Philosophy Revision — Cambridge OCR A-Level
Complete Cambridge OCR A-Level Philosophy specification revision resources. Tailored syllabus coverage with topic breakdowns, quizzes, and practice questions.
Specification Topics
- The Language of Reasoning
- Credibility and Evidence
- Analysis of Arguments
- Evaluation of Arguments
- Reasoning and Decision Making
Top Exam Board Tips
- In the exam, when presented with a passage, first identify the conclusion by asking 'What is the main point the author wants me to accept?' Then look for reasons that directly support it.
- Use indicator words as clues but be cautious: not all 'since' or 'therefore' sentences are part of the argument structure.
- Practice reconstructing arguments in standard form (premises first, then conclusion) to clarify the logical flow.
- When analyzing a passage, actively look for gaps between the premises and conclusion; these gaps often reveal implicit assumptions. Use phrases like 'It is assumed that...' to make them explicit.
- For evaluation, structure your response: identify the assumption, explain its role, assess its acceptability (e.g., is it controversial? does it rely on false premises?), and then conclude how it affects the overall argument.
- Before evaluating any argument, state explicitly whether it is intended to be deductive or inductive; this determines the appropriate evaluative framework.
- When discussing inductive strength, always ground your assessment in specific criteria (e.g., sample size, representativeness, absence of selection bias) and show how they apply to the given example.
- Use potential counter-examples or defeaters to demonstrate a nuanced understanding: show how additional evidence could weaken an otherwise strong inductive argument.
- Structure essays to first define the type of evidence being discussed, then explicitly state the criteria for evaluating its strength before applying them to the case.
- Use the language of the specification: refer to 'credibility', 'probative value', and 'sufficiency' to engage directly with marking descriptors.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Confusing a series of unrelated statements with an argument, failing to see inferential connections.
- Mistaking a conditional statement (if... then) for an argument, without recognising that an argument asserts the premises as reasons to accept the conclusion.
- Treating an explanation (e.g., 'why something happened') as an argument, when the speaker assumes the conclusion is already accepted.
- Confusing implicit assumptions with implications or conclusions; students may mistakenly identify a consequence of an argument as an assumption.
- Failing to provide justification when evaluating an assumption; simply labeling it as 'unsupported' without explaining why it weakens the argument.
- Confusing the necessity of the conclusion in a valid deductive argument with the truth of the premises; students often treat validity as guaranteeing a true conclusion.
- Treating inductive arguments as either fully strong or fully weak, rather than recognising they exist on a continuum of probability.
- Applying deductive standards (e.g., demanding absolute proof) when evaluating inductive reasoning, leading to the fallacy of requiring certainty where only probability is warranted.
Key Terminology & Definitions
- Structure of arguments
- Premises and conclusions
- Hidden premises
- Unstated assumptions
- Deductive validity
- Inductive strength
- Anecdotal evidence
- Statistical evidence
- Testimonial evidence
- Expertise
- Bias
- Corroboration
- Diagramming arguments
- Serial and convergent arguments
- Straw man