I85PREP
⌘ K
European Baccalaureate Philosophy study materials
European Baccalaureate Philosophy study resources

European Baccalaureate Philosophy practice questions

One question at a time. Build your European Baccalaureate Philosophy understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Written examinations (five written examinations)

In the European Baccalaureate written Philosophy examination, candidates are typically asked to write an extended essay in response to a set question. Which activity best characterises the highest-scoring approach to such a question?

  1. Listing the main positions on the issue and declaring that each is equally valid
  2. Describing personal feelings and anecdotes about the issue without reference to concepts
  3. Summarising the views of as many canonical philosophers as possible in chronological order
  4. Constructing a sustained argument that defines key terms, weighs objections, and reaches a defended conclusion Correct answer.

Explanation

The written Philosophy paper rewards philosophical argument rather than mere coverage: examiners look for conceptual clarification, reasoned defence of a thesis, and serious engagement with counter-arguments leading to a justified conclusion. Chronological surveys or personal testimony do not demonstrate the analytical competence the essay is testing.

Question 2Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate opens an essay with a paragraph defining 'freedom' before using the term. Why does this move strengthen a European Baccalaureate Philosophy essay?

  1. It displays the candidate's vocabulary knowledge for its own sake
  2. It delays the argument so the essay reaches the required length
  3. It shows that the candidate has read a dictionary rather than a primary text
  4. It fixes the sense of a contested term so later claims are not equivocal Correct answer.

Explanation

Terms such as 'freedom', 'justice' or 'knowledge' carry multiple senses, and an argument that slides between them commits the fault of equivocation. Defining the operative sense in advance makes the subsequent reasoning assessable and prevents the essay from trading on ambiguity.

Question 3Written examinations (five written examinations)

In a written Philosophy essay, a candidate presents a strong objection to her own thesis and then answers it. What is the principal reason examiners reward this structure?

  1. It removes the need to state a conclusion at the end of the essay
  2. It proves that the candidate is neutral between all positions on the question
  3. It guarantees the essay will not be accused of plagiarism
  4. It demonstrates that the candidate can anticipate and rebut the strongest challenge to her position Correct answer.

Explanation

Engaging with the strongest available objection, rather than a weak straw man, shows dialectical competence: the candidate understands the opposition and can defend her thesis against it. This strengthens the argument instead of undermining commitment to it.

Question 4Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate writes: 'Since every event has a cause, my decision to study was caused; therefore I was not free.' Which hidden premise does this argument require to reach its conclusion?

  1. Events in the mind differ in kind from events in nature
  2. Studying is generally a worthwhile activity
  3. Being caused is incompatible with being free Correct answer.
  4. Every cause is itself an uncaused event

Explanation

The argument moves from 'the decision was caused' to 'the decision was not free', and that transition only holds if causation excludes freedom, i.e. incompatibilism. Without that premise the inference is a non sequitur, so identifying it is essential to assessing the argument.

Question 5Written examinations (five written examinations)

In the European Baccalaureate Philosophy written examination, what is the standard expectation regarding quotations from primary texts?

  1. Quotations should be as long as possible to demonstrate familiarity with the text
  2. Quotations should be used only in the introduction and conclusion
  3. Quotations should be accurate, brief, and integrated into the argument they support Correct answer.
  4. Quotations should be avoided entirely because they interrupt the candidate's own prose

Explanation

A quotation functions as evidence within an argument, so it must be accurate and brief and must be explained rather than merely dropped in. Long or decorative quotations displace the candidate's own reasoning, which is what the essay is assessed on.

Question 6Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate's essay on whether knowledge requires justification argues: 'Justification is unnecessary, because people often know things, such as that they are in pain, without being able to justify it.' Which reply best meets this objection?

