Exam Intelligence · 4 Official Documents Analysed

How to Score Higher in AQA A Level Philosophy (7172)

Evidence-based Philosophy 7172 exam guide built from official AQA examiner reports and mark schemes. Specialised and comprehensive study tips — specific, cited insights so you can achieve top grades.

View Past Papers

Evidence-BasedBuilt from 4 official examiner reports & mark schemes (2022–2023)

What Are Assessment Objectives (AOs)?

Before we dive in, you need to understand how AQA actually marks your answers.

AO stands for Assessment Objective. Think of AOs as the different “skills” AQA tests you on in every single question. When an examiner marks your paper, they don't just give you a mark out of 12 based on how “good” your answer feels — they allocate specific marks to each AO separately.

For example, a 12-mark question might be split as: AO1 (2 marks) + AO2 (2 marks) + AO3 (2 marks) + AO4 (6 marks). If you write a perfect textbook answer but don't evaluate, you can only score 6 out of 12 — because the other 6 marks are specifically reserved for evaluation.

This is why understanding AOs matters: they tell you exactly what the examiner is looking for and how many marks each skill is worth. Here are the 2 AOs for this subject:

AO1

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the core concepts and methods of philosophy, including through the use of philosophical analysis

60% (A-Level overall; AQA per-paper P1 30%, P2 30%)

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the core concepts and methods of philosophy, including through the use of philosophical analysis. Tested across 3, 5 and 12 mark questions and the AO1 element of the 25 mark essay.

AO2

Analyse and evaluate philosophical arguments to form reasoned judgements

40% (A-Level overall; AQA per-paper P1 20%, P2 20%)

Analyse and evaluate philosophical argument to form reasoned judgements. Tested almost exclusively in the 25 mark essays through sustained argument, counter-argument and supported judgement.

The key takeaway: Most students lose marks not because they lack knowledge (AO1), but because they skip the higher-order skills — building chains of reasoning (AO2) and making supported judgements (AO3). Everything below shows you exactly how to hit each AO based on what AQA examiners have written in their reports.

🚫

Top Mistakes in A Level Philosophy 7172

The most common reasons students lose marks in A Level Philosophy 7172, cited directly from official AQA examiner reports across multiple sessions.

25-mark essays that juxtapose theories instead of integrating argument and counter-argument

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“juxtaposing and describing a range of views without sufficient engagement in ongoing evaluation or replacing argument and counter-argument with very brief assertion with little supporting reasoning.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q5

“Essays on the Metaphysics of Mind continue to attract response which juxtapose different theories of mind, rather than using other theories to critically engaged with the theory in question.”
— 7172/2 Paper 2, June 2022, Q10

How to fix this

Do not list theories side by side. After every objection, write the strongest possible reply, then a brief judgement on which side wins and why. Keep returning to the named theory or claim in the question — never let counter-views become a parallel essay of their own.

Stock evaluative phrases ('strong', 'weak', 'incredibly') used without reasons

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“too many stock uses of phrases such as 'this is a strong response' or 'this is a weak argument' without ever explaining why it is weak/strong with evidence / clear supporting reasons.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q10

“exaggerated evaluative remarks about 'incredibly weak/strong' arguments, which are not supported by the reasons provided.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Summary

How to fix this

Replace every 'this is strong/weak' with the reason itself: 'this fails because P entails Q, but Q is false'. Drop intensifiers like 'incredibly' — they signal assertion not argument. Each evaluative claim needs a premise and an inference, not a label.

12-mark answers that explain only one half of a two-part question

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“A response that only addressed the requirement to outline indirect realism but did not provide any relvant material on Berkeley's objection (or the other way around) could not demonstrate the level of detail required”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q4

“A response that only addressed the requirement to explain one of Gettier's counter examples but did not provide relevant material on 'no false lemmas' (or vice versa) could not demonstrate detailed understanding”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q4

How to fix this

Underline both halves of a 12-mark question before writing. Allocate roughly equal time to each, then add a sentence explicitly linking them (e.g. 'Berkeley's objection therefore targets the representation claim of indirect realism just outlined'). Both halves are mandatory — partial answers cap at the 4-6 band.

