1. Essay Writing – What makes a good philosophy essay?

2. Recapping the Mark Scheme – What are we looking for?
25 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
 25 AO1—5
AO2—20
21-25
The student argues with clear intent throughout and the argument is sustained.
A complete and comprehensive response to the question. The content is correct and the student shows detailed understanding.
The conclusion is clear, with the arguments in support of the conclusion stated precisely, integrated coherently, and robustly defended.
The overall argument is sustained, and reasoned judgements are made, on an ongoing basis and overall, about the weight being given to each argument—so crucial arguments are identified against less crucial ones.
Technical philosophical language is used precisely, clearly and consistently throughout.
Think carefully – What do you think your weaknesses / strengths are given your previous marks?

3. Sample Essay (Mind) Read through the essay: What is good about it?
Highlight / Underline / Annotate one example for each of the marking criteria:
The student argues with clear intent throughout and the argument is sustained
A complete and comprehensive response to the question. The content is correct and the student shows detailed understanding.
The conclusion is clear, with the arguments in support of the conclusion stated precisely, integrated coherently, and robustly defended.
The overall argument is sustained, and reasoned judgements are made, on an ongoing basis and overall, about the weight being given to each argument—so crucial arguments are identified against less crucial ones.
Technical philosophical language is used precisely, clearly and consistently throughout.
Read through the essay:
What is good about it?
What could be better?
Don’t focus on the content, focus on the way it is written and whether or not it hits the criteria of the mark scheme.
Why is this a high grade essay?

4. Introductions
It can be argued that non-interactionist dualists are correct in claiming the mind is non-physical as Epiphenomenalism is the best available theory. This essay will discuss the problems faced by substance and interactionist property dualism before moving on to explain how epiphenomenalism overcomes them. It will also discuss how Epiphenomenalism can overcome its own criticisms whilst physicalist theories cannot.

5. Main Writing
One of Descartes arguments in favour of substance dualism is the indivisibility argument, which is as follows: P1) My mind is indivisible P2) My body is divisible C) Therefore, by Leibniz’ law, since mind and body do not share properties they cannot be the same thing. This argument faces significant criticisms. For example, many physical things are indivisible. The act of running is a physical condition of a human yet it makes no sense to divide it. Thus, the physical is not necessarily distinct based on this property and the argument fails. This in turn means this argument alone does not give good reason to assume dualism is true, or that minds are non-physical.

6. Conclusions
In conclusion, epiphenomenalism is the most sophisticated dualist approach. Whilst the arguments for substance and interactionist dualism fail as they cannot account for mental causation or the dependence of the mind on the brain, epiphenomenalism overcomes these issues. Furthermore, Epiphenomenalism overcomes its own criticisms, for example the evidence of introspection has no effect in light of the valid responses discussed above. In comparison, all physicalist theories face serious criticisms. For example, identity theory cannot account for multiple realisations. Thus, in conclusion, it is reasonable to hold epiphenomenalism as the better theory and we can state that dualists are right to consider the mind non-physical.

7. Putting This In Context – Critically assess Property Dualism
What would you include in this essay?
Write a brief introduction using the information we’ve put together.
(Remember it should include what you’re going to cover and what you’re ultimately going to conclude).

8. Critically assess Property Dualism
What is good about this section of writing? What could be better?
Also, Chalmers Philosophical Zombie Argument supports Property Dualism. Chalmers believes that he can conceive of a world of philosophical zombies. These are beings that are physically identical to human beings. They have all the same brain states, neural connections and behaviour as humans when in similar situations to them. However, they do not possess qualia. For Chalmers if a physical duplicate of ourselves can exist without the necessary qualia, this shows that a physicalist account of the mind is inadequate. It does not account for qualia. Therefore, physicalism is false.
However, the Philosophical Zombie Argument does face criticisms. Namely, that this “philosophical zombie world” is not conceivable. Although Chalmers claims that we can conceive of a philosophical zombie world, physicalists would disagree. They would claim that if you are conceiving of a being that is physically identical to you, the “zombie” you are imagining must have the same conscious experience as you. If we think that we can conceive of zombies in the way that Chalmers describes, it is because we have misunderstood what consciousness is. Non-conscious physical duplicates are inconceivable.

9. Critically Assess Property Dualism
Which is the better conclusion? Why?
In conclusion there are lots of reasons to state that Property Dualism is a good account of the mind. It fits well with modern neuroscience and Chalmers Philosophical Zombie Argument supports this view. However, Property Dualism cannot stand up to it’s criticisms. Are Philosophical zombies really conceivable? And do they tell us anything about the external world? The theory as a whole also suffers from nomological danglers – how can we explain what the mind is given it doesn’t fit in with any physical laws? There is also the problem of how a physical body can produce a non-physical mind, and how the mind can seemingly cause events in the body. Overall then, property dualism is not a good account of the mind.
On the surface then there are some reasons to state that Property Dualism is a good account of the mind. It fits well with modern neuroscience and Chalmers Philosophical Zombie Argument supports this view. However, Property Dualism cannot withstand critical scrutiny. Many would argue philosophical zombies are inconceivable, and even if we accept they are conceivable they tell us nothing about the external world. The theory as a whole is also left with the issue of explaining what the mind is given that it does not fit with any physical or natural laws of the universe (nomological dangler). Ultimately then, we must conclude property dualism is a weak theory.

10. The Language of Questions
The way a question is worded can and will dictate what you should include in your answer:
Critically Assess Property Dualism
Property Dualism the strongest theory of mind. Discuss.
Assess the claim that the mind is ultimately a property of the body.

11. Key Tips:
Read the question carefully. Ensure everything in your plan works towards answering the question. You may find you don’t need to include every theory we’ve covered so far.
Your introduction should clearly lay out what you’re going to do and how you’re going to answer the question. If there is any doubt as to what the question is asking, you should explain clearly the parameters in which you’ll be working.
Your first paragraph(s) after the introduction should clearly define any key terms you need, usually this will mean giving a basic outline of the theory – this does not need to be in depth, we’re primarily looking for AO2 (arguments) not AO1 (information) in essays. This goes for any other explanations of theories in your essay. Don’t overdo them.
Keep in mind you need to balance your essay – this may mean admitting there are some strengths of the theory before tearing it to shreds, alternatively it may mean acknowledging weaknesses later.
Use examples and technical language to help you explain key arguments.
Technical language does not mean complicated, it means using key words properly.
Use mini-conclusions to help link each argument back to the question so it’s clear where you are headed. Does the argument prove a theory false / correct or just strengthen / weaken it?
After each section weigh up the arguments considered, this may mean after each argument or after each response (weighing them together) are they good or bad arguments in relation to your conclusion? Why?
You don’t need to cover every argument we have looked at in lesson – look for the crucial ones first, then any you think you can write about effectively, then any others you wish to include. 3 “lines” of argument should be enough.
Conclusions should summarise what you’ve done, not introduce new information. They should bring together all you’ve written and clearly answer the question. They are not a surprise twist!

12. The mind and body are two separate things. Discuss.