MATSEC IM Philosophy common mistakes
MATSEC IM Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a descriptive summary of what a philosopher said instead of reconstructing the argument: the candidate reports that Plato held a theory of Forms or that Hume was an empiricist, but never states the premises, the inference, and the conclusion the examiner is asking them to assess.
Revision is often done by memorising textbook summaries and flashcards of positions, so the candidate knows labels and slogans but has never practised extracting an argument from a set text. Under time pressure the summary is the only thing that comes fluently, so it fills the answer.
What to do instead
Practise a standing drill: for each prescribed text, write the central argument in numbered premise-conclusion form (P1, P2, therefore C) and add one sentence naming the type of inference. In the exam, open every essay with that reconstruction so the marker sees the argument before any exposition.
Dropping technical terms into an answer without defining or using them, e.g. writing 'this is a synthetic a priori judgement' or 'the categorical imperative is universalisable' and moving on, without explaining what the term means or how it does any work in the argument being discussed.
Candidates learn vocabulary lists late in revision and treat the terms as tokens that earn credit. Because they have not connected each term to a distinction or a problem, they cannot say what would be different if the term were dropped.
What to do instead
For every technical term on the syllabus, write a three-part card: definition, the distinction it marks (what it contrasts with), and one example of an argument that turns on it. In essays, always follow a technical term with a clause explaining its role in that specific sentence.
Answering a question about one philosopher by importing another's framework, for example evaluating Descartes' cogito with Hume's theory of impressions, or assessing Kant's ethics purely through Mill's consequentialism, without noting that the objection is external.
Candidates revise by theme (mind, God, ethics) and mentally store one 'best' critic per theme. When a question names a different author, the prepared critic is reached for automatically, and the mismatch of assumptions goes unnoticed.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the named philosopher and the exact question word. State the thinker's own criteria for success in one sentence, evaluate on those criteria first, and only then introduce an external critique, explicitly labelled as external.
Presenting a weak or caricatured version of the opposing view (the 'straw man'), such as reducing utilitarianism to 'whatever makes the most people happy' or reducing scepticism to 'nothing can be known', and then refuting that.
The candidate has only memorised the standard objections to a position, not the position's strongest formulation, so the objection is aimed at a simplified target that is easy to knock down. This feels like critical evaluation and is rewarded in the candidate's own mind.
What to do instead
For each position, memorise the strongest one-line statement of it (its best case) alongside the standard objection. In essays, write the objection, then add one sentence of steelman ('the defender would reply that...') before judging whether the objection survives.
Treating a famous objection as decisive without assessing it: writing 'Hume's problem of induction shows science is irrational, therefore empiricism fails' and stopping, with no consideration of possible replies or of the objection's own assumptions.
Revision notes often list objections as conclusions to be learned. Candidates equate naming the objection with evaluating it, and the essay format rewards breadth of named content over the harder work of weighing it.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-move template for every objection: state it, state the best reply available to the target, then adjudicate with a reason ('the reply succeeds because...' or 'the reply fails because...'). Never end a paragraph on the objection itself.
Constructing original counterexamples that are ambiguous or question-begging, e.g. inventing a science-fiction case to attack personal identity that assumes the very criterion under dispute, or a counterexample to a moral theory that quietly builds in the conclusion.
Candidates are told to 'use examples' and believe originality earns marks, but they have not been taught what makes a counterexample legitimate: it must be possible under the target's own assumptions and must clearly contradict the target's claim.
What to do instead
Test every counterexample against three checks before using it: is it clearly possible, does it satisfy the target theory's stated conditions, and does it yield the opposite verdict? If any check fails, discard it and use a textbook case you can explain precisely.
Misreading the question's scope or command word: writing a general essay 'on free will' when asked to 'assess whether determinism is compatible with moral responsibility', or giving a two-sided discussion when asked to 'critically evaluate one position'.
Under exam pressure candidates gravitate to the topic they have revised most, and the command words (explain, assess, compare, evaluate, to what extent) look interchangeable because they were never explicitly taught as different tasks.
What to do instead
In the first two minutes, rewrite the question in your own words and list the exact components it demands. Check the plan against that list before writing, and check the finished essay against it again; every paragraph should serve a named component.
Unbalanced or merely serial essays: giving four paragraphs to one side and one to the other, or describing philosopher A, then philosopher B, then philosopher C with no comparison or judgement connecting them.
Candidates structure essays by thinker rather than by issue, because that is how revision notes are organised. A chronological or author-by-author plan makes comparison structurally impossible.
What to do instead
Plan by issue: each paragraph should state a claim, give the strongest support, give the strongest challenge, and reach a mini-verdict. Reserve a final section for an overall judgement that says which side wins and why, rather than restating both sides.
Citing quotations or textual references that are misattributed, paraphrased as if verbatim, or invented to sound authoritative, e.g. putting a phrase into Kant's mouth that actually belongs to a commentator.
Candidates pick up memorable phrases from secondary sources and revision guides without tracking their provenance, and believe a quotation adds weight even when approximate.
What to do instead
Only quote what you can source exactly; otherwise paraphrase and attribute by work, not by quotation marks. Keep a one-page log of verified short quotations with work and section, and cap yourself at one or two per essay used only where the wording matters.
Running out of time because the candidate writes one very long answer and leaves a second compulsory question half-finished or blank, often after over-preparing a favourite topic.
No timed practice has been done, so the candidate cannot estimate how long an essay takes, and the temptation to perfect the first answer dominates. Candidates also misjudge how much can be written in the time available.
What to do instead
Do at least three full timed mock papers under exam conditions, allocating minutes per question in proportion to marks and stopping each answer at its allotted time. In the exam, write the plan for every question before starting the first, and answer the highest-mark question first only if the timing plan allows it.