  1. Knowledge and justification are simply the same thing, so the objection is incoherent
  2. The example concerns a kind of non-inferential knowledge, which does not show that justification is irrelevant to inferential knowledge Correct answer.
  3. Pain is a sensation rather than a fact, so it cannot be known at all
  4. Everyone can in fact justify claims about their own pain if asked

Explanation

The objection generalises from a special case of non-inferential, first-person knowledge to knowledge as such. A sound reply restricts the scope of the counterexample, showing that it does not touch the claim that inferential or testimonial knowledge requires justification.

Question 7Written examinations (five written examinations)

When a Philosophy essay question asks 'To what extent is moral responsibility compatible with determinism?', what does the phrase 'to what extent' require of the candidate?

  1. A refusal to take any position on the question
  2. A graded judgement specifying the conditions under which compatibility holds and where it fails Correct answer.
  3. A simple yes-or-no verdict with no qualification
  4. A historical survey of determinism from antiquity to the present

Explanation

'To what extent' invites a differentiated answer: the candidate should identify the range within which the two claims can be reconciled and the point at which the reconciliation breaks down. A flat yes or no, or a mere history, misses the graduated judgement the question requests.

Question 8Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate writes that a philosopher 'obviously believed' a claim without citing any text or argument. Why is this a weakness in an examination essay?

  1. It is too short to count toward the word requirement
  2. It refers to a philosopher rather than to an argument, which is never permitted
  3. It uses the word 'obviously', which is banned in philosophical writing
  4. It attributes a view without textual or argumentative support, so the claim cannot be assessed Correct answer.

Explanation

Interpretive claims about a philosopher's views require evidence, either a reference to the text or a reconstruction of the reasoning. Asserting that a view is 'obvious' substitutes confidence for justification and leaves the examiner unable to verify the attribution.

Question 9Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on the sources of morality, a candidate argues that because moral codes vary between societies, no moral judgement can be objectively valid. Which criticism most directly targets this inference?

  1. It assumes that societies never influence one another's moral codes
  2. It confuses the claim that codes differ with the claim that no code is correct Correct answer.
  3. It fails to define the word 'society' before using it
  4. It relies on empirical anthropology, which is irrelevant to ethics

Explanation

The argument moves from observed disagreement to the denial of objectivity, but disagreement is equally consistent with some codes being mistaken. The inference is therefore invalid unless a further premise establishes that persistent disagreement entails the absence of a correct answer.

Question 10Written examinations (five written examinations)

Which sentence uses the term 'valid' in its correct logical sense within a Philosophy essay?

  1. The argument is valid because its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises Correct answer.
  2. Her conclusion is valid because she supports it with three examples
  3. His argument is valid because the premises are all true
  4. The theory is valid because most philosophers accept it

Explanation

In logic, validity concerns the form of an argument: an argument is valid when the truth of its premises would guarantee the truth of its conclusion. Truth of premises (soundness) and popularity of a theory are separate matters.

Question 11Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate must evaluate the claim that a machine cannot think because it merely manipulates symbols without understanding them. Which consideration is most relevant to assessing this claim?

  1. Whether the machine's processing speed exceeds that of human beings
  2. Whether the machine's output is grammatically correct
  3. Whether symbol manipulation alone could ever constitute understanding Correct answer.
  4. Whether the machine was assembled by human engineers

Explanation

The claim rests on a distinction between syntactic processing and semantic understanding, so its assessment turns on whether that distinction is defensible. Speed, origin and grammar do not bear on whether manipulation of symbols amounts to understanding.

Question 12Written examinations (five written examinations)

In a written Philosophy essay, what is the function of a counterexample?

  1. To provide a vivid anecdote that entertains the reader
  2. To show that a proposed general claim is false by supplying a case it misclassifies Correct answer.
  3. To illustrate a general principle with a typical instance that confirms it
  4. To summarise an opposing philosopher's position fairly

Explanation

A counterexample is an instance that satisfies the conditions of a general claim while contradicting its purported consequence, thereby refuting the claim as stated. This differs from an illustrative example, which merely confirms or clarifies a principle.

