid; if no, valid. Practise with arguments whose premises and conclusion are obviously false but whose form is valid (e.g., 'All cats are fish; all fish are birds; therefore all cats are birds') to break the truth-value habit.
When asked to 'discuss' or 'evaluate' a philosophical claim, the candidate writes a one-sided essay that only lists supporting points and never considers objections or counterarguments.
Candidates often memorise standard arguments for a position and assume that reproducing them is enough; they may also fear that presenting objections will weaken their answer, not realising that evaluation requires weighing both sides.
What to do instead
Use a simple dialectical structure for every 'discuss' essay: (1) state the claim and its importance; (2) present the strongest argument for it; (3) present the strongest objection or counterexample; (4) assess whether the objection succeeds or can be rebutted; (5) draw a reasoned conclusion. Practise by taking any claim and writing a one-paragraph objection to it, then a one-paragraph reply.
In epistemology, the candidate defines knowledge as 'justified true belief' and then, when presented with a Gettier-style case, either denies that the belief is justified or denies that it is true, rather than recognising that all three conditions are met but knowledge is still absent.
The standard tripartite analysis is taught as a definition to be memorised, and candidates are not trained to apply it to tricky counterexamples; they therefore try to protect the definition by reinterpreting the case instead of evaluating it.
What to do instead
Learn to analyse Gettier cases step by step: identify the belief, check truth, check justification, then ask whether the justification is appropriately connected to the truth. Practise with two or three classic-style cases (e.g., the stopped clock, the job interview) and write out why each condition is satisfied yet knowledge is lacking. Then consider possible responses (adding a fourth condition, reliabilism, virtue epistemology) and their strengths.
In metaphysics, the candidate answers a question about personal identity by simply asserting 'the soul' or 'the body' or 'memory' without explaining the criterion, addressing objections, or distinguishing numerical from qualitative identity.
Textbook summaries present competing theories as labels, and candidates reproduce the label without the argumentative machinery; they also conflate the question 'What makes me the same person over time?' with 'What makes me the person I am?'.
What to do instead
For any personal identity question, first clarify numerical identity (being one and the same entity over time) versus qualitative identity (similarity). Then present at least two criteria (e.g., bodily continuity, psychological continuity, soul) and for each give the core argument, a standard objection (e.g., the duplication problem for memory, the gradual replacement problem for body), and a possible reply. Conclude with a defended position.
In ethics, the candidate evaluates an action by asking only 'What would be the consequences?' or only 'What rule does it violate?', ignoring the possibility that the other approach might yield a different verdict, and never considers meta-ethical questions about the meaning of moral terms.
Candidates often learn one normative theory as the 'correct' one and apply it mechanically; they may not realise that exam questions frequently expect comparison and that meta-ethics is a distinct area.
What to do instead
For every applied ethics question, explicitly apply both a consequentialist and a deontological analysis (and, where relevant, virtue ethics), then compare their verdicts and explain the divergence. Separately, revise the distinction between normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics, and be ready to explain cognitivism vs non-cognitivism, realism vs anti-realism, with examples.
In history of philosophy, the candidate attributes a famous doctrine to the wrong philosopher (e.g., 'Hume said we ought to maximise utility', 'Plato was an empiricist') or presents a philosopher's view without any historical context or textual basis.
Revision notes often group ideas by theme rather than by thinker, and candidates memorise slogans without anchoring them to specific texts or periods; exam pressure increases misattribution.
What to do instead
Build a timeline-and-thinker grid: for each major figure (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant), list three core doctrines, one key text, and one standard objection. When writing, always name the philosopher and, where possible, the dialogue or work (e.g., 'Plato argues in the Phaedo that...'). Practise by writing short 'who said what' self-tests.
In African philosophy, the candidate treats 'African philosophy' as a single homogeneous worldview, quoting 'African communalism' or 'Ubuntu' as if it were one doctrine, and ignores the debate between ethnophilosophy and professional philosophy.
Introductory materials often present African philosophy through broad cultural generalisations, and candidates lack exposure to individual African philosophers and their distinct arguments; they may also assume that 'African' implies unanimity.
What to do instead
Study at least three named African philosophers (e.g., Placide Tempels, Alexis Kagame, Kwame Gyekye, Ifeanyi Menkiti, Paulin Hountondji, Kwasi Wiredu) and their specific positions on communalism, personhood, and the nature of African philosophy. When answering, distinguish ethnophilosophy from critical/professional philosophy, and always attribute claims to a named thinker or tradition rather than to 'Africans' in general.
In philosophy of mind, the candidate asserts that 'the mind is the brain' or 'mental states are just brain states' without engaging with identity theory's problems (multiple realisability, subjectivity) and without distinguishing dualism, materialism, and functionalism.
Simplified science communication makes physicalism seem obvious, and candidates confuse a metaphysical thesis with a scientific finding; they also lack practice in mapping the logical space of positions.
What to do instead
Draw a taxonomy of positions: substance dualism, property dualism, behaviourism, identity theory, functionalism, eliminativism. For each, write one defining claim, one supporting argument, and one major objection. In essays, explicitly locate your view within this taxonomy and address at least one rival position with its strongest objection.
In social and political philosophy, the candidate describes a political system (e.g., 'socialism', 'liberalism') instead of analysing the normative concepts of justice, liberty, equality, and authority, and fails to connect the discussion to a specific theorist or argument.
Candidates often rely on everyday political labels and newspaper-level descriptions, lacking training in normative political theory; they may also think that describing institutions counts as philosophical analysis.
What to do instead
For each topic (e.g., distributive justice), learn one major theory (Rawls's justice as fairness, Nozick's entitlement, Marx's critique, or a communitarian alternative) with its core concepts and one standard objection. In essays, define terms precisely (e.g., negative vs positive liberty), state the theorist's argument, and evaluate it rather than merely describing political arrangements.
Across all domains, the candidate writes long, unstructured essays that narrate everything they know about a topic, with no clear thesis, no signposting, and no explicit conclusion, so that the examiner cannot identify the argument.
Candidates equate length with quality and have not practised planning under time pressure; they may also lack models of concise philosophical writing.
What to do instead
Adopt a five-minute planning routine: write a one-sentence thesis, list three main points with one objection each, and a conclusion. Then write with explicit signposts ('First...', 'However...', 'Therefore...'). Practise timed essays (e.g., 40 minutes) and self-assess against a checklist: clear thesis, defined terms, arguments for and against, use of examples, explicit conclusion. Aim for quality of argument, not quantity of words.