1. Connection between body + mind
Recap – NO NOTES!
What key ideas / terms / arguments can you remember from the areas we’ve covered so far:
Substance Dualism
Property Dualism
Connection between body + mind

2. Exam Layout + Timing
The full exam is 3 hours. Half of this time will be dedicated to mind (5 questions) and half to ethics (5 questions), it is exactly the same amount of marks for each topic.
Each topic will have questions weighted as so:
3 mark
2x 5 mark
12 mark
25 mark
It is only the final question in each section that is looking for AO2 discussion (analysis / evaluation) but notice that it is weighted to be the same amount of marks as the rest of the questions put together.
Timing is key, you need to be aware of how long you have left and how long you should be taking to write your answers.
Make sure you take time to think and plan your answers, this includes 3 mark definition questions – it will help you avoid redundancy.
Whatever pace you work at you need at least 30 minutes for the last question.
The exam is 3 hours long to give you thinking and planning time. Use it effectively to achieve the highest levels.

3. 3 Mark Questions – Philosophical Ideas
Marks
3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 AO1 3
A full and correct answer, precise, with little or no redundancy. 2
Most of the content is correct, but there may be some imprecision / redundancy. 1
Fragmented points
Nothing worthy of credit.
Key things to remember:
Generally looking for precise, clear answers.
You should be aiming to include all the information the question requires, with no redundancy.
Examples aren’t needed.
Names of philosophers generally aren’t needed (unless mentioned in the question).
May ask you to explain a short argument / theory but usually look for a definition (not exhaustive).

4. 3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 Mark Questions – Philosophical Ideas
Marks
3 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
3 AO1 3
A full and correct answer, precise, with little or no redundancy. 2
Most of the content is correct, but there may be some imprecision / redundancy. 1
Fragmented points
Nothing worthy of credit.
Example Questions:
What is moral realism?
What claim do analytical / logical behaviourists make about mental states?
What does it mean to say that an ethical theory is deontological?
What claim do eliminative materialists make about mental states?
What are qualia?
Briefly explain why Aristotle thinks pleasure is not the only good.

5. 5 Mark Questions – Philosophical Issues
Marks
5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 AO1 5
A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between clearly identified points, with no redundancy or imprecision. 4
A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision / redundancy. 3
Most of the content is correct and there is an attempt at linking. But the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2
One or two related points, but not precise. The logic is unclear. 1
Fragmented points, no logical structure.
Nothing worthy of credit
Key things to remember:
Again precision and clarity are the most important things.
Redundancy should be avoided at all costs (no examples unless they legitimately add to your answer, no waffling, nothing that distracts from the key information).
Consider carefully what the question is asking you to write before you start writing.
Usually asks for a key argument / criticism or response, but could also include distinctions between two ideas or an expanded definition (not exhaustive).
If you are outlining an argument, you can write it in premises / conclusion form OR in prose it’s up to you. Just make sure it is a full and complete outline.
You need to ensure you show how the argument or theory fits together, what parts are connected and why.

6. 5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 Mark Questions – Philosophical Issues
Marks
5 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
5 AO1 5
A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between clearly identified points, with no redundancy or imprecision. 4
A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision / redundancy. 3
Most of the content is correct and there is an attempt at linking. But the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2
One or two related points, but not precise. The logic is unclear. 1
Fragmented points, no logical structure.
Nothing worthy of credit
Example Questions:
Explain why emotivism is a non-cognitivist theory of ethical language.
Outline Descartes’ conceivability argument for substance dualism.
Explain how Block’s China thought experiment can be used to argue against functionalism.
Outline the key differences between property dualism and substance dualism.
Outline the key differences between deontological and teleological ethics.

