Argumentative Essay practice questions.

In Paper 1 Section B a candidate may answer either of two questions on the theme studied. Which comparison should decide the choice?

• Which question names a philosopher whose work has been covered in class
• Which question can be met with a thesis the candidate is able to argue
• Which question is worded so as to be quickest to read and understand
• Which question covers more of the material that was actually studied

Answer: Which question can be met with a thesis the candidate is able to argue

Marks follow a defended line of reasoning, so the usable question is the one on which a position and a serious objection can both be handled in the time available. Familiarity with a name and breadth of coverage earn nothing on their own if the answer never reaches an argument.

An essay question begins: 'Given that moral judgements express attitudes rather than beliefs, to what extent…'. A candidate who disagrees with the embedded claim should

• answer a different question from the paper, since this one cannot be answered honestly, since a candidate cannot be required to assert what she rejects
• ignore the opening clause and write about the second half of the question only
• accept the claim for the sake of argument and note briefly that it is contested, then answer what was asked
• devote the whole answer to refuting the embedded claim before addressing anything else

Answer: accept the claim for the sake of argument and note briefly that it is contested, then answer what was asked

The clause sets the terms of the question, and an answer that refuses them has not answered it. A sentence acknowledging that the claim is disputed shows awareness and costs nothing; a whole essay against it answers a question that was not set.

A candidate defending a consequentialist thesis states her opponent's position. Which formulation treats the opponent charitably?

• Deontologists claim that consequences are entirely irrelevant to whether an action is right.
• Deontologists hold that some acts are forbidden whatever the consequences, since the constraint attaches to what the agent does.
• Deontologists believe that rules matter more to them than people do, and would let a disaster happen rather than break one of them.
• Deontologists have never explained why anyone should follow the rules they lay down.

Answer: Deontologists hold that some acts are forbidden whatever the consequences, since the constraint attaches to what the agent does.

Only the version on which some acts are forbidden whatever the consequences is one an adherent would accept, and it is also the hardest to refute, which is the point. A criticism that lands on a version nobody holds, such as 'consequences are entirely irrelevant', shows the examiner that the candidate has not understood the position.

A candidate introduces a thought experiment into an essay. The use that does argumentative work is one in which

• the case is described in detail because it is memorable and enlivens the essay
• the case is used to show that a stated principle delivers a verdict its defenders would reject
• the case is mentioned because it is standardly discussed in this area of the syllabus
• the case is left to speak for itself, since its implications are obvious to any reader, however unfamiliar

Answer: the case is used to show that a stated principle delivers a verdict its defenders would reject

A thought experiment functions as a test: it isolates one factor and asks what a principle says about it. Where the essay does not state which principle is being tested and what the verdict shows, the case is decoration however famous it is.

An essay closes: 'There are strong arguments on both sides, and the question remains open.' The weakness of this conclusion is that

• conclusions are not required in philosophy essays of this length
• it reports the state of the debate instead of stating what the essay's own arguments support
• it is too short to count as a conclusion at the highest band
• acknowledging opposing arguments anywhere in an essay weakens the case being made, as markers frequently note

Answer: it reports the state of the debate instead of stating what the essay's own arguments support

Balance is not the same as judgement. A candidate may certainly conclude that the question is not settled, but the conclusion must say what her arguments have established and on what the remaining disagreement turns.

A candidate's paragraph runs: 'Every action is caused by prior events. Whatever is caused is not free. So no action is free.' A critic accepts the reasoning but rejects the conclusion. The critic must therefore hold that

• the argument is invalid, since the conclusion does not follow from the premises
• the argument is valid but at least one premise is false, so it is not sound
• the argument is sound but the conclusion is nonetheless false
• the argument commits an equivocation on the word 'action'

Answer: the argument is valid but at least one premise is false, so it is not sound

Validity concerns the form and soundness adds the truth of the premises, so accepting the inference while denying the conclusion leaves only one option. A compatibilist takes exactly this route by rejecting the second premise.