MATSEC AM Philosophy common mistakes
MATSEC AM Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering the essay question by summarising what several philosophers say about the topic, with no sustained argument of the candidate's own and no explicit conclusion.
The candidate treats the essay as a memory test because that is how school essays were often rewarded; exposition feels safer than committing to a position, and the candidate has not been trained to build a line of reasoning under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis and two or three premises that support it. Structure every paragraph so it either advances the thesis or states and answers an objection. Finish with a conclusion that restates the position and says what would have to be true for it to be wrong.
Using a technical term such as 'valid', 'sound', 'a priori', 'contingent' or 'categorical' in a loose everyday sense, or swapping it with a neighbouring term mid-answer.
These words have ordinary-language meanings that are close enough to the philosophical ones to feel correct; candidates who have read secondary summaries rather than primary texts often never see the term defined precisely.
What to do instead
Keep a one-line definition for each technical term on a revision sheet and, in the exam, define the term the first time it is used. Check afterwards that each use matches the definition and that 'valid' is applied only to arguments, never to propositions or beliefs.
Reconstructing an argument from memory without setting it out in premise-conclusion form, then attacking a claim the philosopher did not actually make.
Prose exposition blurs the difference between what an author asserts, what they assume, and what the candidate infers; the straw man is usually an unstated assumption the candidate has supplied silently.
What to do instead
Write the argument out in numbered premises with an explicit conclusion before evaluating it, and mark any premise you have had to supply as an assumption. Attack only what appears in the numbered list, and quote or paraphrase the exact line from the text that licenses each premise.
Evaluating a theory only by asserting the opposite view, e.g. rejecting utilitarianism simply by stating that consequences are not all that matter, without giving a reason or example.
Candidates confuse disagreement with criticism; asserting a rival position feels like a rebuttal, and generating a concrete counterexample takes more imaginative effort than restating a slogan.
What to do instead
For each criticism, supply either a counterexample with specific details (who, what, why the theory gives the wrong verdict) or a dilemma showing the theory must choose between two unacceptable options. Then state how the theory's defender could reply and assess that reply.
Presenting a philosopher's position with no textual detail - no named work, no distinctive example, no key distinction - so the answer would fit any philosopher with the name swapped.
Revision from lecture notes and summaries strips out the examples and distinctions that make a view identifiable; under exam pressure the candidate reproduces the gist and cannot retrieve specifics.
What to do instead
For each set text, memorise three anchors: one named work and section, one distinctive example or thought experiment, and one key distinction (e.g. act/rule, analytic/synthetic, noumenal/phenomenal). Deploy at least one anchor per paragraph of exposition.
Treating an ethical question as a request for a personal verdict, writing 'I think lying is wrong because honesty matters' with no appeal to a normative theory or to a reasoned principle.
Moral opinions are socially encouraged and easy to produce, whereas applying a theory requires the extra step of deriving the verdict from a principle and checking it against competing theories.
What to do instead
Answer applied-ethics questions in three stages: state what the leading theories imply about the case, identify where they conflict, then defend one resolution with a principle that can be stated independently of the case. Personal judgement appears only as the defended conclusion.
Confusing meta-ethical questions with normative ones, e.g. answering 'is morality objective?' with an argument about which actions are right.
Both are called 'ethics' and both use moral vocabulary; candidates have often never been asked to separate the status of moral claims from the content of moral claims.
What to do instead
Before answering, classify the question: is it about what we ought to do (normative/applied) or about what moral claims mean and whether they can be true (meta-ethics)? Write the classification at the top of the answer and keep the two levels apart, noting explicitly when a meta-ethical view has normative consequences.
Giving a one-sided account of a debate: presenting Descartes' sceptical method or Hume's fork as if no serious objection exists, or presenting an objection as if it were decisive.
Syllabus coverage is often split so that objections are studied separately from the original text, and candidates revise the view they find easier to remember.
What to do instead
For every major position, prepare a two-column table of standard objections and replies, and practise writing a short paragraph that states an objection, states the best reply, and judges which is stronger. In the exam, ensure every exposition is followed by at least one objection and one response.
Describing what a philosopher concluded without explaining the reasoning that led there, e.g. 'Kant says we can never know things in themselves' with no account of why.
Conclusions are memorable and quotable; the derivation is long and easy to lose in revision, and candidates fear getting the steps wrong.
What to do instead
For each key conclusion, rehearse a two- or three-step derivation in your own words and test it by asking what premise would have to be denied to avoid the conclusion. In the exam, write the derivation before the conclusion so the marker can see the support.
Running out of time or misallocating it: spending most of the paper on the first question, writing a plan that is never converted into an essay, or leaving a required question unanswered.
Candidates write in the order the questions appear rather than the order of their strength, and perfectionism on the first answer consumes the budget; without timed practice the candidate has no internal clock for how long an essay takes.
What to do instead
Do at least three full timed papers before the exam. In the exam, allocate minutes in proportion to marks, write a five-minute plan per essay, and start with your strongest question. Leave the last ten minutes for checking that every required question has been attempted and every essay has a conclusion.