The misattributed quotation in a written examination
In the fourth written examination, candidates answer: 'Does the soul survive death? Discuss with reference to Plato and Aristotle.' One candidate writes a strong essay distinguishing Plato's dualism from Aristotle's hylomorphism, but quotes 'the soul is the entelechy of a body that has life potentially' and attributes it to Plato. In the margin the candidate has written: 'I think this is Aristotle but I am not sure.' The quotation is used to support the claim that Plato sees the soul as the form of the body, which is the opposite of the candidate's overall argument. The rest of the essay is accurate and includes a clear counterargument. The grid penalises 'serious factual error' under knowledge (40%) and rewards 'accurate use of textual evidence' under support (20%). A colleague wants to cap the mark at 8/20 for the misattribution. Your provisional mark is 13/20.
1. Is the misattribution a 'serious factual error' in the sense of the grid? Distinguish the quotation error from the argumentative error.
Read the worked answer
The misattribution is a factual error, but whether it is 'serious' depends on what it does to the argument. The quotation is Aristotle's definition of the soul as entelechy, and the candidate uses it to support the claim that Plato sees the soul as the form of the body. That is doubly wrong: the quotation is not Plato's, and it expresses a hylomorphic view, not Platonic dualism. So the error is not a harmless slip of naming; it momentarily inverts the position the essay is defending. That said, the rest of the essay distinguishes Plato and Aristotle accurately. The grid's 'serious factual error' should cover errors that damage the central argument. Here the error is serious at the point of use but corrected by the surrounding argument. The margin note shows the candidate knew the attribution was uncertain, which is relevant to intent but not to the accuracy of the sentence.
2. Propose a final mark and justify how the margin note affects your judgement.
Read the worked answer
Award 12/20. Knowledge: 12/20-the essay demonstrates solid understanding of dualism and hylomorphism, but the central quotation is misattributed and misused. Support: 10/20-textual evidence is present but one key quotation is wrong. Argument: 14/20-the thesis is clear and the counterargument is handled. Weighted: knowledge 4.8 + argument 5.6 + support 2.0 = 12.4, rounded to 12. The margin note does not excuse the error, but it is evidence against deception; it should be noted in moderation. A cap at 8/20 would over-penalise because the essay's overall argument remains accurate. The candidate should not be rewarded for the note, but neither should the note be treated as an admission of a fatal flaw.
3. What feedback would you give to prevent the same error without discouraging the candidate's philosophical risk-taking?
Read the worked answer
Feedback: 'You correctly identify the quotation as Aristotelian in the margin, but in the essay you attribute it to Plato and use it to make Plato sound like Aristotle. That is the kind of error that costs marks because it reverses the position you are explaining. Next time, if you are unsure of an attribution, either verify it from the set text or paraphrase the idea and say "Aristotle argues that..." without quotation marks. Your risk-taking in contrasting dualism and hylomorphism is exactly right; keep that, but tie each quotation to the philosopher's own view. Check: does the quotation support the claim I am using it for, or does it support the opposite?' This preserves the candidate's philosophical ambition while making the standard clear.