Question 13Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues: 'Either we have free will or our actions are determined; neuroscience shows that actions are determined; so we have no free will.' Which presupposition does the argument make?

  1. That neuroscience is the most reliable of the sciences
  2. That free will and determinism are mutually exclusive Correct answer.
  3. That determinism applies only to physical events
  4. That free will is desirable and should be preserved

Explanation

The disjunctive premise presents freedom and determinism as exhaustive and exclusive alternatives, which is precisely the incompatibilist assumption. A compatibilist would reject the premise, holding that freedom can coexist with determinism, so the argument's force depends on that contested presupposition.

Question 14Written examinations (five written examinations)

Which practice best reflects the requirement of fairness to opposing views in a Philosophy examination essay?

  1. Choosing the weakest available version of the opposing argument for easy refutation
  2. Avoiding all mention of opposing views so the essay remains consistent
  3. Presenting the opponent's position in its strongest form before criticising it Correct answer.
  4. Mentioning an opponent only to dismiss it in a single sentence

Explanation

Fairness requires representing an opposing position at its strongest, since refuting a weak version leaves the strongest version untouched. This principle, often called the principle of charity, makes the candidate's own argument more credible.

Question 15Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate's essay on justice states: 'Rawls's veil of ignorance ensures that everyone would choose fair principles.' Which question should the candidate address to test this claim?

  1. Whether other philosophers have used similar terminology
  2. Whether the word 'veil' is a metaphor rather than a literal object
  3. Whether Rawls published his theory in the twentieth century
  4. Whether parties behind the veil would be risk-averse or would gamble on favourable outcomes Correct answer.

Explanation

The claim that the veil guarantees fair choice depends on assumptions about the parties' psychology, particularly their attitude to risk. If they were willing to gamble, they might accept principles that leave the worst off badly placed, so the claim needs defence.

Question 16Written examinations (five written examinations)

In the context of the written Philosophy examination, what does it mean to describe an argument as 'sound'?

  1. The argument has been defended against at least one objection
  2. The argument is persuasive to the majority of readers
  3. The argument is expressed in clear and elegant prose
  4. The argument is valid and all its premises are true Correct answer.

Explanation

Soundness combines two requirements: the argument must be valid, and its premises must actually be true. A valid argument with a false premise is unsound, which is why evaluating an argument requires attention to both form and content.

Question 17Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues that because a statement cannot be proven with certainty, it is unreasonable to hold it. Which distinction would most help in assessing this argument?

  1. The distinction between a statement's being true and its being justified
  2. The distinction between written and spoken argument
  3. The distinction between analytic and synthetic statements
  4. The distinction between reasonable belief and certainty Correct answer.

Explanation

The argument conflates reasonable belief with certainty, assuming that anything short of certainty is unreasonable. Drawing the distinction shows that beliefs can be reasonable when supported by good though defeasible evidence, so the argument's standard is too demanding.

Question 18Written examinations (five written examinations)

Why should a Philosophy examination essay normally avoid merely listing a series of philosophers' opinions one after another?

  1. Because examiners require at least five named philosophers per essay
  2. Because a list reports views without showing how they bear on the question or on each other Correct answer.
  3. Because philosophers' opinions are all false
  4. Because listing is grammatically incorrect in formal writing

Explanation

A list supplies information but performs no argumentative work; the essay is assessed on reasoning addressed to the question. Each cited view should be used to advance, qualify or challenge a position rather than simply recorded.

Question 19Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate writes an essay that answers a question about political obligation by discussing only obedience to law and never addressing the grounds of obligation. What is the main defect?

  1. It uses too many examples drawn from legal systems
  2. It substitutes description of behaviour for normative argument about why obedience is required Correct answer.
  3. It fails to mention any philosopher by name
  4. It is written in the wrong language for the examination

Explanation

Political obligation is a normative question about what justifies obedience, not a descriptive question about whether people obey. An essay that reports behaviour leaves the central question unanswered, however accurate its descriptions.