Lengthy descriptive introductions that delay or replace evaluation

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“sometimes students spoke at length at the start about what they intended to discuss (i.e. provided an outline plan of everything they were going to say before going on to say it) and this contributed little”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q5

“the best responses tended to start off with either a very brief account of the theory, or none at all, before considering objections right from the off”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q10

How to fix this

Do not write a plan paragraph or paraphrase the question. Open with one sentence stating your overall position, then go straight into objection 1. Bring out details of the theory inside the evaluation as you need them, not in a separate descriptive front-loaded section.

Imprecise or carelessly mixed-up technical definitions

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“the confusion of necessary and contingent truth with either a) necessary and sufficient conditions or b) necessary and contingent existence.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q1

“some students mixed up the definitions and examples (eg giving colour as an example of a primary quality or mass as an example of a secondary quality)”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q2

How to fix this

Build a definitions deck for every specification term and rehearse them aloud. For paired distinctions (necessary/contingent, primary/secondary, hard/soft behaviourism, type/token identity) write the two definitions side by side so the contrast itself is part of what you memorise.

Confusing one philosopher's view with another's

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“students explained some other aspect(s) of Berkeley's idealism (e.g. the theory itself, the Master Argument, Berkeley's rejection of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities).”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q4

“Other common errors included students mixing up key terms and theories (eg claiming that Hare was 'a cognitivist, anti-realist'), straightforwardly confusing Hare with Ayer”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q8

How to fix this

For each philosopher on the spec, write a one-line 'thesis card' and a one-line 'what they are NOT' card (e.g. Hare: non-cognitivist prescriptivist; NOT Ayer's emotivism, NOT a cognitivist). The contrast cards stop you defaulting to the more famous neighbour during exam pressure.

Examples and named cases used as decoration rather than as integrated argument

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“essays had been learnt by rote, rehearsing the same set of examples but without really explaining how they illustrated the point they were making and without evaluating the example.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q10

“Sometimes the examples students used were not well suited to the point they were trying to make.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2023, Q10

How to fix this

After every named case (Jim and the Indians, Henry in Barn County, the unfortunate nurse, the mad axeman) add an explicit linking sentence: 'this matters because…'. If you cannot write that sentence, the example is not earning its space — cut it.

Conflating closely related but distinct issues in moral and metaphysical theory

June 2022 and June 2023, both papers · Affects: Paper 1, Paper 2

What examiners say

“the confusion of the issue of 'individual rights and liberties' with the issue of integrity, and also the confusion of th issue of 'partiality' with the the issue of integrity.”
— 7172/1 Paper 1, June 2022, Q9

“Eliminative materialism was sometimes blurred with mind-brain identity theories (because of their shared emphasis on neuroscience)”
— 7172/2 Paper 2, June 2022, Q10

How to fix this

When the question names a specific issue (integrity, fallacy of composition, super-Spartans, no false lemmas) state it cleanly in your own words before you explain it, then test every paragraph: is this still about THAT issue? If you have drifted into rights, partiality, or another physicalist theory, redirect.

Apply what you've learned

Practice identifying these mistakes in real papers. Try a recent paper and mark yourself — you'll spot these patterns immediately.

Try June 2024 All 7172 Papers

✅

What A Level Philosophy 7172 Examiners Reward

Patterns that consistently earn high marks in A Level Philosophy 7172, based on AQA examiner report commentary on top-scoring answers.

Open the 25-mark essay with a clear thesis and refer back to a crucial argument

The very best answers offered a robust defence of the position they were advancing and often made clear reference to a crucial argument in the introduction before expanded on it later in their essay.

Source: 7172 Paper 1, June 2023, Q5 essay

Sustain ongoing evaluation throughout, not only in the conclusion

Students that accessed the top bands did so through a careful balancing of objections and counter-responses leading to well-supported judgments throughout and overall.

Source: 7172 Paper 1, June 2023, Q5 essay

Use precise philosophical and technical vocabulary correctly

There was clear evidence at the top end of many students doing this skilfully and in detail, with excellent logical linking and deployment of technical vocabulary.

Source: 7172 Paper 1, June 2022, Q8 Kant motives

Logically integrate the two halves of a 12-mark question

when done well, this demonstrated the skill of logical integration, which is a key requirement of the 7-9 band.

Source: 7172 Paper 1, June 2023, Q4 Gettier

Attribute explicit weight to arguments and explain why

The best responses sustained a clear and coherent line of argument and explicitly attributed appropriate weight to arguments being considered.

