You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Before you revise a single argument or scholar, you need a precise mental map of the examination you are preparing for. Candidates who understand the architecture of AQA A-Level Religious Studies (specification 7062) — the components, the assessment objectives and their exact weighting, the three answer types and their tariffs, the mark-scheme bands, and the command words — consistently outperform those who dive straight into content without knowing what the examiner is rewarding. This lesson sets out that architecture in full and is the foundation for the three technique lessons that follow.
A note on terminology before we begin. AQA's formal name for each of the two examinations is a component, and each has an official paper code: Component 1 is 7062/1 and Component 2 is 7062/2. You will sometimes hear teachers and textbooks say "Paper 1" and "Paper 2" loosely, and the meaning is the same; but this course uses Component throughout, because that is the language of the specification and the mark schemes you will be marked against.
AQA A-Level Religious Studies (7062) is a linear qualification: both examinations are sat at the end of the two-year course, and there is no coursework or non-examined assessment. One hundred per cent of your grade comes from two written components. Each component is a three-hour written examination worth 100 marks, and each is worth 50% of the A-Level.
| Component | Code | Title | Duration | Marks | Weighting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component 1 | 7062/1 | Philosophy of religion and ethics | 3 hours | 100 | 50% |
| Component 2 | 7062/2 | Study of religion and dialogues | 3 hours | 100 | 50% |
Three hours is a substantial amount of writing time, but you will need every minute of it once you see how the marks are distributed — particularly the two 25-mark synoptic essays that sit at the heart of Component 2.
Key term: Linear assessment — all examinations are taken at the end of the course in a single series, rather than in modular units sat along the way. Everything you have learned over two years is therefore examinable in one summer.
Component 1 is divided into two compulsory sections, each carrying 50 marks.
Section A contains two compulsory two-part questions drawn from the philosophy of religion content (the design, cosmological and ontological arguments; the problem of evil and suffering; religious experience; religious language; miracles; and self, death and the afterlife). Each two-part question is worth 25 marks, split as 10 marks for part (a) — assessing AO1 — and 15 marks for part (b) — assessing AO2. Section A therefore totals 50 marks.
Section B follows exactly the same shape: two compulsory two-part questions drawn from the ethics content (normative theories — natural moral law, situation ethics, virtue ethics; the ethical thought of Bentham and Kant; applied ethics on human and on animal life and death; meta-ethics; free will and moral responsibility; and conscience). Again each two-part question is 10 marks (AO1) + 15 marks (AO2), totalling 50 marks for the section.
Total for Component 1: four two-part questions in all (two per section), each 10 + 15, giving 100 marks. There is no choice and no essay in this component — every question is compulsory.
Component 2 has three sections (A, B and C) and a different shape from Component 1, because it is where the synoptic essay lives. This course studies Christianity (option 2B) for the study-of-religion section.
Section A contains two compulsory two-part questions on the chosen religion — sources of wisdom and authority; God; self, death and the afterlife; good conduct and key moral principles; expression of religious identity; gender and sexuality; religion and science; secularisation; and religious pluralism. As in Component 1, each is 10 marks (AO1) + 15 marks (AO2), so Section A is worth 50 marks.
Section B is one synoptic essay worth 25 marks, chosen from two questions. It asks you to bring your philosophy-of-religion learning into dialogue with your study of Christianity — judging, for example, how far a philosophical challenge (the problem of evil, religious language, miracles, religious experience, the science–religion debate) is reasonable, meaningful or coherent when set against Christian belief.
Section C is also one synoptic essay worth 25 marks, chosen from two questions. It brings your ethics learning into dialogue with Christianity — how Christianity responds to deontological (Kant), consequential (Bentham/utilitarian) and character-based (virtue) approaches, applied to the prescribed moral issues.
Total for Component 2: Section A (two two-part questions, 50 marks) + Section B (one 25-mark essay) + Section C (one 25-mark essay) = 100 marks. The two dialogue essays together carry half of Component 2 and are the single biggest discriminator on the whole A-Level.
