AO2 work in Ethics and Philosophy (AS & A2)
I have given the advice on how to get the best out of your AO2 marks (Part (b) at AS and the ‘AO2 evaluation’ sections at A2) some very serious consideration. I have devised an analogy (as one may find from time to time in philosophical arguments) that I think best suits what you are expected to do. The analogy surrounds one of Miss Thompson’s favourite pastimes: eating. Consider the following example:
The end goal of any piece of writing is for you to demonstrate to the examiner in clear and certain terms that you understand the topic or issue being discussed. If the examiner is in any doubt that you understand the issue then the best you may get for AO2 is band 3 which is ‘implicit assessment’. This analogy has been designed to make sure that you are as explicit as possible when discussing ideas. You should follow steps 1 – 3 (1.Select, 2.Chew, 3.Swallow) and repeat these until you need to conclude = step 4 (4.Satisfied?).
STEP 1: SELECT AND USE RELEVANT MATERIAL - The food bowl is your subject knowledge and the fork is the correct selection of relevant material:
You must select relevant material from the large selection of subject knowledge that you possess. Study the question carefully and select material that could be used to answer the question in front of you. Do not simple run through a list of ideas that you have learnt in the general subject area. You must make sure that the information you select is asrelevant as possible (the examiner will dislike anything that is not relevant to the question).
Once you have selected the relevant material you need to make sure that you clearly state the points that you are making. Always consider the following: ‘How is what I am writing answering the question?’ Make it clear to the examiner that you know what you want to do with the material you have selected.
STEP 2: Chewing is your analysis of the material– Discuss the particular idea that you have raised thoroughly: This is the most important aspect of your AO2 writing. It is said that you should chew your food at least 7 times before swallowing. The same is true of your AO2 critical analysis work. You cannot simply expect the examiner to swallow ideas whole without discussing them thoroughly. Part of your chewing process is assessing the idea that you are discussing. Think of this as the notion of ‘tasting’ your food. You must check to see if the idea at hand issound(meaning that it can stand up to critical scrutiny)*. Imagine that every piece of information that you write down needs to be chewed thoroughly by you for the examiner BEFORE SWALLOWING. You wouldn’t keep shovelling food into your mouth without chewing. Yet AS and A2 students keep bringing up ideas before they have dealt with the ones that they have already raised! The examiner can spot students drowning under concepts and ideas (those who have bitten off more than they can chew!).Take your time and deal with things in the most methodical and simple manner possible. Do not overfill your mouth/paper with ideas. Deal with every idea as you raise it.
STEP 3: Swallowing your ideas - After a thorough chewing, you must say how useful the current piece of evidence is in light of the question that you are answering. This is so that you CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that you understand the idea or issues that are being discussed by linking your assessment to the question. In other words ASSESS the implications of your analysis for EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU LOOK AT. (REPEAT STEP 1, 2 and 3 until you are ready to conclude!)
STEP 4: Satisfy – Satisfy the examiner by ANSWERING THE QUESTION & coming to an overall conclusion after assessing ALL of the evidence you have looked at. At the end of your piece of work the examiner should be left in no doubt that you have ANSWERED the question and CRITICALLY EVALUATED the material that you have chosen to discuss. A good way of making sure that you have done this is by coming to a definite conclusion; candidates that ‘sit on the fence’ rather than coming to a definite conclusion tend to lose marks in AO2. You must come to a conclusion based on the evidence that you have presented to the examiner throughout your piece of work. The stronger the evidence that a ‘side’ of the argument has the more likely it is that you will conclude itin the end (see diagram below).
Critical analysis at AO2 is the most difficult section of the philosophy and ethics course. It can take time to develop. Try to use the above analogy to help you when you are writing your AO2 work.
*Consider the following idea to help you understand what is meant by the term ‘sound’ in philosophical or ethical arguments – an invisible pink unicorn. This is an illogical concept. How can anything invisible be pink? Also the definition of a unicorn is that it is white. Finally the idea of a unicorn is simply fiction or mythology. All of the above ideas or problems are examples of assessing the ‘soundness’ of ideas (an invisible pink unicorn in this case). So the conclusion must be that the idea of an invisible pink unicorn is not ‘sound’.