Source: 7172 Paper 1, June 2022, Q5 Descartes

Defend your position against objections at every stage of the argument

being able to defend their position on MBTIT against objections at every point in the argument. For example, where 'multiple realisability' was decisive, the identity theorist can qualify their position

Source: 7172 Paper 2, June 2023, Q10 mind-brain

📝

A Level Philosophy 7172 Answer Frameworks

Structured approaches for each A Level Philosophy 7172 question type, derived from AQA mark scheme requirements.

3-mark definition

3–5 minutes

Structure

One or two precise sentences capturing both halves of any paired distinction (e.g. necessary AND contingent, primary AND secondary, hard AND soft).

•Use the specification wording where possible — examiners credit it directly
•If the question is a contrast, define both terms — implicit difference is enough but each must be precise
•Avoid background context (ontological argument history, dualism debates) — it earns nothing here
•Do not give an example unless the definition itself is incomplete without one

5-mark explain

8–10 minutes

Structure

State the core claim → unpack the reasoning behind it → add one further point of detail (a key distinction, a logical move, or a named technical term used correctly).

•3 marks comes from substantive content; 4–5 marks needs additional precision and detail
•Use philosopher-specific features (Hume's argument, not 'design arguments in general')
•Logical linking words ('therefore', 'so', 'because') should connect claims, not decorate them
•Stop when the explanation is complete — over-writing risks redundancy or contradicting yourself

12-mark explain & illustrate

20–22 minutes

Structure

Part A (theory or position): clear, full account → Part B (objection, application or response): equally full account → integrating sentence linking the two.

•Both halves are mandatory — half-answers cap at the 4-6 band regardless of quality
•Use the named philosopher and the named issue from the question — generic substitutes are downgraded
•Logical integration ('this is precisely the claim Berkeley targets…') is the gateway into the 7-9 band
•Top band needs detail and precision, not extra quantity — keep illustrations tight

25-mark evaluative essay

45–55 minutes

Structure

Brief thesis (1–3 lines) → Objection 1 + best reply + judgement → Objection 2 + best reply + judgement → (Objection 3 if needed) → Integrated overall conclusion that tracks back to the thesis.

•Evaluate early and often — do not save evaluation for the conclusion
•Attribute weight: say why a particular argument is more or less crucial, not just that it is
•Use named cases (Jim and the Indians, Mary's room, the unfortunate nurse, super-Spartans) to do work, not as decoration
•Avoid stock language ('this is incredibly strong'); replace it with the reason itself
•Keep returning to the specific question — broader debates only earn marks when explicitly tied back

Practice by topic

Use topical past papers to practice specific question types. Each topic collects questions from multiple years — perfect for drilling the frameworks above.

Topical Past Papers

💬

A Level Philosophy 7172 Command Words Decoded

Each command word in A Level Philosophy 7172 is a scoring instruction. Understanding what AQA examiners expect is critical to earning full marks.

define3 marks

State the precise philosophical meaning of a term in one or two sentences. No examples or explanation needed unless the question asks for them.

Common mistake

Giving a vague everyday definition or capturing only one half of a paired distinction (e.g. defining 'necessary truth' as 'always true' without naming necessity itself).

outline5 or 12 marks

Set out the key claims of a theory or argument briefly and clearly, without evaluation.

Common mistake

Drifting into evaluation, or producing a generic version of the theory rather than the specific philosopher's version named in the question.

explain5 or 12 marks

Show how an argument or position works — premises, reasoning and conclusion — using technical vocabulary correctly.

Common mistake

Stating the position without unpacking the reasoning, or leaving the criticism implicit instead of saying clearly what the problem is.

Explain why5 marks

Identify the reason or mechanism behind a problem, objection or conclusion and walk through the logical steps that produce it.

Common mistake

Describing the position rather than diagnosing the WHY — e.g. stating the asymmetry between self and other knowledge without saying why this is fatal for behaviourism.

briefly explain3 marks

Give a compact, accurate explanation of a single concept — depth matters more than length.

Common mistake

Padding with redundant background (e.g. surveying the dualism vs physicalism debate when the question only asks what a philosophical zombie is).

Discuss/assess the view25 marks

Take a position on a philosophical claim and defend it through sustained argument, counter-argument and reasoned judgement.