Question 20Written examinations (five written examinations)

Which of the following best states the role of a conclusion in a Philosophy examination essay?

  1. To list every source consulted during preparation
  2. To restate the question word for word without answering it
  3. To summarise the argument and state the position the essay has established Correct answer.
  4. To introduce a new argument that was not developed in the body

Explanation

A conclusion should draw the essay's reasoning together and state clearly what has been shown, so that the answer to the question is explicit. Introducing new material at this stage leaves it undefended and disrupts the structure.

Question 21Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues that because a word can be used to refer to different things on different occasions, it has no meaning at all. Which distinction would expose the error?

  1. The distinction between a word's meaning and its particular referent on an occasion of use Correct answer.
  2. The distinction between nouns and verbs
  3. The distinction between a sentence and a paragraph
  4. The distinction between written and spoken language

Explanation

A word may have a stable meaning while its referent varies with context, as with indexicals and general terms. The argument confuses variability of reference with absence of meaning, and distinguishing the two dissolves the supposed conclusion.

Question 22Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on the existence of God, a candidate argues that belief in God is unreasonable because the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. Which reply most directly addresses this argument?

  1. Religious texts have been transmitted accurately over many centuries
  2. The demand for demonstration sets a standard that would also make most ordinary beliefs unreasonable Correct answer.
  3. The question of God's existence has occupied philosophers for a long time
  4. Many people report experiences they describe as religious

Explanation

The argument assumes that a belief is reasonable only if it can be demonstrated, a standard that would disqualify most everyday and scientific beliefs. Challenging that standard is the most direct way to meet the argument, since it attacks the premise on which the conclusion rests.

Question 23Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate's essay contains the sentence: 'Because the theory is elegant, it must be true.' Which criticism is most appropriate?

  1. It is too short to be a complete sentence in an essay
  2. It relies on a term, 'theory', that has no philosophical use
  3. It commits the fallacy of inferring truth from aesthetic or simplifying virtues Correct answer.
  4. It contradicts itself by using both 'because' and 'must'

Explanation

Elegance may be a pragmatic virtue that makes a theory easier to use, but it does not establish truth; the inference treats a simplifying merit as evidence of correspondence with reality. The criticism identifies a specific logical fault rather than a stylistic one.

Question 24Written examinations (five written examinations)

Which feature most clearly distinguishes a philosophical question from a straightforward empirical question in the context of the written examination?

  1. A philosophical question concerns conceptual and normative issues that empirical evidence alone cannot settle Correct answer.
  2. A philosophical question has no possible answer of any kind
  3. A philosophical question is always longer to state
  4. A philosophical question can only be discussed by referring to ancient authors

Explanation

Philosophical questions typically concern the meaning and justification of concepts and norms, so they cannot be resolved by gathering data alone. Empirical findings may inform them, but the questions themselves call for conceptual and normative reasoning.

Question 25Written examinations (five written examinations)

In the European Baccalaureate Philosophy written paper, a candidate is asked to 'discuss' a thesis. Which approach best matches the expectation of a discursive essay rather than a summary?

  1. State agreement with the thesis and illustrate it with several examples drawn from personal experience.
  2. Recount the views of three philosophers in chronological order with brief biographical context for each.
  3. Present the thesis, examine its strongest supporting arguments and main objections, and reach a reasoned position. Correct answer.
  4. Define the key terms at length and leave the evaluation of the thesis to the concluding sentence.

Explanation

A discursive essay requires the candidate to weigh arguments for and against the thesis and to commit to a defended position. Chronological summaries or purely illustrative essays do not fulfil the evaluative demand of the question. The examiners reward argumentative structure, not accumulation of content.

Question 26Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate opens a Philosophy essay with the sentence: 'Since the beginning of time, humanity has wondered about justice.' Which criticism of this opening is most appropriate for the written examination?

