You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Component 1 (7062/1) examines your knowledge and critical understanding of the philosophy of religion (Section A) and ethics (Section B). It is a three-hour written examination worth 100 marks and 50% of the A-Level. This lesson is a detailed technique guide to the two answer types you meet in this component: the 10-mark part (a), assessing AO1, and the 15-mark part (b), assessing AO2. (There is no 25-mark essay in Component 1; the synoptic essays belong to Component 2, covered in the next lesson.) Each section presents two compulsory two-part questions, so mastering this 10 + 15 pairing is the whole game for Component 1.
Key term: Two-part question — the standard 7062 question form: part (a) is a focused 10-mark AO1 task ("Examine…"), and part (b) is a 15-mark AO2 task ("To what extent…"), usually on the same topic but marked separately against different objectives.
Section A presents two compulsory two-part questions drawn from the philosophy-of-religion content. Each is 10 marks (AO1) + 15 marks (AO2), so the section is worth 50 marks. The content from which questions are drawn includes:
Part (a) is a pure knowledge-and-understanding task. The command word is typically Examine, Explain or Clarify, and what earns the marks is accurate, relevant, well-organised exposition in the correct specialist language — not evaluation.
Example question:
"Examine Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God." (10 marks)
A Stronger / Top-band response:
Anselm's argument, set out in the Proslogion, is a priori and deductive — it proceeds from the definition of God by reason alone, without appeal to empirical evidence. Anselm defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He argues that even the "fool" who says in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14) understands this definition, so God exists at least in the understanding. But, Anselm continues, it is greater to exist in reality than merely in the understanding. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived existed only in the understanding, we could conceive of something greater — namely, the same being existing in reality — which is a contradiction. So God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding. In a second form (Proslogion 3), Anselm argues that God's existence is necessary: a being that cannot be conceived not to exist is greater than one that can, so the greatest conceivable being must exist necessarily.
Examiner-style commentary: This reaches Level 5 (9–10) because it is accurate, sequential and technical. It correctly identifies the argument as a priori, quotes Anselm's definition precisely, reproduces both the Proslogion 2 and Proslogion 3 forms (a discrimination many candidates miss), and deploys the right vocabulary (in the understanding, necessary existence). It does not wander into Gaunilo or Kant — those criticisms belong in a part (b), not here. The skill being marked is disciplined, precise exposition.
Part (b) is a pure analysis-and-evaluation task. The trigger is evaluative — "To what extent…", "Assess the view that…", or a quoted claim with Discuss. Here knowledge is only the raw material; the marks are for a sustained line of argument that weighs positions and reaches a substantiated judgement.
Example question:
"To what extent do religious experiences provide evidence for the existence of God?" (15 marks)
A Mid-band approach would describe James's four marks of the mystical, then list Freud and neuroscience "on the other side", concluding "there are arguments both ways". This narrates rather than adjudicates: it never tests whether the naturalistic explanations actually defeat the experience, and it reaches no real judgement.
A Stronger / Top-band response argues a sustained line, and the most effective framing is Swinburne's, because it tells us exactly what would settle the question. Swinburne's principle of credulity gives an experience a defeasible presumption of truth: "it seemed that God was present" is evidence that God was present unless a defeater applies. The debate then turns on whether the challenges supply such defeaters — and arguably they do not decisively do so. Neuroscience establishes that religious experiences have neural correlates, but every experience, including ordinary uncontested perception, has a neural correlate; a mechanism is not by itself a defeater, and to think it is commits the genetic fallacy of confusing the cause of a belief with its justification. Freud's account is speculative, and in any case a wish-driven belief may still be true. The strongest genuine challenge is the diversity of conflicting claims: if a Christian mystic and a Hindu mystic report experiences confirming mutually exclusive truth-claims, the presumption cannot validate both, and Hick's pluralist response — that the experiences point to a common transcendent reality differently interpreted — saves the experiences as evidence for the transcendent only at the cost of their support for any specific doctrine of God. The defensible judgement is therefore calibrated: religious experience supplies real but inconclusive evidence — enough to make belief reasonable for the experient, not enough to compel the sceptic.
Examiner-style commentary: This reaches Top-band because it does not list arguments but adopts an evaluative framework (Swinburne's defeasible presumption) that tells the reader exactly what would have to be shown, then tests each challenge against it. It distinguishes a mechanism from a defeater, names the genetic fallacy accurately, and identifies religious diversity as the strongest objection rather than treating all objections as equal. Crucially, it reaches a qualified judgement ("real but inconclusive") rather than a blanket verdict. Attribution is exact: James held mystical states authoritative for the experient, and Hick's pluralism is correctly stated.
A reliable structure for the 10-mark part (a) is: a one-sentence orientation that names and classifies the position, then two or three developed paragraphs of accurate exposition in logical order, using technical terms precisely. No introduction-with-thesis, no evaluation, no conclusion — just disciplined knowledge.
