European Baccalaureate Philosophy key terms

A sustained written argument on a philosophical question, developed through thesis, reasoned defence and engagement with objections, rather than a summary of what other thinkers have said.

The opening move of a written paper in which the candidate shows why the question is genuinely difficult, ambiguous or contested, instead of assuming its meaning is obvious.

The ordered presentation of premises leading to a conclusion, with each inferential step made explicit so that a reader can test whether the conclusion really follows.

The two structural parts of an argument: the statements offered as reasons, and the statement those reasons are meant to support. Indicators such as 'therefore' and 'because' mark them.

A property of arguments whereby the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. Validity concerns form, not the actual truth of the premises.

A property of arguments that are both valid and have true premises. A sound argument therefore guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

The method of clarifying what a term means by stating the conditions under which it correctly applies, and testing those conditions against borderline or counter-examples.

A condition is necessary when nothing lacking it counts as the thing in question; it is sufficient when anything meeting it does. Together they are meant to define a concept.

An imagined or actual case that satisfies a proposed definition yet is not an instance of the concept, or is an instance yet fails the definition, thereby refuting it.

A controlled hypothetical scenario used to isolate a variable and test a philosophical claim, such as a case designed to show that personal identity is not bodily continuity.

A scenario engineered to elicit a strong pre-theoretical judgement, whose evidential weight must then be assessed rather than simply accepted.

The method of adjusting general principles and particular judgements against one another until they cohere, used to justify an ethical or epistemological position.

The dialectical core of a philosophy essay: stating the strongest available criticism of one's thesis in its own terms, then answering it or conceding its force with reasons.

Reconstructing an opposing position in its most defensible form before criticising it, as opposed to attacking a weakened version of it.

A fallacy in which an opponent's view is distorted into a weaker claim that is easier to refute, so the refutation does not touch the real position.

A recurrent pattern of reasoning that appears persuasive but whose premises do not support its conclusion, for example affirming the consequent or begging the question.

A written exercise interpreting a short philosophical passage, identifying its claim, its argumentative structure and its assumptions, and evaluating it rather than merely paraphrasing it.

The close-reading exercise in which a passage is unpacked sentence by sentence, its vocabulary and movement explained, and its philosophical stakes drawn out.

A text written by the philosopher under study, as distinct from a textbook summary or a later commentator's reconstruction of the position.

A brief outline prepared before writing, fixing the thesis, the sequence of parts and the evidence for each, so the finished paper has a visible architecture.

The oral examination in which the candidate presents and then defends a philosophical position or prepared question against the examiners' follow-up questions.

The panel of examiners conducting an oral examination, typically more than one assessor, who may question the candidate and confer on the awarded mark.

Examiners' probing questions after the candidate's initial presentation, designed to test depth of understanding, consistency and the ability to think under pressure.

A candidate's legitimate move in an oral to ask the examiner to restate or narrow a question, showing control rather than ignorance when used sparingly.

A short prepared spoken exposition with a clear opening claim, ordered supporting reasons and a conclusion, delivered within a strict time limit.

The discipline of allocating speaking time across introduction, argument and conclusion in an oral or written examination so that no required part is left unfinished.

Attending closely to the exact wording of an examiner's question so that the answer addresses what was asked rather than a rehearsed neighbouring topic.

The precise technical lexicon of the discipline, such as 'a priori', 'substance' or 'categorical', whose correct use signals and enables accurate argument.

The condition of an expression that admits more than one reading. In philosophy it must be diagnosed and resolved, since arguments often turn on an unnoticed shift of sense.

Evaluation carried out during the course to give feedback and shape learning, contributing to the A marks rather than serving as a final judgement of attainment.

Evaluation that measures attainment at the end of a period of study and yields a grade, of which the Pre-Baccalaureate examinations are the school-level instance.

The component of the preliminary mark derived from continuous formative assessment during the final school years, rewarding sustained engagement rather than a single performance.

The component of the preliminary mark derived from the summative Pre-Baccalaureate examinations, providing a standardised measure of attainment before the final Baccalaureate.

The combined school-awarded result, built from A and B marks, that is carried into the candidate's final European Baccalaureate grade in the subject.

The school-set summative examination taken before the final Baccalaureate, modelled on the final format and generating the B marks for the subject.

The process by which examiners' marks are checked against common standards, ensuring that assessment across classes and schools is comparable and defensible.

The published or internal grid of criteria showing how marks are allocated, for example for problematisation, argument, use of sources and written expression.

The stated dimensions on which a piece of work is judged, such as relevance to the question, conceptual precision, quality of argument and clarity of language.