  1. It uses a rhetorical generalisation that adds no philosophical content and delays the analysis. Correct answer.
  2. It relies on an empirical claim that cannot be verified.
  3. It commits the fallacy of begging the question against the opponent.
  4. It is too short to establish the topic of the essay.

Explanation

Such openings are recognised as empty rhetorical flourishes that consume space without advancing an argument. The exam rewards direct engagement with the question's concepts and terms. A strong introduction states the issue and the line of argument to be pursued.

Question 27Written examinations (five written examinations)

In a Philosophy examination essay, a candidate writes: 'Kant's ethics is the best theory because it is the most demanding.' Which logical error is most clearly present?

  1. Non sequitur: the difficulty of a theory does not establish its truth or superiority. Correct answer.
  2. Ad hominem: the argument attacks Kant's character rather than his theory.
  3. Circular reasoning: the conclusion merely restates the premise.
  4. Equivocation: the word 'demanding' shifts meaning between premise and conclusion.

Explanation

The inference from 'most demanding' to 'best' requires a further premise linking rigour to correctness, which is not supplied. Without it the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is a non sequitur rather than a fallacy of personal attack or circularity.

Question 28Written examinations (five written examinations)

When a Philosophy essay question contains a quotation, such as 'Man is condemned to be free', what is the most appropriate first step in the essay?

  1. Agree with the quotation and devote the essay to illustrating it with examples.
  2. Reject the quotation as rhetorical and replace it with a definition of your own.
  3. Explain briefly what the quotation claims and identify the philosophical issue it raises. Correct answer.
  4. Quote three further passages by the same author to establish context.

Explanation

A quotation in the question must be interpreted before it can be assessed; the candidate should clarify its meaning and isolate the philosophical problem. Only then can arguments for and against be evaluated. Illustrating or rejecting it without interpretation bypasses the question.

Question 29Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate must discuss whether the mind is identical with the brain. Which formulation of the problem is most philosophically precise for the essay?

  1. Whether people generally believe that minds and brains are the same thing.
  2. Whether neuroscience has produced more evidence than psychology for the nature of thought.
  3. Whether mental states are nothing over and above physical states of the brain, or whether they have irreducible features. Correct answer.
  4. Whether the brain is more complex than any computer currently built.

Explanation

The mind–brain identity question concerns whether mental properties reduce to physical properties or possess features not capturable physically. Framing it this way allows the candidate to assess identity theory, dualism and functionalism. Empirical comparisons or popular belief do not state the philosophical problem.

Question 30Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on free will, a candidate writes that an action is free 'only if it could have been done otherwise'. Which position does this condition characterise?

  1. Compatibilism of the Humean variety
  2. Epiphenomenalism
  3. Libertarian free will and incompatibilism generally Correct answer.
  4. Hard determinism

Explanation

The principle of alternate possibilities is central to incompatibilist accounts, which hold that determinism rules out freedom precisely because alternatives are unavailable. Libertarians affirm both freedom and the falsity of determinism. Compatibilists typically deny that the ability to do otherwise is required.

Question 31Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate analysing an argument in the written examination identifies its 'hidden premise'. What does this mean?

  1. The premise that the author considers least important.
  2. A premise that the author states twice for emphasis.
  3. An unstated assumption required for the conclusion to follow from the stated premises. Correct answer.
  4. A premise borrowed from another philosopher without acknowledgement.

Explanation

Reconstructing an argument often reveals an assumption the author leaves implicit but on which the inference depends. Making it explicit allows the candidate to assess whether the argument succeeds. This is a core analytical skill in the written paper.

Question 32Written examinations (five written examinations)

Which sentence best expresses a philosophical thesis rather than a report of empirical findings?

  1. Survey respondents ranked honesty above loyalty in a list of virtues.
  2. Rates of reoffending fell by twelve per cent after the reform.
  3. Studies show that most participants reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game.
  4. Punishment of wrongdoers is justified only if it serves a purpose beyond suffering itself. Correct answer.

