A-Level Philosophy PHLS1 Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion Final Mark Scheme 2175 June 2017 Version/Stage: v1.0 Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’ responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way. As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts. Alternative answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are required to refer these to the Lead Assessment Writer. It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination paper. Further copies of this mark scheme are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright © 2017 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. MARK SCHEME – AS PHILOSOPHY – PHLS1 – JUNE 2017 Level of response marking instructions Level of response mark schemes are broken down into levels, each of which has a descriptor. The descriptor for the level shows the average performance for the level. There are marks in each level. Before you apply the mark scheme to a student’s answer read through the answer and annotate it (as instructed) to show the qualities that are being looked for. You can then apply the mark scheme. Step 1 Determine a level Start at the lowest level of the mark scheme and use it as a ladder to see whether the answer meets the descriptor for that level. The descriptor for the level indicates the different qualities that might be seen in the student’s answer for that level. If it meets the lowest level then go to the next one and decide if it meets this level, and so on, until you have a match between the level descriptor and the answer. With practice and familiarity you will find that for better answers you will be able to quickly skip through the lower levels of the mark scheme. When assigning a level you should look at the overall quality of the answer and not look to pick holes in small and specific parts of the answer where the student has not performed quite as well as the rest. If the answer covers different aspects of different levels of the mark scheme you should use a best fit approach for defining the level and then use the variability of the response to help decide the mark within the level, ie if the response is predominantly level 3 with a small amount of level 4 material it would be placed in level 3 but be awarded a mark near the top of the level because of the level 4 content. Step 2 Determine a mark Once you have assigned a level you need to decide on the mark. The descriptors on how to allocate marks can help with this. The exemplar materials used during standardisation will help. There will be an answer in the standardising materials which will correspond with each level of the mark scheme. This answer will have been awarded a mark by the Lead Examiner. You can compare the student’s answer with the example to determine if it is the same standard, better or worse than the example. You can then use this to allocate a mark for the answer based on the Lead Examiner’s mark on the example. You may well need to read back through the answer as you apply the mark scheme to clarify points and assure yourself that the level and the mark are appropriate. Indicative content in the mark scheme is provided as a guide for examiners. It is not intended to be exhaustive and you must credit other valid points. Students do not have to cover all of the points mentioned in the Indicative content to reach the highest level of the mark scheme. An answer which contains nothing of relevance to the question must be awarded no marks. 3 of 25 MARK SCHEME – AS PHILOSOPHY – PHLS1 – JUNE 2017 Section A – Epistemology 1 What is solipsism? [2 marks] Marks Levels of response mark scheme 2 A clear and correct answer, with no significant redundancy. 2 1 A partial answer, possibly in the form of fragmented points. Imprecise and/or AO1 significant redundancy. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit. Indicative content for full marks Metaphysical solipsism: • The claim/belief that only my mind exists (there are no other minds, nor are there any mind- independent objects or properties) • The claim/belief/ that the only thing that is real is my own mind/mental states (there is no world, physical or otherwise, beyond my experiences) • The claim/belief that I alone exist (solus ipse) as a thinking thing (res cogitans) Epistemological solipsism: • The claim/belief that it is not possible for me to know about the existence of anything apart from my mind/mental states (I cannot know if there are other minds or mind-independent objects) • The claim that all I know is that I alone exist (solus ipse) as a thinking thing (res cogitans) Solipsism at the level of meaningfulness: • The claim/belief that only propositions about my own mind/mental states are meaningful (any claims about anything beyond my experiences are nonsense) NB: • There is no expectation that students use the italicised names for the different way of expressing solipsism, nor that they use the additional material in brackets. • Some students will frame their answer in terms of ‘you’ or ‘your’: for example, ‘The claim that only your mind exists’; or ‘The belief that you can only know that your own mind exists and nothing else.’ That is acceptable phrasing. So long as a plurality isn’t explicitly suggested. Indicative content for 1 mark • The claim/belief that only I exist • A sceptical claim/belief about the existence of the external world • The claim/belief that I can only know that I exist (or know about by own existence) Notes: • This indicative content is not exhaustive: other creditworthy responses should be awarded marks as appropriate. 4 of 25 MARK SCHEME – AS PHILOSOPHY – PHLS1 – JUNE 2017 2 Explain Russell’s claim that the existence of the external world is the 'best hypothesis'. [5 marks] Marks Levels of response mark scheme 5 A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between precisely identified points, with no redundancy. 4 A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision/redundancy. 5 A01 3 The substantive content of the explanation is present and there is an attempt at logical linking, but the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2 One or two relevant points made, but not precisely. The logic is unclear. 1 Fragmented points, with no logical structure. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit. Indicative content • Students may situate this as a response to scepticism about the existence of the external world (possibly identified with solipsism or idealism). Russell refers to “the external world’ in key passages (see below), but this is within the context of a chapter on the existence of matter, and students may present this argument as a defence of the reality of matter / physical objects etc. • Arguing that H is the “best hypothesis” as an explanation of X, Y and Z is to claim that H best explains X, Y and Z being true (ie better than other competing explanations): in this case, the existence of an external world/material world is preferable to any alternative. This argument is characterised by abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation (which some see as a species of inductive reasoning). • Russell makes the following points in The Problems of Philosophy, which may furnish the students’ responses with important details. • It is true that we cannot prove for certain that external objects exist which cause our experiences, and that alternatives (e.g. the dream hypothesis) are possible – this is why it is a (mere) hypothesis. Nevertheless, the existence of a persisting mind-independent reality is to be preferred because: a) it is simpler, in the sense that it accounts better for the differences in perceived properties between multiple experiences – e.g. experiences of a cat which (1) is in one location, and then later in another; and (2) is not hungry, and then later is hungry; the best explanation of this is that these experiences are caused by a mind-independent cat that persists and changes while unobserved. b) our belief in an external world is originally instinctive and should not be dropped unless a superior alternative is available: “Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties, but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it.