European Baccalaureate Philosophy common mistakes
European Baccalaureate Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the written paper, the candidate answers the prescribed question with a general essay on the topic (for example, writing everything known about freedom) instead of addressing the exact formulation asked, so the script never engages the specific problem posed.
Under time pressure candidates fall back on memorised essay plans or broad theme summaries prepared during revision, and they read the question once at speed without isolating its key terms, quantifiers, and demand (discuss, evaluate, analyse).
What to do instead
Before writing, spend three to four minutes annotating the question: underline the key concept, circle any restriction ('to what extent', 'only', 'in the context of'), and write a one-sentence reformulation of the problem in your own words at the top of the plan. Check every paragraph against that sentence; delete any paragraph that would survive unchanged if the question were different.
The candidate's written essay is a sequence of summaries of philosophers' positions with no argument of their own, ending in a descriptive conclusion that restates the content rather than answering the question.
Exposition feels safe and is easy to revise; candidates believe accurate reporting earns credit and are unsure how to construct an original line of reasoning, so they substitute coverage for argument.
What to do instead
Build the plan around a thesis and two or three objections, not around authors: for each philosopher ask 'what claim of mine does this support or challenge?'. Use the formula claim, reason, objection, response in each body paragraph, and make the conclusion state the qualified answer reached plus what remains unresolved.
In the written commentary on an unseen text or extract, the candidate paraphrases the passage paragraph by paragraph and adds a general opinion at the end, without identifying the author's thesis, argument structure, or the conceptual problem at stake.
Candidates treat the commentary as a comprehension exercise and lack a routine for analysing argumentative prose: they do not separate conclusion from premises, or detect implicit assumptions and rhetorical framing.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-pass routine: first pass marks the conclusion and premises in the margin; second pass labels the argument type (deductive, analogical, reductio, conceptual analysis) and flags undefined terms; third pass drafts the commentary as reconstruction, then evaluation of one or two load-bearing premises. Practise on short extracts weekly under timed conditions.
The candidate quotes philosophers loosely or invents attributions, paraphrasing a famous phrase as a direct quotation or assigning a doctrine to the wrong author, and gives no textual or argumentative support for the interpretation offered.
Revision relies on secondary summaries and lecture notes rather than primary texts, and candidates reproduce striking formulations from memory without verifying them, believing a famous-sounding quotation strengthens the essay.
What to do instead
Keep a personal quotation log with exact wording, source, and one line on what work the quotation does in your argument. In the exam, paraphrase when unsure of exact wording and never present a paraphrase in quotation marks; cite the work when naming a doctrine, and explain the reasoning behind the position rather than resting on the name.
Time and structure collapse in the written paper: the candidate spends most of the allotted time on the first part or on a long introduction, produces an unbalanced script with a missing or one-line conclusion, and leaves planning and proofreading to chance.
Candidates have rarely written a full paper under real timing, underestimate how long handwriting a structured argument takes, and treat the introduction as a place to display general culture.
What to do instead
Rehearse with strict timed papers using a fixed budget: roughly ten per cent planning, fifteen per cent introduction, sixty per cent body, ten per cent conclusion, five per cent proofreading. Cap the introduction at a short paragraph that defines terms and states the thesis, and practise stopping mid-thought to write the conclusion before returning.
In the oral examination the candidate delivers a rehearsed monologue for the whole preparation period, then cannot respond when examiners probe a premise, define a term, or ask for a counter-argument, and answers objections by repeating the original statement more loudly.
Candidates prepare oral topics as written essays memorised verbatim, never practise being interrupted or questioned, and perceive the oral as a recitation test rather than a dialogue about their reasoning.
What to do instead
Prepare in bullet-point argument maps, never full scripts, and rehearse with a peer or teacher who interrupts with 'why do you think that?', 'what does that term mean?' and 'what would someone who disagrees say?'. Train the move of restating the question, giving a one-sentence answer, then justifying it, and practise conceding a point and revising your position aloud.
The candidate answers only the broad question and ignores the follow-up or subsidiary question in the oral, or fails to use the preparation time to structure a response, launching into free association from the first minute.
Nervousness and the pressure of speaking live push candidates to talk continuously; they do not write a plan during preparation, and they mishear a two-part question as a single prompt.
What to do instead
In preparation, write the question verbatim, split it into its parts, and draft a numbered plan with a thesis, three supporting moves, one objection, and key terms defined. Open the oral by restating the question and announcing the structure ('I will argue X, first considering Y, then Z'), which also buys thinking time and signals control.
The candidate uses technical vocabulary imprecisely in both written and oral work, conflating terms such as validity and truth, a priori and innate, scepticism and relativism, or ethical and legal, and never defines the central concept of the question.
Terms are learned as labels attached to named philosophers rather than as concepts with distinct functions, and candidates imitate academic register without checking meaning because precision is not explicitly rewarded in their practice.
What to do instead
Maintain a concept glossary organised by contrasts (valid versus sound, analytic versus synthetic, descriptive versus normative), each with a definition, an example, and a common misuse. In every essay and oral, devote two or three sentences to defining the key term operationally before arguing, and audit drafts for undefined abstractions.
The candidate's A mark portfolio is thin or uneven: homework and in-class assessments are done inconsistently, one weak area is never revisited, and the candidate cannot explain the feedback received or show improvement across the year.
Formative assessment feels low-stakes compared with the final examination, so effort is concentrated before summative tests; feedback is read for the grade only and never acted on, and candidates do not track which skills were weak.
What to do instead
Keep a feedback log recording, for each piece returned, the skill targeted, the teacher's comment, and one concrete action for the next piece. Volunteer for oral practice and rewrite at least one assessed essay per term using the feedback; ask the teacher explicitly which criteria carry weight in the A mark so effort goes where it counts.
The candidate treats the Pre-Baccalaureate examinations as a formality, revises only for the final written paper, and repeats in the B examination the same structural weaknesses already flagged, so the summative mark confirms rather than corrects a known pattern.
Candidates assume the preliminary mark is dominated by the final examination, misjudge how the B results feed into the overall profile, and do not connect the feedback from the pre-Baccalaureate scripts to their revision plan.
What to do instead
Treat the Pre-Baccalaureate examinations as a full dress rehearsal: revise all domains, sit them under real conditions, then analyse the returned scripts against the assessment criteria and write a remediation plan listing the two or three highest-impact changes. Review that plan before every subsequent assessment and confirm with the teacher how A and B marks combine.