A reliable structure for the 15-mark part (b) is: a short introduction that pins down what the question is really asking and signposts your line of argument; three or four paragraphs that each make an evaluative move (argument, then the strongest objection, then a reply, then a micro-judgement); and a conclusion that states a reasoned judgement following from the argument. Aim to engage at least two named scholars on each side and never let a paragraph end in mere description.
| Feature | 10-mark part (a) — AO1 | 15-mark part (b) — AO2 |
|---|---|---|
| Question asks | "What is it?" | "Is it any good / how far is it true?" |
| Rewarded for | Accuracy, relevance, specialist language | Sustained evaluation, reasoned judgement |
| Scholars used to | Set out a position correctly | Attack or defend a position |
| Conclusion? | No — exposition only | Yes — a judgement that follows from the argument |
| Fatal error | Evaluating instead of explaining | Describing instead of evaluating |
Section B has the same shape as Section A — two compulsory two-part questions, each 10 (AO1) + 15 (AO2), totalling 50 marks — but the content is ethics. Questions are drawn from:
"Examine the key features of natural moral law as an ethical theory." (10 marks)
A Stronger / Top-band response:
Natural moral law, developed by Aquinas from Aristotelian philosophy within a Christian framework, holds that morality is grounded in a rational, God-given order discoverable by reason. Aquinas argues that everything has a telos (purpose), and that the fundamental principle of practical reason is "good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided". From this flow the primary precepts — the self-evident goods that humans are oriented towards: the preservation of life, reproduction, the education of offspring, living in an ordered society, and worshipping God. From these, reason derives secondary precepts — more specific rules applying the primary precepts to situations (for example, the prohibition of murder follows from preserving life). Aquinas distinguishes real goods (genuinely conducive to our telos) from apparent goods (mistakenly pursued under the guise of good), and uses the principle of double effect to assess acts with both good and bad consequences: an act may be permissible if the act itself is good or neutral, the bad effect is not intended, and the good outweighs the bad.
Examiner-style commentary: This earns Level 5 because it is accurate and complete: it correctly grounds the theory in Aquinas and telos, names all five primary precepts, distinguishes primary from secondary precepts and real from apparent goods, and states the principle of double effect properly. The vocabulary is precise throughout. Note again the discipline: no evaluation of whether natural law is too rigid — that would be part (b) material wasted in a part (a).
"'Utilitarianism is the best approach to issues of human life and death.' Evaluate this view. (15 marks)"
A Mid-band answer lists utilitarianism's approach and then a rule or two from another theory, concluding "both have strengths and weaknesses". This sets theories side by side without adjudicating between them.
A Stronger / Top-band response argues to a judgement. Utilitarianism's strength on life-and-death issues is its responsiveness to consequences: rather than applying a fixed rule regardless of outcome, it weighs the actual welfare at stake, which is why Peter Singer can argue that voluntary euthanasia is justified where it ends unbearable suffering and respects the person's preferences. This flexibility is a genuine advantage over absolutist positions that may compel prolonged suffering for the sake of a rule. However, the same flexibility is the theory's deepest vulnerability: because it locates moral value solely in aggregate outcomes, it can in principle license grave injustice to individuals — the stock counter-example of killing one patient to harvest organs that save five exposes how the greatest-happiness principle can override the separateness and dignity of persons. Kant's objection is decisive here: treating the one merely as a means to others' ends violates the categorical imperative and the inherent worth of rational agents. A natural-law or sanctity-of-life view presses the same point from a religious direction: human life has intrinsic, not merely instrumental, value. The honest judgement is therefore that utilitarianism is not simply "the best" approach: its consequence-sensitivity is a real merit in hard cases, but without a constraint protecting individual dignity it is incomplete, and the strongest position may be one that takes consequences seriously within deontological limits rather than utilitarianism unqualified.
Examiner-style commentary: This reaches Top-band by weighing rather than listing: it grants utilitarianism a real strength, identifies the precise mechanism of its weakness (aggregation overriding the separateness of persons), brings Kant in to do decisive evaluative work rather than as decoration, and reaches a calibrated judgement ("not simply the best… incomplete") that directly answers the quoted claim. Singer and Kant are accurately attributed. It never lapses into describing the theories for their own sake.
Because the problem of evil is one of the most frequently examined topics in Component 1 Section A, it is worth working a full 10 + 15 pair on it. This also lets us model the spec-named responses precisely — Hick's soul-making theodicy, the free will defence, and Griffin's process theodicy — rather than the older Augustine/Irenaeus framing that the 7062 specification does not name.
"Examine the logical problem of evil." (10 marks)
A Stronger / Top-band response:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 4 lessons in this course.