AQA assesses 7062 through two assessment objectives. Crucially, they are not weighted equally: AO2 carries more than AO1 across the qualification as a whole. There is no AO3.
| Objective | What it assesses | Weighting |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of religion and belief, including accurate and relevant use of specialist language and terminology, use of relevant sources of wisdom and authority, and understanding of key concepts. | 40% |
| AO2 | Analyse and evaluate aspects of, and approaches to, religion and belief, including their significance, influence and study, using well-evidenced and reasoned arguments. | 60% |
The 40/60 split is the single most important fact in this lesson. Because AO2 is the larger objective, the majority of the marks across the A-Level are for analysis, evaluation and reasoned argument — not for description. The most common reason able candidates underperform is that they over-invest in AO1 (telling the examiner everything they know) and under-invest in AO2 (weighing positions and reaching a substantiated judgement). Every technique lesson in this course is built around protecting and maximising your AO2.
It is worth pausing on why this matters so much in Religious Studies specifically. Unlike subjects with a large factual recall component, 7062 is designed around contested questions to which there is no settled "right answer" — does the cosmological argument succeed, is situation ethics workable, can religious language be meaningful? The examiner is not checking whether you can recite a position; they are checking whether you can think about it. A candidate who has read widely but cannot construct an argument will plateau, while a candidate of modest reading who argues with discipline and reaches substantiated judgements will climb. This is why technique is not a polish applied at the end but the core skill the qualification rewards — and why a thin grasp of how the marks are distributed quietly caps so many otherwise able students.
| Answer type | Where it appears | AO1 | AO2 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-mark response | Part (a) of every two-part question | 10 (AO1 only) | — | 10 |
| 15-mark response | Part (b) of every two-part question | — | 15 (AO2 only) | 15 |
| 25-mark synoptic essay | Component 2 Sections B and C | 10 | 15 | 25 |
There are therefore three answer types to master, and the 40/60 objective split is visible inside each two-part question: part (a) is a focused 10-mark knowledge task, and the longer part (b) is a 15-mark evaluation task. Treating part (a) like a mini-essay, or part (b) like an extended description, is the fastest way to lose marks.
Part (a) of each two-part question is a focused test of knowledge and understanding. It typically opens with a command word such as Examine, Explain or Clarify and asks you to set out a position, an argument or a body of teaching accurately and in the right technical language. It is not an essay: there is no requirement to evaluate, and you should not spend time arguing for or against the material. What earns the marks is precise, relevant, well-organised exposition — the named scholars' actual views, the correct terminology, and (where relevant) accurate sources of wisdom and authority.
AQA mark-scheme bands for a 10-mark (AO1) response:
| Level | Marks | Descriptor (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 9–10 | A very good, accurate and relevant demonstration of knowledge and understanding; thorough, well-organised; sustained and accurate use of specialist language. |
| 4 | 7–8 | A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding; mostly accurate and relevant; good use of specialist language. |
| 3 | 5–6 | A satisfactory demonstration; some accurate knowledge with some relevant use of specialist language. |
| 2 | 3–4 | A basic, limited demonstration; partial knowledge; limited use of specialist language. |
| 1 | 1–2 | A very limited, fragmentary or largely inaccurate demonstration. |
Part (b) is a test of analysis and evaluation. It typically opens with an evaluative trigger — "To what extent…", "Assess the view that…", "Critically evaluate…", or a quoted claim followed by Discuss or Evaluate this view. Here you are rewarded not for what you know but for what you do with it: weighing arguments and counter-arguments, testing whether objections actually succeed, and reaching a clear, substantiated judgement. Because part (b) is pure AO2, description earns nothing on its own — every point must do evaluative work.
AQA mark-scheme bands for a 15-mark (AO2) response:
| Level | Marks | Descriptor (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 13–15 | A very well-focused response; critical analysis and evaluation that is perceptive, fully sustained and well-evidenced, leading to a clear and reasoned conclusion. |
| 4 | 10–12 | A good response; analysis and evaluation that is mostly sustained, with a clear conclusion. |
| 3 | 7–9 | A satisfactory response; some analysis and evaluation, partially sustained, with a conclusion. |
| 2 | 4–6 | A limited response; little sustained analysis; assertion rather than argument. |
| 1 | 1–3 | A very limited response; minimal or no analysis. |
The two dialogue essays are the top discriminator of the whole qualification. Each is marked out of 25, combining up to 10 marks of AO1 and up to 15 marks of AO2 in a single sustained piece. "Synoptic" means you must connect areas of the course that are usually taught separately — bringing philosophy of religion, or ethics, into genuine dialogue with Christian belief, rather than writing two unconnected mini-answers under one title. The very best essays are organised as a single line of argument that builds to a judgement, deploying accurate knowledge in the service of evaluation throughout.
