The misread question in a written examination
During the second of the five written examinations in Philosophy, candidates choose one essay from four. The chosen question reads: 'To what extent does utilitarianism provide a satisfactory basis for resolving conflicts between individual rights and the common good?' One candidate writes 950 words arguing that utilitarianism is unsatisfactory because it ignores intentions and moral desert. The essay is tightly structured, accurately explains Bentham and Mill, and uses Kant and Ross to support its conclusion. It never discusses a concrete conflict between a right and the common good, and it never returns to the phrase 'to what extent'. The marking grid allocates 40% to knowledge, 40% to argument, and 20% to use of examples and textual support. A colleague proposes 14/20 because the philosophy is accurate and the prose is strong. Your provisional mark is 10/20. The department requires a written justification for any mark below 12.
1. Identify the main assessment problem and explain why accuracy alone cannot justify 14/20.
Read the worked answer
The problem is relevance, not accuracy. The question has two parts: utilitarianism as a basis for resolving conflicts, and the extent of its satisfactoriness. The candidate answers a different question-whether utilitarianism can account for intentions-and never tests it against a rights/common-good conflict. Under the grid, knowledge can be high, but argument cannot be high because the argument does not address the prompt; examples are absent. Accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. 14/20 would reward accurate exposition while ignoring the threshold requirement that the essay answer the question set. The colleague's proposal effectively treats the question as optional, which would make the grid's 40% argument criterion unenforceable.
2. Using the grid, propose a defensible mark and explain how you would justify it to the colleague.
Read the worked answer
A defensible mark is 10/20. Knowledge: 16/20 (accurate Bentham/Mill, Kant/Ross) × 40% = 6.4. Argument: 8/20 (coherent but off-question; no assessment of 'to what extent') × 40% = 3.2. Examples/support: 3/20 (no concrete rights/common-good conflict; philosophers used as names, not textual support) × 20% = 0.6. Total ≈ 10.2, rounded to 10. To justify to the colleague: show that the essay's central thesis ('utilitarianism ignores intentions') is not the set question; the grid's argument criterion requires relevance, not just coherence. A mark of 14 would imply the argument criterion is met, which it is not. If the colleague argues that the candidate's knowledge deserves more, agree but note the weighting already rewards it.
3. Write the feedback you would give the candidate, naming one concrete revision that would raise the mark.
Read the worked answer
You explain accurately why utilitarianism has difficulty with intentions, but the question asks how far utilitarianism resolves conflicts between individual rights and the common good. Your essay never stages such a conflict, so the reader cannot see what work your Kantian objection does. Revision: take one concrete case-for example, a majority favouring a policy that burdens a minority-and show how a utilitarian calculation might resolve it, then show where the rights-based objection bites. Then return to 'to what extent': is the failure local or structural? Also cite one short passage from Mill rather than only naming him. This would raise the argument and support criteria without requiring more content.