TheA Level RS

Specification: Essay Writing

Crucial to helping you make the challenging step from GCSE to A level RS isunderstanding what is required when writing a 40-mark question essay.

Looking ahead to your final exams, it is imperative that

you get as much practice writing these types of

essays as you can.

To succeed from the start, you don’t just need to know

high levels of complex content, but to express and

articulate it in an evaluative, persuasive and

efficient essay structure.

1.What is the examiner

looking for?

1. What is the examiner looking for?

want you to critically evaluate and justify a point of view through the use of evidence and reasoned argument.

Grade A/A* candidates characteristically:

• Construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by scholarly examples and/or sources of authority and evidence

• Identify strengths and weaknesses of the scholarly arguments

• Use accurate and fluent expression• Reach a reasoned and well-justified conclusion

1. What is the examiner looking for?

One of the great things about OCR is that they have a

positive-marking policy, which means that they want to

reward you for all the impressive things you

demonstrate in the exam.

They accept that there is no ‘set way’ to answer a question,

and will award a range of interpretations, arguments and scholarly ideas – so long as you

are answering the question directly, that is!

According to the OCR chief examiner, the crucial focus for pupils should be two-fold:

1. Answer the question directly.

2. Use evaluative language.

2. A (very

important) note on evaluation

2. A (very important) note on evaluation

The chief examiner is clear that the best essays are the ones which are the most evaluative. Evaluation involves making a judgement. For example, writing…

“Hume argues that miracles are the least

likely of events.”

…is NOT as evaluative as writing…

“Hume rightly argues that miracles are

the least likely of events.”

It is very clear that evaluation should happen throughout your essay if you want to score higher

marks.

3. What makes an effective 40-mark structure?

The key to success is writing good quality essays under exam conditions. The way to get good at essays is to practice and to response positively to the feedback your teachers provide.

The following is a guide to help you get started. It might take a bit of mastering, and your first few essays may not get high marks at first, but – as with anything – the key is practice.

Your essay should be split into THREE distinct sections:a) THE INTRO (where we will show you the DISC technique)b) THE MIDDLE (where we will show you the technique for

evaluative paragraphing, which we call PEREL)c) THE CONCLUSION where we will show you the R.J.

technique)

DISC PEREL R.J.

The introduction is the place where you have the most impact. You need to ensure that you set out to impress the examiner straight away. The following structure will help you do this.

D efine your terms

• Are there any terms in/relevant to the question that need explaining?

• If the question asks you to examine, compare or analyse, how will you measure success?

I mplications

• Why is this question important?• What difference would make if the statement / position was true?(This helps to show the examiner that you grasp the question being asked!)

S cholars

• Who are the key scholars involved in this debate?• Do you know the names of their (relevant) works or articles they

have written? Use them!

C onclusion –Sign-post it!!!

You need to show what your conclusion is going to be rightfrom the beginning.

3a 3(a) THE INTRO (“DISC”)

Let’s have a look at some introductions as examples. Looking at these, we should look for THREE things:

1.Has it used ‘DISC’?2. Does it show clarity

throughout?3.What is a key target

for the author?

“Plato’s theory has much strength, but

the weaknesses outweigh the strengths so

I think it is not a convincing view. Plato

argued that there is a world of the forms

which is where real things are- the forms

and that the world around us is an

illusion. The other side of the argument

is that Aristotle offers a better way of

explaining the world because the senses

are better and have less problems because

you have to see it to be sure it exists and

Plato does not do this convincingly. The

allegory of the cave is not very good

therefore Plato is not convincing.”

WWW: Although the author has

used SCHOLARLY ideas from

Plato and signposted a

CONCLUSION which does

answer the question

HOWEVER: They have failed

to DEFINE their terms (e.g. What

is a ‘form’?)

They have also not really explored

the IMPLICATIONS of the

question.

There is no real clarity here and the author needs to target their ability to show their knowledge clearly if they are to gain marks.

☺

EXAMPLE ONE

‘Plato’s theory of the forms is not convincing.’ Discuss. [40 marks]

EXAMPLE TWO

“This essay will argue that Plato’s theory of the

forms, as outlined in The Republic, is not very

convincing due to the strength of the weaknesses

put forward by his student, Aristotle. The key point

to Plato’s theory of the forms was that there exist

two realms: the world of appearances, an illusory

world of a posteriori knowledge represented by the

cave in his allegory, and the world of the forms,

represented by the world outside of the cave. His

famous rejection of knowledge based in the senses

will be found to be unconvincing due to the

strength of the Third Man argument as outlined

by Aristotle. Aristotle’s empiricist view of what is

real is far more convincing and sensible.