AQA mark-scheme bands for a 25-mark synoptic essay:
| Level | Marks | AO1 (max 10) | AO2 (max 15) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 21–25 | Thorough, wide-ranging, accurate; excellent specialist terms and sources. | Perceptive, fully sustained, well-evidenced critical evaluation with a clear conclusion. |
| 4 | 16–20 | Good and accurate, well-organised. | Good, sustained analysis and evaluation with a clear conclusion. |
| 3 | 11–15 | Satisfactory knowledge and understanding. | Some analysis and evaluation, partially sustained. |
| 2 | 6–10 | Limited, partial knowledge. | Limited, with little sustained evaluation. |
| 1 | 1–5 | Very limited, largely inaccurate. | Very limited; minimal evaluation. |
To see why the answer types are genuinely different skills, picture the topic of religious experience examined at each tariff. The contrast below is the heart of why one revision style does not fit all three.
Examiner-style commentary: Notice that the same material is rewarded for three different things. At 10 marks the examiner wants accurate, well-marshalled knowledge and nothing wasted on evaluation; at 15 marks knowledge is merely the raw material for a sustained AO2 argument; at 25 marks the discriminator is synoptic connection plus a sustained judgement. Candidates who revise only "facts about religious experience" can score well at 10 marks but stall at 15 and 25. The fix is to revise each topic three ways — as exposition, as a debate, and as a connection to Christianity.
AQA uses consistent command words. Reading the command word correctly tells you which assessment objective is in play and therefore how to write.
| Command word | Where it appears | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Examine / Explain / Clarify | 10-mark part (a), AO1 | Set out the material accurately and in developed prose; do not evaluate. |
| To what extent / Assess / Critically evaluate | 15-mark part (b) and 25-mark essays, AO2 | Weigh arguments and counter-arguments and reach a reasoned judgement. |
| "Statement." Discuss / Evaluate this view | 15-mark part (b) and 25-mark essays, AO2 | Engage directly with the quoted claim; argue both sides; judge how far it holds. |
| Analyse | AO2 contexts | Break the issue into its parts and show how they bear on the conclusion. |
Key term: Synoptic assessment — assessment that requires candidates to draw together, and make connections between, different parts of the course. In 7062 it is examined explicitly in the two 25-mark dialogue essays of Component 2.
The level descriptors above are not decoration: examiners use them to place your work, and you should use them to write it. Three features of the AQA 7062 scheme repay close attention.
First, the bands are "best-fit," not "tick-box." Examiners do not count points and add them up; they read the whole response, decide which level descriptor it most resembles, and then fix the mark within that level. This is why a 15-mark answer that makes three brilliantly evaluated points usually outscores one that makes seven described points — the quality of analysis, not the quantity of content, determines the level.
Second, the AO1 and AO2 descriptors reward different verbs. The AO1 bands are built on words like accurate, relevant, thorough, well-organised and specialist language. The AO2 bands are built on words like critical, sustained, well-evidenced, perceptive and reasoned conclusion. If you learn the descriptors, you learn what to put on the page: a 10-mark part (a) should read accurate and well-organised; a 15-mark part (b) should read critical and sustained, ending in a judgement.
Third, the words "sustained" and "conclusion" are doing enormous work in the AO2 bands. "Sustained" means the evaluation runs as one developing line rather than appearing in a single paragraph and then vanishing. "Conclusion" means a judgement that follows from the argument, not a restatement. The leap from Level 3 ("partially sustained") to Level 5 ("fully sustained… clear conclusion") is exactly the leap from a discussion that fizzles out to one that arrives somewhere.
Key term: Best-fit marking — the examiner matches a response to the level descriptor it most closely resembles overall, rather than awarding a mark for each separate point. Internal consistency and a sustained argument therefore matter more than sheer coverage.
To make the difference between the tariffs concrete, here is a worked part (a) at three quality tiers. The question is:
"Examine Aquinas's Third Way as an argument for the existence of God." (10 marks)
Mid-band response would write: "Aquinas said everything has a cause and you can't go back forever, so there must be a first cause which is God. This is the cosmological argument and it is a posteriori." This is partly accurate but blurs the Third Way into the general "first cause" idea, omits the specific machinery of contingency and necessity, and uses little precise terminology.
