Cameroon GCE A-Level Religious Studies common mistakes
Cameroon GCE A-Level Religious Studies · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a general essay on the topic (e.g. 'the problem of evil') without quoting or analysing the set text named in the question, or naming only the author and not the passage.
Candidates memorise textbook summaries and generic arguments, then treat the scripture question as a free essay; they have not practised locating the passage in its book, chapter and context, so they substitute opinion for exegesis.
What to do instead
For every set text, prepare a one-page card: author, date, occasion, audience, literary form, three key verses quoted from memory, and the doctrinal point each verse makes. In the exam, underline the exact wording of the question, then open the answer with two or three sentences placing the passage in its context before making any argument. Aim for at least two direct quotations per scripture answer, each followed by explanation of the words used.
Describing what a scholar or tradition says and stopping there, with no evaluation, so the answer never addresses 'assess', 'critically examine' or 'to what extent'.
Many candidates learn content as lists to reproduce and are never taught the difference between exposition and argument; under time pressure, listing feels safer than judging, so they run out of time before reaching an evaluative conclusion.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed paragraph shape for evaluative questions: state the claim, give the supporting reason or evidence, give the strongest objection, then weigh both and state a position. Practise by writing only the weighing sentences for ten past questions in 15 minutes. Reserve the last five minutes of any essay for an explicit judgement that answers the exact command word, and make sure every paragraph contains at least one sentence beginning 'However' or 'This is convincing because'.
Confusing the classic arguments for God's existence, or presenting them without their standard objections, e.g. treating the ontological argument as a version of design, or the cosmological argument as depending on the appearance of order.
The arguments are learned as labels in a revision list rather than as structures; candidates cannot state the premises in order, so they merge them and then cannot generate the matching criticism.
What to do instead
For each argument write the premises and conclusion as a numbered syllogism in your own words, then write the two or three standard objections beside the specific premise each attacks. Learn one named critic per argument (for example Hume or Kant on design, Russell or Mackie on cosmological reasoning, Gaunilo or Kant on the ontological argument) and one named defender. In the exam, state the argument in premise form before criticising it; this alone secures structure marks.
Answering the problem of evil only with 'suffering exists, so God does not', without distinguishing moral from natural evil or engaging a theodicy such as free will, soul-making or a best-possible-world defence.
The problem feels intuitively obvious, so candidates think assertion is argument; they also conflate the logical and evidential forms and therefore cannot see what a theodicy is meant to defeat.
What to do instead
Prepare a two-column table: logical problem versus evidential problem, with the exact claim each makes and the kind of response each requires. Learn one theodicy in detail (free will, soul-making, or a greater-good defence) with its named proponent and its main weakness. In the exam, define moral and natural evil with an example of each, then show which form of the problem your chosen theodicy answers and which it leaves open.
Treating religious experience as automatically verifying belief, or as automatically illusory, without applying tests such as ineffability, noetic quality, coherence with tradition, or the principle of credulity and its critics.
Candidates reduce the topic to personal testimony and 'it felt real to me', missing the philosophical machinery; they also ignore the distinction between the experience and the interpretation of the experience.
What to do instead
Learn William James's four marks of mystical experience and the distinction between experience and interpretation, then prepare two named critics (for example Freud on projection, or the argument from conflicting religious experiences) and one defender (for example Swinburne's principle of credulity with its limits). In the exam, describe one specific reported experience in two or three sentences, apply the tests to it, and conclude on whether it can support belief.
Defining a miracle as simply 'something wonderful' or 'a natural event we cannot yet explain', then arguing about science without addressing the concept of divine action or the evidential value of testimony.
Everyday usage of the word 'miracle' dominates, and candidates have not been taught Hume's definition or the difference between violation of natural law, a coincidence, and a sign.
What to do instead
Memorise two competing definitions, for example Aquinas (an event beyond the powers of nature, done by God for a purpose) and Hume (a violation of a law of nature), and note that they disagree about what counts. Learn Hume's two arguments about testimony and the standard replies (for example that testimony is normally reliable, or that the argument begs the question). Structure answers as: definition, Hume's case, replies, judgement on whether miracles can rationally be believed.
Confusing ethical theories with each other or with religious commands, e.g. calling utilitarianism 'the greatest good for me', describing Kant as a rule-utilitarian, or reducing all Christian ethics to 'love God and neighbour' with no theory of moral judgement.
Theories are memorised as slogans without their decision procedure, so candidates cannot apply them to a case; and religious ethics is often taught devotionally rather than as a set of competing models.
What to do instead
For each theory write its decision procedure in one line (for example act only on maxims you could will as universal law; maximise overall welfare; imitate the character of a virtuous person). Practise applying at least two theories to one applied issue such as euthanasia or capital punishment, showing where they give different answers and why. For religious ethics, compare divine command theory, natural law and situation ethics as distinct models, each with a named proponent and a named objection.
Treating conscience as a simple inner voice, or free will as 'doing what you want', without distinguishing the competing accounts or linking them to moral responsibility and punishment.
Candidates rely on everyday language and cannot see why the debates matter, so the answers stay descriptive and never connect to the ethical or theological consequences the question is testing.
What to do instead
Prepare three positions on conscience (for example Aquinas's reason applying moral principles, Freud's superego, and a intuitionist view) and three on free will (libertarian, compatibilist, determinist), each with one strength and one weakness. Then write a short paragraph explaining why each position either preserves or undermines blame, praise and punishment. In the exam, always finish by stating what follows for moral responsibility.
Describing Christianity, Islam or African traditional religion in isolation, or using one tradition's categories to describe another, e.g. calling African traditional religion 'animism' or treating its divinities as gods in the monotheistic sense.
Traditions are revised separately and often from a single textbook, so candidates never build a comparative vocabulary; unexamined colonial-era labels then stand in for accurate description.
What to do instead
Build a comparison grid with rows for concept of God, revelation, scripture, worship, ethics, life after death and community, and columns for the three traditions. Fill it with the tradition's own terms, defined in one line each, and note one genuine similarity and one real difference per row. Avoid labels the traditions reject; where a term is contested, say so and explain why. Practise comparative questions by naming both traditions in every paragraph.
Answering religion-and-society questions with unsupported generalisation, e.g. 'science and religion have always been at war' or 'politics and religion must be separate', with no named case, thinker or distinction.
These topics invite opinion and candidates have little factual grounding, so they fill space with slogans absorbed from media rather than with the models and cases the syllabus expects.
What to do instead
Learn a small set of named positions and cases: for science, conflict, independence, dialogue and integration models with one example each; for politics, one thinker on secularism and one on religious political engagement; for pluralism, exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism with a named proponent; for gender, one tradition-specific debate about ordination or leadership. In the exam, anchor each paragraph to a named position or case, then evaluate it.