Therefore, the statement is false and Plato’s theory

is not very convincing.”

‘Plato’s theory of the forms is not convincing.’ Discuss. [40 marks]

WWW: Clearly an improvement from the first example. The author

has used SCHOLARLY ideas from

Plato and signposted a

CONCLUSION which answers the

question directly. They have also

explored the IMPLICATIONS of the

question and provided real clarity

HOWEVER: Although they are using them with confidence, they

have failed to DEFINE their terms

(e.g. What is a ‘form’?)

ALSO, in order to aim for Grade A/A* territory, they need to use much more evaluative

language.

What follows is a suggestion for a top level introduction,

which all pupils should aspire to achieve.

‘Plato’s theory of the forms is not convincing.’ Discuss. [40 marks]

EXAMPLE THREE

“The theory of the Forms is Plato’s answer to two key

branches of philosophical enquiry: metaphysics (what

exists) and epistemology (what we can know). In his

book The Republic, he argues through the mouthpiece

of Socrates, that humans rely too heavily on their senses

and should not rely on them for any genuine

knowledge about reality. For him, knowledge gained

through sensory experience is merely ‘doxa’ or opinion,

and is far removed from genuine knowledge (episteme)

of the truth of the forms. As a rationalist, he believed

that it was a priori knowledge which was superior and

he explained his dualist understanding of reality

through his Allegory of the Cave, exploring it in more

detail in the Divided Line and Simile of the Sun.

This essay will find that, despite some clear strengths,

such as highlighting our need to question the

reliability of the senses, Plato’s theory of the forms

is, ultimately, not successful. The most destructive

criticism is from Aristotle ‘s third man argument which

highlights how Plato’s theory of the forms results in a

meaningless infinite regression of ‘worlds’ of forms.

Ultimately then, it might be argued that since Plato’s

ideas are flawed, Aristotle’s empiricism could be seen as

a much more convincing account of reality.”

CHECKLIST!

Definition of terms?

Implications of the question addressed?

Scholarly ideas identified from

relevant sources identified?

Conclusion signposted?

Clarity of expression?

Evaluative language? (in red)

These evaluative paragraphs will form the bulk of your essay; you should provide AT LEAST THREE. Each of them should be structured in the following way.

P OINT

• Give a pertinent reason to support your argument. • You MUST refer to the question here, so use the key language of the question

in this section of your paragraph to do this. • Use evaluative language

E XPLAIN

• Explain the point using appropriate language, quotations and ideas from relevant scholars.

• Here, a good level of accurate detail is essential.• Keep linking ideas back to the question!

R ESPONSE

• Give an alternative view and/or criticism of this idea using valid arguments -either introduced by you or other scholars.

REMEMBER: EVERY paragraph you write in this section should have some form of debate; Otherwise, you’re doing it wrong.

E VALUATE

• Give a judgement – in the debate between “point” and “response” you have just had, which came out strongest?

• Who is the winner? • Give reasons using appropriate (“scholarly”) language.

L INK• A mini conclusion: Link it back to your line of argument.

3a 3(b) THE MIDDLE (“PEREL”)

Here’s what you should consider for each part of the PEREL paragraph!

P OINT

• What do I know?• What can I recognise?• What concepts / key terms are relevant?• How strong is the point being made?

E XPLAIN

• How can I add more detail to this?• How can I extend this?• What scholars / quotes / ideas back up my line of argument?

R ESPONSE

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of my original idea?• Are there opposing ideas?• What scholars / quotes / ideas back up this alternative to my argument?

E VALUATE

• Which is the strongest argument? Your line of reasoning or the “response”?• WHY is this?• What would the “loser” require to be “victorious”?

L INK“Therefore….” / “As a result…” / “Considering what has just been discussed…”

3a 3(b) THE MIDDLE (“PEREL”)

• Your conclusion must be a direct response to the question.

• You should avoid using the first person (e.g. “I think that…” or “In my opinion…” It is the ESSAY that is providing the analysis – you’re just doing the donkey work! ☺ Instead, use phrasing like “This essay concludes that…” etc.

• There are TWO things you must do…

3a 3(c) THE CONCLUSION (“R.J.”)

R EFER

• Your answer must refer directly to the question, using the language of the question to make it obvious!

• Re-read your introduction and re-state your line of argument.

J UDGE

• Make a clear judgement on whether the statement is true / the argument under analysis is ultimately successful

• Use evaluative language to make this clear )e.g. “The most effective argument in favour of this point is…”