Državna Matura Philosophy common mistakes
Državna Matura Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to identify which philosopher a short quoted passage belongs to, the candidate latches onto a single familiar keyword (e.g. 'substance', 'idea', 'will') and assigns the text to the most famous name associated with that word, without checking the passage's overall argumentative direction or vocabulary.
Keyword matching is a fast, low-effort strategy that feels reliable because exam texts are often short; candidates under time pressure do not read to the end of the passage, and textbook summaries they memorised tend to collapse several thinkers into one label (e.g. all talk of 'ideas' becomes Plato).
What to do instead
Adopt a two-pass reading routine: first pass read the whole passage without assigning an author, noting the thesis, the method (dialectical, empirical, transcendental, phenomenological) and characteristic terms; second pass compare at least two candidate authors and state one concrete reason to reject the weaker candidate. Practise on 10 short unattributed excerpts per week and write the rejection reason down.
In essay questions the candidate retells the history of a problem (who said what, in chronological order) instead of answering the question asked, so a question like 'Assess whether Kant's categorical imperative can guide action in a specific dilemma' becomes a survey of Kant's life and the three formulations.
Chronological narration is the easiest material to retrieve and gives a comforting sense of progress; candidates fear that without a historical survey they will look ignorant, and many school essays rewarded coverage over argument.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the operative verb in the prompt (assess, compare, explain, justify) and write a one-sentence thesis that directly answers it. Build the essay as thesis - argument - objection - reply - conclusion, and allow at most one short paragraph of context. After drafting, check that every paragraph's topic sentence advances the thesis rather than the timeline.
The candidate uses technical terms as labels without defining or applying them: 'Plato was an idealist', 'Hume was an empiricist', 'Hegel was a dialectician', with no account of what the term means in that thinker's system or how it does explanatory work in a specific argument.
Textbooks and revision guides supply ready-made ism-labels, and labels are memorable and compact; candidates mistake the ability to name a school for the ability to reconstruct an argument, and examiners' mark schemes often mention the labels explicitly.
What to do instead
For each key term keep a card with three fields: a one-sentence definition, the specific claim it supports in that author, and one standard objection. In the essay, never leave a label standing alone - follow it with 'by which I mean...' and a consequence. Self-check by asking whether a reader who knew no philosophy could follow the reasoning.
In logic and argument-analysis items the candidate evaluates the content of a premise (whether it is true, plausible or morally acceptable) instead of the form of the argument, and so declares a valid argument invalid because it dislikes the conclusion, or calls an invalid argument valid because the conclusion happens to be true.
Everyday reasoning trains us to judge claims by agreement, and the validity/invalidity vocabulary is abstract; candidates also confuse truth with validity and soundness with persuasiveness, and they have rarely practised separating form from content.
What to do instead
Rewrite each argument in schematic form with letters for propositions, then test with a counterexample method: try to construct a scenario where premises are true and conclusion false. Drill one set of 10 forms (modus ponens, modus tollens, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, disjunctive syllogism) until recognition is automatic, and always state explicitly whether the question asks about validity, truth or soundness.
When interpreting a primary text the candidate attributes to the author a position the author is reporting or refuting, because the passage is a dialogue or doxography: Plato's characters' views are read as Plato's own, or Aristotle's statement of a predecessor's view is treated as Aristotle's doctrine.
Excerpts are presented without context, and candidates do not track speaker and framing; the convention that a reported view may be an object of criticism is unfamiliar, and the excerpt's introductory sentence is often skipped.
What to do instead
Annotate every excerpt by speaker and function before answering: who is talking, is the view asserted, reported, or criticised, and what does the surrounding argument need it to do. Learn the standard framing devices (Aristotle's 'those who say...', Plato's aporetic endings, Kant's 'it has hitherto been assumed'). Where the exam supplies only an excerpt, answer on the basis of what the text explicitly supports and mark uncertainty.
