Philosophy
Specification: 100/0351/4
The AQA-EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy specification covers 4 topics with 47 learning objectives (100/0351/4). Use the topic browser below to explore subtopics, exam tips, common mistakes, and key terminology for each area of the course.
This subject will help you develop key knowledge and skills required for exam success.
4
Topics
47
Objectives
48
Exam Tips
53
Pitfalls
Key Features
- Master key concepts
- Develop exam technique
- Apply knowledge effectively
Assessment Objectives
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the core concepts and methods of philosophy, including through the use of philosophical analysis
Analyse and evaluate philosophical arguments to form reasoned judgements
What Gets Top Grades
Knowledge & Understanding
Demonstrates comprehensive and accurate knowledge
- Uses correct subject-specific terminology
- Shows detailed understanding of concepts
- Makes accurate connections between topics
- Demonstrates depth beyond surface-level knowledge
Application
Applies knowledge effectively to new contexts
- Selects relevant knowledge for the question
- Adapts understanding to unfamiliar scenarios
- Uses examples appropriately
- Shows awareness of context
Analysis & Evaluation
Develops sophisticated analytical arguments
- Constructs logical chains of reasoning
- Considers multiple perspectives
- Weighs evidence to reach justified conclusions
- Acknowledges limitations and nuances
Key Command Words
Give a single fact or term
Name, select, or recognise
Set out main features briefly
Give an account of what something is like or what happens
Give reasons with developed cause→effect chains
State similarities AND differences (both required)
Examine in detail showing cause→effect→consequence chains
Weigh up BOTH sides, reach JUSTIFIED conclusion
Make judgments about importance with justification
Show formula→substitution→calculation→answer with units
Common Exam Mistakes
Pitfalls to avoid in your exams
- •Confusing rationalism with idealism: some students mistakenly assume that rationalism entails that the mind creates reality, rather than focusing on the source of knowledge.
- •Misinterpreting innate knowledge as fully-formed conscious ideas from birth, rather than potentialities or dispositions that are triggered by experience (as per Leibniz's analogy of veined marble).
- •Assuming that deductive reasoning always yields certain knowledge without scrutinising the truth of the initial premises, thereby overlooking the problem of infinite regress or the need for intuitive foundations.
- •Confusing a priori knowledge with innate knowledge, failing to recognize that a priori propositions can be known independently of experience without necessarily being inborn.
- •Treating 'belief' as equivalent to 'knowledge', overlooking that a belief must also be true and justified to qualify as knowledge.
- •Omitting the justification condition when analysing knowledge, thereby reducing the tripartite definition to mere true belief and failing to distinguish it from lucky guesses.
- •Confusing direct realism with naive realism, failing to recognise that direct realism involves direct perception without an intermediary like sense-data.
- •Mischaracterising idealism as solipsism, when Berkeleyan idealism is typically intersubjective due to God's perception.
Top Examiner Tips
Expert advice for exam success
- •Always define key terms (e.g., a priori, innate, intuition, deduction) at the start of your essay to establish a clear conceptual framework and meet assessment objective criteria for knowledge and understanding.
- •When evaluating innate knowledge, explicitly consider classical criticisms such as Locke's argument from universal consent or the lack of empirical evidence for innate ideas, and balance them with rationalist rejoinders.
- •Structure your evaluation around philosophical criteria like clarity and coherence, comparing rationalist explanations with empiricist alternatives and concluding with a justified judgement on the strength of the intuition and deduction thesis.
- •When explaining the tripartite definition, always incorporate a concrete example (e.g., knowing that Paris is the capital of France) to illustrate how the belief, truth, and justification conditions are each satisfied.
- •In essays, use precise epistemological terminology: refer to 'justification' rather than vague terms like 'proof' or 'evidence', and clarify whether your examples involve a priori or a posteriori justification.
- •In essays, ensure each theory is presented with precise technical definitions before evaluating. Use diagrams to illustrate the differing claims about the relationship between perceiver, perception, and object.
- •When discussing the argument from illusion, distinguish between the kind of illusion that challenges direct realism and the more radical challenge of hallucination.
- •For high marks, engage with the philosophical responses to problems; for example, evaluate how direct realists might appeal to disjunctivism to handle hallucination.
Specification Topics
Ready to master Philosophy?
Start practising with AI-powered quizzes tailored to your AQA Education A-Level specification. Every new account includes 7 days of full Premium — no card needed.
Get Started Free