Page 1

7

Relevant philosophical issues are analysed and explained. Examples are deployed effectively.


Evaluation sometimes lacks philosophical impact. Low level 5 Relevant philosophical issues are analysed and explained. Examples are deployed effectively. Evaluation is clear and developed. Mid level 5

Explanation and analysis of relevant material. Different philosophical positions are discussed. .Answer does not consistently include evaluation but the candidate makes some good critical comparisons.. high level 4 Explanation and analysis of relevant material. Different philosophical positions are discussed. Answer does not consistently include evaluation but the candidate makes some good critical analysis.. high level 4 Explanation and analysis of relevant material. Different philosophical positions are sometimes juxtaposed rather than critically compared. Answer lacks consistent evaluation. Mid level 4 Explanation and analysis of relevant material. There is sometimes a lack of clarity and focus on the question. Mid level 4 Sporadic insights with limited relevant understanding and analysis. Some knowledge is present but the answer, as a whole, lacks relevant detail. Mid/high level 3 Explanation and analysis of some relevant material despite some lack of depth. Different philosophical positions are juxtaposed rather than critically compared. Answer lacks development. High level 3/low level 4 Explanation and analysis of some relevant material despite some lack of depth. Answer lacks development. High level 3/low level 4 Explanation and analysis of some relevant material despite some lack of clarity. Different philosophical positions are sometimes juxtaposed rather than critically compared. Answer lacks development. Low level 4. Explanation and analysis of some relevant material despite some lack of clarity. Answer lacks development. Low level 4. Sporadic insights are present but development is hindered by lack of clarity and irrelevant tangents. Low level 3 Some knowledge is present but it is not evaluated or analysed. Low level 3 Explanation and analysis of relevant material despite some lack of precision. Different philosophical positions are sometimes critically compared but evaluation lacks precision and development. High level 4 Sporadic insights, lack of detail and narrow focus. Evaluation and analysis are limited. High level 2/low level 3 Sporadic insights, lack of detail and some tangents. Evaluation and analysis are limited. High level 2/low level 3


Sporadic insights are present but their development is hindered by irrelevant tangents. Evaluation is narrowly confined. Mid/high level 2 Sporadic insights are present but their development is hindered lack of depth and focus. Evaluation is narrowly confined. Mid/high level 2 Extremely basic awareness of one point without development or analysis. Level 1 Tangential. Question interpreted incorrectly as being about the origins of the idea of God rather than the coherence of the idea. Level 1 Tangential. Question interpreted incorrectly as being about the origins of the idea of God rather than the coherence of the idea. Some undeveloped points. Low Level 2

Detailed and relevant response. Illustrations have a clear bearing on the question. Detailed and relevant response. No illustrations Blurring and conflation of issues results in lack of clarity. No illustration. Some relevant discussion but also some irrelevant discussion of criticisms. Illustration relates to the criticism and not the argument and is therefore not worthy of credit.

Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. Illustrations present but not fully developed. Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. No Illustrations Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. Illustrations are clear and have bearing on the question Response relates to the question but is not precise. Illustrations are clear and have bearing on the question Response relates to the question but is not precise. Illustrations present but not fully developed. Response includes some relevant discussion but is not clearly related to the question. Illustrations present but not fully developed. One issue clearly explained, the other reason is unclear and conflates issues. One issue clearly explained, the other reason is not detailed. Illustrations are present


Response is not detailed. Illustrations present but not clear. Detailed knowledge of relevant philosophical issues but not always focussed. Illustrations are relevant and clear. Detailed knowledge of relevant philosophical issues but not always precise. Illustrations are relevant and clear. Detailed knowledge of relevant philosophical issues . Illustrations are relevant and clear. Response is accurate and focussed. Illustrations are present but not fully developed in relation to the question. Response is generally accurate and focussed. Illustrations lack clarity. Response is relevant but lacks clarity. Illustrations are not developed. Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. Illustrations are present but not fully developed. Response is accurate and focussed but lack philosophical impact. Illustrations are present Response is accurate but not always focussed on the question. Illustrations are present but not fully developed. Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. Illustrations are implied but not developed. The response isn't detailed, resulting in lack of clarity. No illustrations Some relevant discussion but blurring and conflation of issues results in lack of clarity. Illustrations present but not clearly relevant to the question Response is relevant but lacks clarity. Illustrations are not fully developed. Response is generally accurate and focussed. No illustrations Response is generally accurate and focussed but not detailed. Illustrations arerelevant and clear. Response is generally accurate and focussed but not consistently related to the question. Illustrations are relevant and clear

One issue is clearly explained and analysed but another conflates method of political dissent with reasons for dissenting. Reasons are outlined but tangents result in lack of clarity. One reason is not fully developed.


Response explains one issue with an illustration but there is no explanation of a posterirori knowledge and therefore no illustration of it Response is accurate and focussed but not detailed. One illustration is clear and precise but the other is confused/absent. Response is generally accurate and focussed. One illustration is treated precisely with another illustration treated briefly Response is generally accurate and focussed. One illustration is treated precisely but the other is absent Response is mostly accurate and focussed but not detailed and with some conflation. One illustration is attempted but the other is absent. The answer conflates a priori/ a posteriori knowledge with rationalism/empiricism. Illustrations are present. Response is mostly accurate and focussed but not detailed and with some conflation. Illustrations have bearing on the question

Defines terms incorrectly. Illustrations do have bearing on the questions but are limited due to misunderstanding of key terms

Philosophy Camments  

Some comments for marking philosophy essays