1. Recap – NO NOTES!
What key ideas / terms / arguments can you remember from the two theories we’ve covered so far:
Direct Realism
Indirect Realism

2. Exam Layout + Timing
The full exam is 3 hours. Half of this time will be dedicated to epistemology (5 questions) and half to ethics (5 questions), it is exactly the same amount of marks for each topic.
Each topic will have questions weighted as so:
3 mark
2x 5 mark
12 mark
25 mark
It is only the final question in each section that is looking for AO2 discussion (analysis / evaluation) but notice that it is weighted to be the same amount of marks as the rest of the questions put together.
Timing is key, you need to be aware of how long you have left and how long you should be taking to write your answers.
Make sure you take time to think and plan your answers, this includes 3 mark definition questions – it will help you avoid redundancy.
Whatever pace you work at you need at least 30 minutes for the last question.
The exam is 3 hours long to give you thinking and planning time. Use it effectively to achieve the highest levels.

3. 3 Mark Questions – Philosophical Ideas
Marks
3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 AO1 3
A full and correct answer, precise, with little or no redundancy. 2
Most of the content is correct, but there may be some imprecision / redundancy. 1
Fragmented points
Nothing worthy of credit.
Key things to remember:
Generally looking for precise, clear answers.
You should be aiming to include all the information the question requires, with no redundancy.
Examples aren’t needed.
Names of philosophers generally aren’t needed (unless mentioned in the question).
May ask you to explain a short argument / theory but usually look for a definition (not exhaustive).

4. 3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 Mark Questions – Philosophical Ideas
Marks
3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 AO1 3
A full and correct answer, precise, with little or no redundancy. 2
Most of the content is correct, but there may be some imprecision / redundancy. 1
Fragmented points
Nothing worthy of credit.
Example Questions:
What is moral realism?
What claim do analytical / logical behaviourists make about mental states?
What does it mean to say that an ethical theory is deontological?
What is empiricism?
What is the tripartite view of propositional knowledge?
What is philosophical scepticism?

5. 5 Mark Questions – Philosophical Issues
Marks
5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 AO1 5
A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between clearly identified points, with no redundancy or imprecision. 4
A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision / redundancy. 3
Most of the content is correct and there is an attempt at linking. But the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2
One or two related points, but not precise. The logic is unclear. 1
Fragmented points, no logical structure.
Nothing worthy of credit
Key things to remember:
Again precision and clarity are the most important things.
Redundancy should be avoided at all costs (no examples unless they legitimately add to your answer, no waffling, nothing that distracts from the key information).
Consider carefully what the question is asking you to write before you start writing.
Usually asks for a key argument / criticism or response, but could also include distinctions between two ideas or an expanded definition (not exhaustive).
If you are outlining an argument, you can write it in premises / conclusion form OR in prose it’s up to you. Just make sure it is a full and complete outline.
You need to ensure you show how the argument or theory fits together, what parts are connected and why.

6. 5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 Mark Questions – Philosophical Issues
Marks
5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 AO1 5
A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between clearly identified points, with no redundancy or imprecision. 4
A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision / redundancy. 3
Most of the content is correct and there is an attempt at linking. But the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2
One or two related points, but not precise. The logic is unclear. 1
Fragmented points, no logical structure.
Nothing worthy of credit
Example Questions:
Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from illusion.
Explain how Berkeley’s idealism differs from indirect realism.
Explain the empiricist distinction between simple and complex concepts.
Outline the ‘argument from hallucination’ against direct realism.
Explain why, for Locke, extension is a primary quality.

7. 12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 Mark Questions
Marks
12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 AO1
10-12
A full and precise answer, set out in a clear, integrated and logical form. Points are made precisely, with little or no redundancy. The content is correct, showing a detailed understanding. Technical language is used appropriately and consistently throughout.
7-9
A correct answer, set out in a clear logical form. The content is correct, the material relevant and points made clearly and precisely. Integration is present but may not be throughout. There may be some redundancy, lack of clarity or imprecision in particular points, but it doesn’t detract from the answer. Technical language used appropriately and consistently.
4-6
A clear answer, in a coherent logical form. The content of the answer is largely correct, although not necessarily well integrated. Some points are made clearly, but they are not always relevant. Technical philosophical language is used, but it’s not always consistent or appropriate.
1-3
There are some relevant points, but no integration. There is a lack of precision—with possibly not enough relevant material or too much that is irrelevant. There may be some attempt at using philosophical language.
Nothing worthy of credit.
Key things to remember:
Once again clarity and precision!
Whilst some redundancy is acceptable in these questions, you should still try to avoid it as much as possible.
Technical language is absolutely needed here, more so than the previous questions.
Be ready to refer to more than one position on an issue, so have these clear in your mind.
If you’re asked to explain an argument, then unpack each step carefully and clearly.
Again, take some time to consider what you’re going to write before you write it. Structure is essential.
Examples and illustrations can be used to great effect in these answers, but only if they’re relevant.

8. 12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 Mark Questions
Marks
12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 AO1
10-12
A full and precise answer, set out in a clear, integrated and logical form. Points are made precisely, with little or no redundancy. The content is correct, showing a detailed understanding. Technical language is used appropriately and consistently throughout.
7-9
A correct answer, set out in a clear logical form. The content is correct, the material relevant and points made clearly and precisely. Integration is present but may not be throughout. There may be some redundancy, lack of clarity or imprecision in particular points, but it doesn’t detract from the answer. Technical language used appropriately and consistently.
4-6
A clear answer, in a coherent logical form. The content of the answer is largely correct, although not necessarily well integrated. Some points are made clearly, but they are not always relevant. Technical philosophical language is used, but it’s not always consistent or appropriate.
1-3
There are some relevant points, but no integration. There is a lack of precision—with possibly not enough relevant material or too much that is irrelevant. There may be some attempt at using philosophical language.
Nothing worthy of credit.
Example Questions:
Outline and explain the key differences between idealism and indirect realism.
Outline and explain the tripartite view of knowledge (‘justified true belief’).
Outline Berkeley’s idealism and how it could lead to solipsism.
Explain Berkeley’s attack on the primary/secondary property distinction.

9. Recap and Revision
You now have the rest of this lesson and access to any resources you need to revise and recap the theories below:
Direct realism
The immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
Issues including:
the argument from illusion
the argument from perceptual variation
the argument from hallucination
the time-lag argument
and responses to these issues.
Indirect realism
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent objects (sense-data) that are caused by and represent mind- independent objects.
John Locke's primary/secondary quality distinction.
the argument that it leads to scepticism about the existence of mind-independent objects.
Responses including:
Locke's argument from the involuntary nature of our experience
the argument from the coherence of various kinds of experience, as developed by Locke and Catharine Trotter Cockburn (attrib)
Bertrand Russell's response that the external world is the 'best hypothesis'

10. Time to test one another:
As a table-group come up with 4 x revision questions on separate whiteboards to be answered by another table. They must be:
Answerable in the space on the whiteboard.
Clear enough that it will be obvious what you’re asking.
Something you know the answer to! You’ll have to mark them after all!
Swap and answer each others questions!
Swap back and mark each others work. Check for accuracy and detail in what they’ve written.
On the back of the whiteboards, note down anything they may have missed and then pass them back to the people who answered the questions.