Explanation

A philosophical thesis makes a normative or conceptual claim that must be defended by argument rather than measured. The other sentences report data that could be confirmed or refuted by observation. Distinguishing these registers is essential when framing an essay's claim.

Question 33Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate writing on personal identity argues that because no single cell of the body persists over a lifetime, the self does not persist either. Which reply most directly challenges the inference?

  1. Cells divide more slowly in some tissues than in others.
  2. Personal identity may depend on psychological continuity rather than bodily continuity. Correct answer.
  3. Many people feel that they remain the same person over time.
  4. The question of identity has occupied philosophers since antiquity.

Explanation

The argument assumes that persistence requires continuity of bodily substance. Psychological continuity theories deny this premise, so the inference fails even if the biology is correct. A good reply targets the hidden assumption rather than the empirical detail.

Question 34Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay evaluating a utilitarian conclusion, a candidate must explain the 'utility monster' objection. What does this thought experiment purport to show?

  1. That utilitarianism cannot distinguish higher from lower pleasures.
  2. That moral rules are necessary for social cooperation.
  3. That pleasure is impossible to measure in practice.
  4. That maximising total welfare could require sacrificing ordinary individuals for one being capable of vast satisfaction. Correct answer.

Explanation

The utility monster is a being whose consumption of resources yields enormous aggregate welfare, so act utilitarianism appears to demand that others be sacrificed to it. The objection aims to show that total-welfare maximisation conflicts with distributive fairness. It is not about measurement difficulties or the quality of pleasures.

Question 35Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues: 'If moral judgements were merely expressions of emotion, we could never disagree about morality. Since we do disagree, moral judgements are not merely expressions of emotion.' Which premise is most vulnerable to criticism?

  1. That emotivists cannot account for the possibility of genuine moral disagreement. Correct answer.
  2. That people disagree about moral questions.
  3. That moral judgements are sometimes expressed with emotion.
  4. That moral judgements are not merely expressions of emotion.

Explanation

Emotivists can explain disagreement as a clash of attitudes rather than of beliefs, so the second premise's inference is not decisive. The argument therefore rests on a contestable claim about what emotivism can accommodate. Attacking that premise is the strongest response.

Question 36Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on Descartes's method of doubt, a candidate claims that Descartes doubts the existence of the external world in order to conclude that it does not exist. What correction should be made?

  1. Descartes doubts in order to find something indubitable on which to base knowledge, not to deny the world's existence. Correct answer.
  2. Descartes never doubts the existence of the external world at all.
  3. Descartes concludes that the external world is an illusion created by God.
  4. Descartes doubts only the testimony of the senses and accepts the world immediately.

Explanation

The method of doubt is provisional and methodological: it clears away uncertain beliefs to locate a foundation that cannot be doubted. Descartes then argues that God guarantees the reliability of clear and distinct ideas, restoring confidence in the external world. He does not conclude that the world does not exist.

Question 37Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate's essay on causation states: 'Because event B always follows event A, A causes B.' Which objection is most directly relevant?

  1. The argument confuses correlation with causation and ignores possible common causes. Correct answer.
  2. The argument relies on a definition of events that is unclear.
  3. The argument applies only to physical events and not to mental ones.
  4. The argument assumes that causation involves necessity, which Hume denies.

Explanation

Constant conjunction alone does not establish a causal link; a third factor could produce both events, or the sequence might be coincidental. This is the standard objection to inferring causation from observed regularity. The candidate must supply further criteria for causal connection.

Question 38Written examinations (five written examinations)

When discussing Plato's allegory of the cave in a written essay, what is the most philosophically appropriate use of the image?

  1. To illustrate the difference between appearance and reality and the role of education in turning the soul toward truth. Correct answer.
  2. To demonstrate that political communities should be governed by artists.
  3. To argue that sensory experience is always reliable.
  4. To show that Plato preferred darkness to light.