7. 12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 Mark Questions
Marks
12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 AO1
10-12
A full and precise answer, set out in a clear, integrated and logical form. Points are made precisely, with little or no redundancy. The content is correct, showing a detailed understanding. Technical language is used appropriately and consistently throughout.
7-9
A correct answer, set out in a clear logical form. The content is correct, the material relevant and points made clearly and precisely. Integration is present but may not be throughout. There may be some redundancy, lack of clarity or imprecision in particular points, but it doesn’t detract from the answer. Technical language used appropriately and consistently.
4-6
A clear answer, in a coherent logical form. The content of the answer is largely correct, although not necessarily well integrated. Some points are made clearly, but they are not always relevant. Technical philosophical language is used, but it’s not always consistent or appropriate.
1-3
There are some relevant points, but no integration. There is a lack of precision—with possibly not enough relevant material or too much that is irrelevant. There may be some attempt at using philosophical language.
Nothing worthy of credit.
Key things to remember:
Once again clarity and precision!
Whilst some redundancy is acceptable in these questions, you should still try to avoid it as much as possible.
Technical language is absolutely needed here, more so than the previous questions.
Be ready to refer to more than one position on an issue, so have these clear in your mind.
If you’re asked to explain an argument, then unpack each step carefully and clearly.
Again, take some time to consider what you’re going to write before you write it. Structure is essential.
Examples and illustrations can be used to great effect in these answers, but only if they’re relevant.

8. 12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 Mark Questions
Marks
12 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
12 AO1
10-12
A full and precise answer, set out in a clear, integrated and logical form. Points are made precisely, with little or no redundancy. The content is correct, showing a detailed understanding. Technical language is used appropriately and consistently throughout.
7-9
A correct answer, set out in a clear logical form. The content is correct, the material relevant and points made clearly and precisely. Integration is present but may not be throughout. There may be some redundancy, lack of clarity or imprecision in particular points, but it doesn’t detract from the answer. Technical language used appropriately and consistently.
4-6
A clear answer, in a coherent logical form. The content of the answer is largely correct, although not necessarily well integrated. Some points are made clearly, but they are not always relevant. Technical philosophical language is used, but it’s not always consistent or appropriate.
1-3
There are some relevant points, but no integration. There is a lack of precision—with possibly not enough relevant material or too much that is irrelevant. There may be some attempt at using philosophical language.
Nothing worthy of credit.
Example Questions:
Explain how Kant’s deontological ethics can be applied to the question of whether we should ever tell lies.
Outline mind-brain type identity theory and explain how the issue of multiple realisability challenges this view.
What are the similarities and differences between epiphenomenalist and interactionist dualism.
How might a utilitarian attempt to justify preventative imprisonment (imprisoning someone to prevent them from committing a crime, rather than because they have committed a crime)?

9. Recap and Revision
You now have the rest of this lesson and access to any resources you need to revise and recap the theories below:
Dualism: the mind is distinct from the physical
Qualia as introspectively accessible subjective/phenomenal features of mental states (the properties of ‘what it is like’ for the mental state in question) – for many qualia would be defined as the intrinsic/non- representational properties of mental states.
The indivisibility argument for substance dualism (Descartes)
Issues, including:
• the mental is divisible in some sense
• not everything thought of as physical is divisible.
• Mary gains no new propositional knowledge (but gains acquaintance knowledge or ability knowledge)
The conceivability argument for substance dualism: the logical possibility of mental substance existing without the physical (Descartes).
• all physical knowledge would include knowledge of qualia
• there is more than one way of knowing the same physical fact
• qualia do not exist and so Mary gains no propositional knowledge.
• mind without body is not conceivable
• what is conceivable may not be possible
• what is logically possible tells us nothing about reality.
The issues of causal interaction for versions of dualism:
• the problems facing interactionist dualism, including conceptual and empirical causation issues
• the problems facing epiphenomenalist dualism, including the causal redundancy of the mental, the argument from introspection and issues relating to free will and responsibility.
The ‘philosophical zombies’ argument for property dualism: the logical possibility of a physical duplicate of this world but without consciousness/qualia (Chalmers).
The problem of other minds for dualism:
• some forms of dualism make it impossible to know other minds
• a ‘zombie’ world is not conceivable
• threat of solipsism.
• what is conceivable is not possible
• Response: the argument from analogy (eg Mill).
The ‘knowledge’/Mary argument for property dualism based (Frank Jackson).

10. Time to test one another:
In pairs come up with 3 x revision questions on separate whiteboards to be answered by pair. They must be:
Answerable in the space on the whiteboard.
Clear enough that it will be obvious what you’re asking.
Something you know the answer to! You’ll have to mark them after all!
Swap and answer each others questions!
Swap back and mark each others work. Check for accuracy and detail in what they’ve written.
On the back of the whiteboards, note down anything they may have missed and then pass them back to the people who answered the questions.