Common mistake

Treating 'discuss' as 'describe' — listing positions on the topic without committing to a thesis or weighing arguments against each other.

evaluate25 marks

Weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of an argument or theory, with reasons, and reach a supported overall judgement.

Common mistake

Replacing evaluation with description, or asserting that arguments are 'strong/weak' without explaining the criteria you are using.

⚠️

Topics Students Struggle With Most In A Level Philosophy 7172

These A Level Philosophy 7172 topics consistently produce the lowest scores. Prioritise these in your revision.

Gettier counter-examples and 'no false lemmas'

Common weaknesses involved incorrect explanations of a Gettier case (eg that Smith is told by the boss that 'the person with 10 coins will get the job') or by not understanding what the false lemma was or, in some cases, what a lemma is.

Affects: Paper 1

Naturalistic fallacy and the moral naturalism / non-naturalism distinction

Some common errors of understanding included students stating that one theory was a 'realist theory' and the other an 'anti-realist', or similarly that one was a 'cognitivist theory' and the other 'non-cognitivist'.

Affects: Paper 1

Intentionality in philosophy of mind

Others focused on the failure of eliminative materialism to argue persuasively for the elimination of intentionality from our conceptions of the mind, arguing that intentionality lay at the root of the self-refuting objection.

Affects: Paper 2

Qualia, phenomenal properties and property dualism

Sometimes there was blurring and confusion with 'intentional states'. It was open to students to say that even intentional states have phenomenal properties, but where there was clear conflation of the concepts, students did not reach full marks.

Affects: Paper 2

Religious language and Ayer's verification principle

Sometimes 'verification' and 'falsification' were used interchangeably, and in some cases the arguments were blurred with those of Flew. Occasionally students answered the question with reference to 'moral language' rather than religious.

Affects: Paper 2

Aristotelian virtue ethics — application beyond rote examples

students who scored in the lower bands who tried to utilise Kant and utilitarianism to criticise Aristotle often incorporated far too much description of these theories rather than using them to specifically demonstrate a critical point.

Affects: Paper 1

Hare's prescriptivism and other meta-ethical anti-realisms

more students did not even attempt to respond to this question than any other on the paper, and nearly 15% failied to score marks whether they attempted it or not.

Affects: Paper 1

Eliminative materialism vs mind-brain type identity theory

Eliminative materialism was sometimes blurred with mind-brain identity theories (because of their shared emphasis on neuroscience), and it was not unusual to find eliminative materialism characterised as a radical 'reductive' theory.

Affects: Paper 2

Target your weak areas

The topics above are where most marks are lost. Use past papers and mark schemes to practice these specific areas until they become second nature.

Past Papers & Mark Schemes Topical Papers

Frequently Asked Questions

What papers make up AQA A-Level Philosophy 7172?

Paper 1 (7172/1) Epistemology and Moral Philosophy: 100 marks, 3 hours. Paper 2 (7172/2) Metaphysics of God and Metaphysics of Mind: 100 marks, 3 hours. Each paper has two sections, each containing 3, 5, 5, 12 and 25 mark questions.

How are AO1 and AO2 weighted across the 7172 specification?

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) carries 60% and AO2 (analyse and evaluate) carries 40% of the A-Level overall — a 30/20 split per paper. The 3, 5 and 12 mark questions are AO1 only; the 25 mark essays test both, with most marks tied to AO2 sustained evaluation.

How should I divide my time across a 7172 paper?

Across 180 minutes for 100 marks: roughly 4 minutes for each 3-mark, 9 minutes for each 5-mark, 21 minutes for each 12-mark, and around 50 minutes for each 25-mark essay. Aim to leave the essay with at least 45 minutes — most marks live there.

Do I have to use named philosophers from the AQA specification?

Yes for top marks. Examiners explicitly downgrade generic answers — questions on 'Hume's design argument' or 'Gettier's original counter-examples' require the named philosopher's actual argument, not a generic version, to access the top band.

Put It All Into Practice

You now know exactly what AQA examiners reward and penalise. The next step is deliberate practice with real papers. We have 6 exam sessions available for A Level Philosophy 7172 — question papers, mark schemes, and examiner reports.

View All Past Papers Latest Session: June 2024 Topical Past Papers