Explanation

The cave depicts prisoners mistaking shadows for reality and the ascent to the sun as the soul's progress toward the Forms. Its philosophical point concerns knowledge, illusion and education. Treating it as an illustration of that contrast is the appropriate use in an essay.

Question 39Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues that a promise creates an obligation simply because breaking it would produce bad consequences. Which feature of promising does this account leave out?

  1. That promises are usually made in writing.
  2. That promises are always kept by everyone.
  3. That promises are enforced by law in every country.
  4. That the obligation arises from the act of promising itself, independently of consequences. Correct answer.

Explanation

A purely consequentialist account of promising omits the distinctive source of the obligation, namely the agent's own undertaking. Deontological accounts hold that fidelity binds because one has committed oneself, not merely because outcomes would be worse. Identifying this omission sharpens the evaluation.

Question 40Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on the social contract, a candidate must distinguish Hobbes's and Locke's accounts of the state of nature. Which contrast is accurate?

  1. Both describe the state of nature as a historical event documented by anthropology.
  2. Hobbes depicts a war of all against all, while Locke depicts a condition with natural rights and some cooperation but no impartial judge. Correct answer.
  3. Hobbes depicts peaceful cooperation, while Locke depicts universal conflict.
  4. Both deny that government requires the consent of the governed.

Explanation

Hobbes's state of nature is a condition of insecurity and conflict from which people escape by authorising a sovereign. Locke's is a condition governed by natural law in which rights exist but adjudication is lacking. The contrast turns on the severity of conflict and the retained rights of individuals.

Question 41Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate evaluating a deductive argument concludes that it is valid but not sound. What must be true of the argument?

  1. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, but at least one premise is false. Correct answer.
  2. The argument is persuasive but its premises are unstated.
  3. Its premises are true but the conclusion does not follow.
  4. The conclusion is probably true given the premises.

Explanation

Validity concerns the form: if the premises were true, the conclusion would follow necessarily. Soundness adds that the premises are actually true. An argument can therefore be valid yet unsound because a premise is false.

Question 42Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate writes that a philosophical position is 'self-refuting'. Which situation best illustrates this charge?

  1. The position's own assertion presupposes the very thing it denies. Correct answer.
  2. The position has been rejected by most contemporary philosophers.
  3. The position is stated in language that is difficult to understand.
  4. The position is defended by an author whose other works are inconsistent.

Explanation

A position is self-refuting when asserting it undermines the conditions of its own assertion, as with the claim that no statement is true. The defect is internal to the position, not a matter of its defenders or its popularity. Recognising this structure strengthens critical evaluation.

Question 43Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on knowledge, a candidate must explain why a true belief acquired by luck is not knowledge. Which example best illustrates the point?

  1. A student accepts a claim on the authority of a reliable teacher.
  2. A student believes a theorem because she has proved it step by step.
  3. A student guesses the answer to a quiz correctly without any basis. Correct answer.
  4. A student believes a proposition she has verified in two independent ways.

Explanation

Knowledge requires that the truth of the belief be appropriately connected to the believer's grounds. A lucky guess is true but unjustified, so it fails the conditions for knowledge. The other examples involve evidence, proof or reliable testimony.

Question 44Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues that because a term like 'good' cannot be defined by any natural property, moral judgements express no beliefs at all. Which step in this reasoning is most questionable?

  1. The assumption that moral language is meaningful.
  2. The claim that 'good' cannot be reduced to natural properties.
  3. The distinction between natural and non-natural properties.
  4. The inference from the indefinability of 'good' to the claim that moral judgements express no beliefs. Correct answer.

Explanation

Even if 'good' is indefinable in natural terms, it does not follow that moral judgements lack cognitive content; non-naturalists such as Moore held precisely the opposite. The inference conflates a claim about definition with a claim about the function of moral language. That transition is the weak link.

