HKDSE ERS common mistakes

Before writing, underline the assessable verbs and the theories specified. Structure every body paragraph as: state the theory's principle, apply it to the case's specific facts, then state the conclusion the theory forces. Ban first-person evaluative language from body paragraphs; reserve judgement for the final evaluation paragraph, where you must justify which theory gives the stronger account and why the rival fails on this case.

Practise the 'definition → application → verdict' ratio: no more than two sentences of definition, then at least four sentences applying it to named parties and specific consequences in the case. For utilitarianism, list the stakeholders and their expected benefit/harm in a quick table before writing. For deontology, name the maxim being universalised and test it explicitly.

Build a one-page 'position map' per tradition for each syllabus topic: official magisterium/authoritative teaching, the scriptural or natural-law reasoning behind it, internal dissent or minority readings, and the practical implication. In answers, attribute explicitly ('Catholic magisterial teaching holds...', 'some Protestant traditions emphasise...') rather than asserting 'religion says'.

Spend the first five minutes annotating the stimulus: circle the key facts, note the conflicting values, and identify whose interests are at stake. Then write a one-line thesis that names the stimulus's central tension. Every paragraph should contain at least one explicit reference to a detail from the source (a quoted phrase, a named person, a figure).

Use the steel-man structure: state the strongest version of the opposing position, then rebut it with a specific reason (a logical inconsistency, a factual error, a consequence the opponent cannot accept). Adopt explicit evaluative criteria - consistency, universalisability, respect for persons, consequences - and apply them, rather than asserting a verdict.

Maintain a glossary with, for each term, a one-line definition, a distinguishing test question, and a canonical example. For deontology: 'Does the act's rightness depend on its consequences? If no, it may be deontological.' For relativism versus pluralism: relativism denies a single true morality, pluralism holds multiple reasonable views coexist within limits. Check every use of a label against the test question before submitting.

Keep the stimulus as the primary case and use the syllabus framework as the analytical engine. If you introduce an example, use it in one sentence to test a principle ('this would also license X, which the theory cannot accept'), then return to the case. Cut any example that does not advance a step in the argument.

Before the exam, write the rubric on a card: number of questions, whether electives are mixed, and the instruction on extra answers. In the first two minutes, read all questions, select, and write the question numbers on the answer booklet. Do not start a third answer; instead use remaining time to strengthen evaluation in the chosen answers.

Prepare a reflection template: what position I held before, what argument or evidence from the course challenged it, what position I now hold, and what remains unresolved and why. Rehearse it on three syllabus issues. In the exam, allocate a fixed block of time for the reflection and ensure it names a specific theory, text, or case rather than generic values.

Do a timed mock with a written time budget (minutes per mark) and stick to it, moving on when the budget expires. For essays, spend three minutes on a skeleton plan of topic sentences before writing, and reserve two minutes to write a conclusion that answers the question directly. Practise writing under a visible clock until the budget becomes automatic.