Kerala +2 Philosophy common mistakes
Kerala +2 Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning, the candidate labels any argument with a general conclusion as deductive, or judges validity by whether the premises are factually true rather than by whether the conclusion follows necessarily.
Textbook definitions are memorised as slogans ('deduction goes from general to particular'), so the candidate never tests the actual inferential link; everyday usage of 'valid' as 'true/reasonable' then overrides the technical meaning under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Drill a fixed two-question routine on every argument: (1) Could the premises be true and the conclusion false? If yes, it is not deductively valid; (2) Does the conclusion add information beyond the premises? If yes, it is inductive/ampliative. Practise on 10 short arguments where the content is obviously false but the form is valid (e.g., all fishes fly; X is a fish; therefore X flies) so that form and truth are kept separate.
In logic questions the candidate names the fallacy by its everyday label ('it's just an opinion', 'that's a threat') without identifying the structure, and confuses ad hominem with straw man, or post hoc with hasty generalisation.
Fallacies are learned as a vocabulary list with one example each; the candidate pattern-matches on surface wording rather than on what the argument actually does to the opponent's position.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table with three columns per fallacy: the structural move (attacks the person / attacks a distorted version / infers cause from succession / generalises from too few cases), a one-line original example, and the repair question that exposes it ('does this address the claim or the claimant?'). Before answering, rewrite the passage in premise-conclusion form; the structure, not the tone, identifies the fallacy.
On epistemology questions the candidate treats 'true', 'justified' and 'known' as interchangeable, so a true justified belief that rests on a lucky guess is counted as knowledge, and Gettier-style cases are answered by saying the belief is 'not really true'.
The standard tripartite analysis (belief + truth + justification) is memorised as a checklist without the further condition that the justification must be appropriately connected to the truth; the candidate has no procedure for testing that connection.
What to do instead
For every scenario, apply the three conditions separately and then add the linkage test: 'Would the person still have believed it if it had been false?' If yes, the justification is not truth-conducive and the case is not knowledge. Practise by constructing two original cases of your own (one genuine knowledge, one Gettier-style) and stating exactly which condition fails in the second.
The candidate answers 'what is knowledge?' or 'what is truth?' by listing the sources of knowledge (perception, inference, testimony) or the kinds of truth, instead of giving an analysis of the concept and defending it against a counterexample.
Definitions are studied as lists, and the exam's phrasing ('examine', 'critically evaluate') is read as 'write down everything I remember about the topic', which produces description where analysis was demanded.
What to do instead
Use a fixed answer skeleton for conceptual questions: proposed analysis → necessary and sufficient conditions → one counterexample → revised analysis → residual problem. Write three practice answers of about 200 words each using this skeleton, and check that each paragraph either states a condition or tests one.
In metaphysics answers the candidate asserts that cause must precede effect, that every event has a cause, or that substance is whatever persists, as if these were settled definitions, and then builds the rest of the answer on them without argument.
Introductory summaries present Humean, Kantian and Aristotelian positions as a sequence of doctrines to be recited; the candidate absorbs the conclusions but not the arguments, so contested theses are reproduced as premises.
What to do instead
For each metaphysical thesis you plan to use, attach a tag: 'contested - argued by X, denied by Y for reason Z'. Before writing, list the theses your answer depends on and add one sentence of support or one named objection for each. A short drill: take 'every event has a cause' and write both the strongest argument for it and the strongest objection to it in under 100 words each.
On philosophy of mind questions the candidate answers the mind-body problem by saying the mind is 'the brain' or that consciousness is 'just electrical activity', thereby sliding from a claim about correlation to a claim about identity without noticing.
Scientific-sounding phrasing feels safer and more modern than the technical positions, and the candidate has not been taught to distinguish identity claims, causal claims and eliminativist claims as different logical moves.
What to do instead
Classify every statement you write into one of four boxes: dualist, identity-theory, functionalist/behavioural, or eliminativist. Then ask of each identity claim: 'what evidence would count for and against this being an identity rather than a correlation?' Write a 150-word comparison of identity theory and epiphenomenalism that names the exact point where they diverge.
In ethics the candidate evaluates an action by its outcome while labelling the theory deontological, or states Kant's categorical imperative as 'do to others what you want done to you' and treats it as identical to the golden rule.
The two families are learned through parallel summaries, and the golden rule is a familiar formula that gets substituted for the universalisability test because it sounds similar.
What to do instead
Memorise one discriminating question per theory: consequentialism asks 'what makes the outcome better?'; Kant asks 'can I will this maxim as a universal law without contradiction?'. Then write out the universalisability test on a specific maxim (e.g., making a false promise) and show explicitly how it differs from the golden rule by noting that the golden rule is other-regarding and desire-based while the Kantian test is about the consistency of the maxim.
On Indian philosophy the candidate lumps all schools under 'Vedanta', attributes the theory of momentariness or no-self to Vedanta rather than Buddhism, and presents Nyaya as purely religious rather than as a school with a logic and epistemology.
The schools are studied as a list of names with one slogan each, and the orthodox/heterodox division and the shared problem-space (pramanas, self, liberation) are not mapped, so labels drift.
What to do instead
Draw a two-column map: orthodox (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta) and heterodox (Charvaka, Buddhist, Jaina), and for each school record its pramana theory, its view of self, and one distinctive doctrine. Test yourself by covering the doctrine column and naming the school from the doctrine alone; repeat until no school is misattributed.
In social and political philosophy the candidate defines justice, liberty or equality by a single example, or answers a question about Rawls by describing the veil of ignorance without stating what it is for and what principles it is meant to select.
Concepts are encountered as contested and the candidate resolves the discomfort by picking one intuitive meaning; devices like the original position are memorised as images rather than as arguments with a specific job.
What to do instead
For each concept, write a definition plus one counterexample that the definition mishandles, then a revised definition. For Rawls, state the device, its purpose (removing morally arbitrary bargaining advantages), and the two principles it yields, then give one named objection (e.g., Nozick or a communitarian critique) with its reason.
On applied and philosophy of religion questions the candidate gives a verdict ('euthanasia is wrong', 'the design argument fails') with no stated criterion, or imports a purely legal or scriptural answer where the question asks for a philosophical argument.
Applied topics invite opinion, and the candidate has not been shown that marks come from making the criterion explicit and testing it against a counter-position rather than from the conclusion reached.
What to do instead
Use a four-step template for every applied answer: state the criterion (autonomy, utility, sanctity of life, duty), apply it to the case, state the strongest opposing criterion and what it would imply, then give a reasoned adjudication. For philosophy of religion, always pair each argument with one named objection and one reply, and never leave an argument without its objection.