Question 45Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate's essay on the problem of evil concludes that because suffering exists, God does not. Which additional premise is required for the argument to be deductively valid?

  1. That some people respond to suffering with courage.
  2. That suffering is unpleasant for those who experience it.
  3. That an omnipotent and wholly good God would permit no suffering at all. Correct answer.
  4. That religious traditions have offered various responses to the problem.

Explanation

The argument needs a premise linking God's attributes to the absence of suffering; without it the conclusion does not follow. Theodicies and defences precisely contest that premise by arguing that a good God might permit suffering for sufficient reasons. Making the premise explicit allows the candidate to evaluate it.

Question 46Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate assesses the claim that scientific theories should be accepted only if they are observable. Which reply best captures the difficulty with this verificationist criterion?

  1. Scientific theories are often expressed in mathematical language.
  2. Observation is more reliable than testimony.
  3. The criterion itself cannot be verified by observation, so it appears to exclude itself. Correct answer.
  4. Theories change over time as new evidence appears.

Explanation

A strict requirement that only observable claims be accepted cannot itself be established by observation, making the principle self-undermining. This is the classic objection to radical verificationism. The candidate should note that the reply targets the criterion's status, not its applications.

Question 47Written examinations (five written examinations)

In an essay on distributive justice, a candidate must explain the difference between Rawls's difference principle and strict equality. Which statement is accurate?

  1. Strict equality permits inequalities provided they arise from talent.
  2. The difference principle permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Correct answer.
  3. The difference principle requires that all holdings be identical for every citizen.
  4. The difference principle applies only to the distribution of political liberties.

Explanation

Rawls allows social and economic inequalities on condition that they maximise the position of the worst-off group. Strict equality rejects such inequalities outright. The contrast lies in whether inequalities can be justified by their benefit to the least advantaged.

Question 48Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate argues that because a word's meaning is determined by its use in a community, no individual can ever mean anything private. Which qualification is most important for a fair assessment of this Wittgensteinian line?

  1. The argument applies only to the English language.
  2. The argument concerns the possibility of a private language, not the denial that individuals have inner experiences. Correct answer.
  3. Wittgenstein denied that language has anything to do with social practice.
  4. The argument shows that inner sensations do not exist.

Explanation

The private language argument targets the idea of a language whose terms refer to essentially private sensations, not the reality of inner experience. A fair assessment must distinguish the semantic claim from a metaphysical denial of sensation. Without that distinction the position is easily caricatured.

Question 49Written examinations (five written examinations)

A candidate evaluates the claim that moral responsibility requires the ability to have acted otherwise, using Frankfurt's example of an agent who acts on his own desires though he could not have done otherwise. What does the example aim to establish?

  1. That agents are never responsible for their actions.
  2. That desires are irrelevant to responsibility.
  3. That determinism is true.
  4. That moral responsibility does not require the ability to do otherwise. Correct answer.

Explanation

Frankfurt's cases are designed to show that an agent can be responsible for an action even when circumstances ensure he could not have acted differently, provided he acted on his own volition. The example therefore challenges the principle of alternate possibilities. It does not establish determinism or deny responsibility generally.

Question 50Written examinations (five written examinations)

In the written examination candidates must structure an essay around a philosophical problem. Which plan best reflects the expected structure of a philosophical essay?

  1. Introduction defining key terms, a narrative of the history of the debate, and a conclusion that avoids taking any position
  2. Introduction stating the problem and thesis, developed argument with reasons, consideration of an objection, and a conclusion that weighs the result Correct answer.
  3. Introduction quoting a famous passage, a personal reflection on the candidate's feelings, and a conclusion restating the quotation
  4. Introduction summarising the philosopher's biography, a list of his main works, and a conclusion praising his influence

Explanation

A philosophical essay is assessed on the quality of argument, so it must state a thesis, support it with reasons, engage an objection and reach a defended conclusion. Biography, mere history or personal sentiment do not constitute philosophical argument.