A Stronger / Top-band response would write:
The Third Way is Aquinas's argument from contingency and necessity, the third of his Five Ways and an a posteriori argument that begins from observation of the world. Aquinas observes that the things we encounter are contingent: they come into being and pass away, and so are capable of existing and of not existing. He argues that if everything were contingent, then at some point in infinite time nothing would have existed — and since something cannot come from nothing, nothing would exist now. But things plainly do exist. Therefore there must be a being whose existence is not contingent but necessary — a being that does not depend on anything else for its existence. Aquinas identifies this necessary being with God. The argument turns on the contrast between contingent beings, which require an external explanation, and a necessary being, which is self-explanatory; it does not (unlike the popular caricature) merely assert that "everything has a cause".
Examiner-style commentary: The Top-band version reaches Level 5 because it is accurate and specific — it correctly identifies the Third Way as the argument from contingency and necessity (not the First Way from motion, a frequent confusion), reproduces the actual reasoning about infinite time, and deploys the technical vocabulary (contingent, necessary, a posteriori) that the AO1 bands reward. Notice what it does not do: it never asks whether the argument works. Adding "but Hume objected…" here would waste words on an objective that part (a) does not assess. The discipline of writing pure, precise exposition is itself the skill being marked.
The matching part (b) shows how different the AO2 task is. The question is:
"To what extent does the cosmological argument prove the existence of God?" (15 marks)
A Mid-band answer narrates the Third Way again and then adds "Russell disagreed and said the universe is just there", concluding "so it depends on your point of view". This describes a disagreement but never adjudicates it, and reaches no real judgement — exactly the "limited, partially sustained" territory of Levels 2–3.
A Stronger / Top-band answer argues to a judgement:
Whether the cosmological argument proves God depends on how much weight the move from contingent things to a necessary being can bear. Its strength is that it answers a genuine question — why is there something rather than nothing? — that the atheist cannot simply wave away; to reply, with Russell, that "the universe is just there, and that's all" can look less like an answer than a refusal of the question. However, Hume's objection bites hard here: the inference from "every part of the universe is contingent" to "the whole universe is contingent" may commit the fallacy of composition, since the whole need not share the properties of its parts. If the universe as a totality requires no external cause, the argument's conclusion does not follow. Russell sharpens this into the brute-fact thesis. Yet the theist can reply that treating the universe as a brute fact is not obviously more rational than seeking its explanation, and that the demand for sufficient reason is hard to abandon selectively. The most defensible verdict is therefore calibrated: the cosmological argument does not prove God in the strict sense — the composition objection blocks a watertight demonstration — but it is not thereby irrational, because the question it presses is real and the brute-fact alternative carries its own cost. It establishes the reasonableness of belief in a necessary being rather than its certainty.
Examiner-style commentary: This reaches Top-band by interrogating the question — it pins down what "prove" would require and then tests whether the argument meets that bar. It runs a sustained evaluative line (strength, then the composition objection, then the theist's reply, then a judgement) rather than listing views, and it discriminates carefully between "fails as a proof" and "is unreasonable" — the kind of calibrated conclusion the AO2 bands reward. Knowledge of Aquinas, Hume and Russell appears, but only in the service of the argument. Compare it with the 10-mark answer above: the same topic, but here description would score nothing — every sentence must evaluate.
It helps to hold a one-page picture of where each body of content is examined, because it tells you which topics can appear in a 25-mark synoptic essay (a different preparation from a 10+15 pair).
| Content area | Examined in | Answer types |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy of religion (arguments for God; evil; religious experience; religious language; miracles; soul/death) | Component 1 Section A; and Component 2 Section B dialogue | 10 + 15; and 25-mark essay |
| Ethics (natural law; situation ethics; virtue ethics; Bentham/Kant; applied ethics; meta-ethics; free will; conscience) | Component 1 Section B; and Component 2 Section C dialogue | 10 + 15; and 25-mark essay |
| Study of religion — Christianity (sources of authority; God; afterlife; conduct; identity; gender; science; secularisation; pluralism) | Component 2 Section A; and drawn on in both dialogues | 10 + 15; and 25-mark essay material |
The key strategic insight is that the philosophy and ethics you learn for Component 1 is examined a second time, synoptically, in Component 2's dialogue essays — but only when connected to Christian belief. That is why this course insists you revise each philosophy and ethics topic not just for the 10+15 pair but also as a dialogue with Christianity. The same fact, learned once, must be deployable three ways.