The candidate answers comparison questions by describing each philosopher separately in two unconnected blocks, so a question on Plato and Aristotle, or on rationalism and empiricism, produces two summaries with no explicit points of agreement, difference, or shared question.
Separate summaries are easier to prepare and rehearse; candidates lack a comparative vocabulary (criterion, method, starting point, explanatory role) and so fall back on description, and they run out of time before reaching synthesis.
What to do instead
Prepare comparisons as a grid with fixed axes (what is the starting point of knowledge, what is the method, what explains change, what is the criterion of truth) and, in the exam, write one paragraph per axis that treats both thinkers together. Use explicit comparative connectives ('both hold that..., but they differ over...') and end with a sentence stating which position is stronger and why.
In ethics and political philosophy questions the candidate answers a normative question by merely describing what a theory says, or by appealing to majority opinion or personal feeling, without reconstructing the theory's argument or considering an objection; e.g. 'Kant would say lying is wrong because it is wrong.'
Normative questions feel like invitations to give an opinion, and candidates are unsure whether they are allowed to argue; the descriptive habit from history-of-philosophy revision is strong, and the structure of applied ethics (principle - application - objection - judgement) is rarely practised.
What to do instead
Use a fixed template for applied questions: state the principle precisely, apply it to the stated facts in two or three steps, raise the strongest objection to that application, then reach a defended judgement. Practise on dilemmas (lying to save a life, civil disobedience) and always name the objection's author or type (utilitarian, Kantian, virtue-based) rather than inventing a vague 'some people'.
The candidate confuses adjacent concepts within a single system - validity with soundness, a priori with innate, analytic with tautological, transcendental with transcendent, phenomenon with noumenon, epistemic with ontic - and loses marks on short definition items even when the broader essay is good.
These pairs are learned from glossaries in which the two entries look nearly identical, and the distinctions are only visible inside a worked argument; candidates memorise the definitions without ever using them to solve a case, so the difference never becomes operational.
What to do instead
Build contrast pairs: for each confusing pair write one sentence that is true of the first and false of the second, plus a concrete example. Test yourself by sorting 20 short scenarios into the correct category. Keep the pair visible while revising the corresponding author, since the distinction usually does specific work in that author's argument.
The candidate misdates or misplaces thinkers and schools, placing e.g. Hume before Descartes, existentialism before Kant, or treating medieval scholasticism as a branch of ancient philosophy, and then draws inferences from the false chronology ('Hume is answering Kant').
Revision is organised by theme rather than by period, so dates are learned as isolated numbers with no framework; exam questions that mix periods expose the gap, and candidates underestimate how much interpretation depends on knowing who could have read whom.
What to do instead
Maintain a one-page timeline with only the anchors needed (Presocratics 6th-5th c. BCE, Socrates/Plato 5th-4th c. BCE, Aristotle 4th c. BCE, Hellenistic schools 3rd c. BCE-2nd c. CE, patristics 2nd-8th c., scholasticism 11th-14th c., Descartes 17th c., Hume 18th c., Kant 1781/1788, Hegel early 19th c., Nietzsche late 19th c., phenomenology and analytic philosophy early 20th c.). Before using a 'answering' or 'influenced by' claim in an essay, check the direction against the timeline.
The candidate treats the essay as a place for unqualified personal opinion or, at the other extreme, for neutral exposition, and never states a thesis or evaluates arguments; paragraphs begin with 'I think that...' followed by an unsupported assertion, or with 'Plato was a great philosopher who...' followed by biography.
Candidates are unsure what 'argue' means in an exam and default either to opinion (which feels safe and personal) or to summary (which feels objective); they have little practice in the move from exposition to evaluation, and evaluation requires criteria they have not been given.
What to do instead
Learn three evaluation moves and deploy at least two per essay: internal criticism (the premises do not support the conclusion), external criticism (a premise is false or unsupported by evidence), and comparative criticism (a rival theory handles the case better). Write the thesis before the introduction, phrase it as a claim someone could deny, and make every 'I think' sentence carry a stated reason.