Key term: Dialogue — in 7062 the structured engagement, examined in Component 2 Sections B and C, between (a) philosophy of religion and Christianity, and (b) ethical studies and Christianity. The mark scheme rewards essays that show how each side bears on the other, judged for reasonableness, meaningfulness and coherence.
Each component is 180 minutes for 100 marks — roughly 1.7–1.8 minutes per mark before planning and checking. The two components have different internal shapes, so plan them differently.
Component 1 (four 10+15 two-part questions):
| Activity | Time |
|---|---|
| Reading and planning | 10 min |
| Each 10-mark part (a) × 4 | ~13 min each (~52 min) |
| Each 15-mark part (b) × 4 | ~26 min each (~104 min) |
| Final check | ~14 min |
Component 2 (two 10+15 two-part questions + two 25-mark essays):
| Activity | Time |
|---|---|
| Reading and planning | 10 min |
| 10-mark part (a) × 2 | ~13 min each (~26 min) |
| 15-mark part (b) × 2 | ~26 min each (~52 min) |
| 25-mark essay (Section B) | ~40 min |
| 25-mark essay (Section C) | ~40 min |
| Final check | ~12 min |
Strategy: In Component 2, protect the two essays. They carry 50 of the 100 marks and reward the AO2 the whole qualification is weighted towards. A common, costly error is over-running the part (a) and part (b) answers and then rushing both 25-mark essays — the exact opposite of where the marks are.
Because part (a) and part (b) usually share a topic, candidates sometimes treat them as one long answer. They are not. They are separately marked against different objectives, and the examiner does not import knowledge from your part (a) into your part (b) or vice versa. This has two practical consequences.
First, do not "save" your evaluation for part (b) by withholding knowledge from part (a). Part (a) is marked purely on AO1, so the fullest, most accurate exposition belongs there; holding material back does not help your part (b), which is marked purely on AO2. Second, do not repeat your part (a) exposition at the start of part (b). Re-describing the theory in an AO2 answer earns nothing and burns time you need for argument. A strong part (b) may briefly recall a position in a single clause before evaluating it ("Although natural law claims universality, …"), but its centre of gravity must be analysis.
A useful mental model is that part (a) asks "What is it?" and part (b) asks "Is it any good?". The same topic, two different questions. The candidates who internalise this stop writing "essays" for part (a) and stop writing "descriptions" for part (b) — and that single adjustment often moves a script up a grade.
| Error | Why it costs marks | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluating in a 10-mark part (a) | Part (a) is AO1 only; evaluation earns nothing and wastes time | Keep part (a) pure exposition; save all judgement for part (b) |
| Describing in a 15-mark part (b) | Part (b) is AO2 only; description earns nothing | Lead every paragraph with an evaluative move, not a summary |
| Writing two mini-answers in a 25-mark essay | The essay rewards synoptic connection, not parallel monologues | Build one line of argument that explicitly links the two areas |
| No conclusion, or a conclusion that merely restates | The AO2 bands explicitly reward a reasoned conclusion | End with a judgement that follows from the argument you built |
| Treating AO1 and AO2 as equally weighted | AO2 is 60%, AO1 only 40% | Invest your best time and energy in the 15-mark and 25-mark AO2 work |
| Mis-naming the assessment ("Paper", "3-mark question", "AO3") | Signals shaky grasp of the spec; there is no 3-mark question and no AO3 | Use "Component", the 10/15/25 tariffs, and AO1/AO2 only |
These errors are structural, not about content — which is good news, because they are entirely within your control. A candidate of average knowledge who always writes the right type of answer for the tariff will routinely outscore a more knowledgeable candidate who does not.
Exam tip: Memorise the tariff map — 10 = AO1, 15 = AO2, 25 = both, and AO2 (60%) outweighs AO1 (40%) overall. If you can feel which objective each question is testing the moment you read it, you will automatically write the right kind of answer, which is half the battle on this paper.