Doing philosophy with chatGPT

1. What is the difference between a statement and an exclamation?
2. What are the differences between an argument and an explanation?
3. Give an example of an argument that contains a premise indicator.

***GPT says***

1. A statement is a sentence that conveys information or an idea, while an exclamation is a sentence that expresses strong emotion, such as surprise, excitement, or anger. Statements can be either true or false, and are usually used to convey information or express an opinion, while exclamations are used to express a speaker's emotions or feelings.
2. An argument is a set of reasons or evidence that support a conclusion, while an explanation is a statement that clarifies or illuminates something that is already understood or accepted. An argument is used to persuade someone to accept a certain conclusion or belief, while an explanation is used to help someone understand something that they may not have previously understood.
3. "All dogs are mammals, and all mammals have hearts, therefore all dogs have hearts." In this argument, the premise indicator is "therefore," which indicates that the conclusion follows logically from the premises that have been presented.

In the context of this course GPT gets (3) wrong. In this course 'therefore' would be classified as a conclusion indicator. There is, however, room for debate on this for although the word 'therefore' tells you that a conclusion will be following it, crucially, also tells you that what came before was a premise.

When asked question (3) by itself the answer it gave was:

Although it wouldn't matter if a candidate gave this answer to this question, it is worth noting that, if the candidate had been asked to state the premise(s) or the conclusion, the SQA would require students to omit the indicator words.

ChatGPT did this when specifically asked to identify the premise and the conclusion.

9. What is the essential feature of an inductive argument?
   Give an example in your answer.
   
   
10. What is the essential feature of a deductive argument?
    Give an example in your answer.
    
    
11. What is the essential feature of a conductive argument?
    Give an example in your answer.

***GPT says***

9. The essential feature of an inductive argument is that it relies on the accumulation of evidence to support its conclusion. Inductive arguments are based on probability rather than certainty, and are used to draw generalizations or predictions based on specific observations or data. An example of an inductive argument is:
   
   Premise 1: Every cat I have ever seen has fur.
   Premise 2: Therefore, all cats have fur.
   Conclusion: The cat that just walked into the room also has fur.
   
   This argument is inductive because it relies on the observation of a limited number of cats to make a generalization about all cats. While the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true, it is considered probable based on the evidence presented.
   
   
10. The essential feature of a deductive argument is that its conclusion necessarily follows from its premises. Deductive arguments are based on logical entailment and are used to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion based on known facts or premises. An example of a deductive argument is:
    
    Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
    Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
    Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    
    This argument is deductive because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. The conclusion is certain, assuming the truth of the premises.
    
    
11. The essential feature of a conductive argument is that it combines elements of both inductive and deductive reasoning.
    Conductive arguments are used to provide support for a conclusion by using a combination of generalizations and specific observations. An example of a conductive argument is:
    
    Premise 1: Most humans are mortal.
    Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
    Conclusion 1: Therefore, Socrates is probably mortal.
    Premise 3: However, Socrates is also reported to have exceptional wisdom and insight.
    Conclusion 2: Therefore, Socrates may have attained a degree of intellectual immortality through his ideas.
    
    This argument is conductive because it uses inductive reasoning to support the conclusion that Socrates is probably mortal, based on the generalization that most humans are mortal. However, it also uses deductive reasoning to support the conclusion that Socrates may have attained intellectual immortality, based on the specific observation of his exceptional wisdom and insight.

what is a conductive argument?

A conductive argument is a type of argument that consists of several individual arguments, each of which supports a specific conclusion. The individual arguments may not be conclusive in themselves, but together they make a strong case for the overall conclusion.

In a conductive argument, the individual arguments are not necessarily independent of each other, and they may even overlap in terms of the evidence and reasoning they present. The strength of the overall argument lies in the cumulative force of the individual arguments.

The idea behind a conductive argument is that by presenting multiple, related arguments in support of a conclusion, the overall argument becomes stronger and more persuasive than any of the individual arguments would be on their own.

Conductive arguments are often used in legal, philosophical, and scientific contexts where the complexity of the subject matter requires a nuanced and layered approach to argumentation.

Give an example of a conductive argument

A conductive argument is an argument that presents multiple reasons, each of which provides some support for a conclusion but does not individually prove the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is reached by considering the cumulative force of all the reasons presented. Here is an example of a conductive argument:

Premise 1: Tom is a hard worker who is always on time for work.
Premise 2: Tom has a lot of experience in the field.
Premise 3: Tom is known for his attention to detail and high-quality work.
Premise 4: Tom has a degree from a well-respected university.
Premise 5: Tom has a strong track record of completing projects on time and within budget.

Conclusion: Therefore, Tom would be an excellent candidate for the job.

In this argument, each premise provides some evidence for the conclusion that Tom would be an excellent candidate for the job. However, none of the individual premises alone are sufficient to prove the conclusion. It is the cumulative force of all the reasons presented that make the argument conductive.

(a) What is the key feature of an inductive argument?
(b) Read the following argument:

‘I have a mouse in my house. It has been proven that mice bring an increased risk of fire. Therefore, my house now is at an increased risk of fire.’

Is this argument inductive or deductive?
Give one reason for your answer.

***Chat GPT says***

(a) The key feature of an inductive argument is that it involves reasoning from specific instances or examples to a general conclusion. In other words, an inductive argument seeks to provide evidence or support for a conclusion that is probable or likely based on the available evidence, rather than certain or logically necessary.

(b) The argument presented is an inductive argument. The reason for this is that the conclusion that "my house is at an increased risk of fire" is based on a specific instance, namely the presence of a mouse in the house. The argument does not claim that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises with logical certainty, but rather that the conclusion is probable or likely based on the available evidence about the risk associated with mice.

(a) What is the key feature of a deductive argument?

(b) Read the following argument:
‘I have a mouse in my house. It has been proven that mice bring an increased risk of fire. Therefore, my house now is at an increased risk of fire.’
Is this argument inductive or deductive?
Give one reason for your answer.

(a) The key feature of a deductive argument is that its conclusion necessarily follows from its premises. In other words, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Deductive reasoning is used to draw specific conclusions from general principles or rules.

(b) The argument presented is deductive. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, which include a general principle (mice bring an increased risk of fire) and a specific fact (there is a mouse in my house). The conclusion logically follows from the combination of these premises. Specifically, since the general principle applies to the specific situation described in the premise, it is deductively inferred that the conclusion is also true (i.e., the house is at an increased risk of fire).

In deductive arguments, the premises are meant to provide complete and conclusive support for the conclusion, whereas inductive arguments provide only probable support for their conclusions.

1. A serial argument: an argument composed of simple arguments joined together to form a chain so that one premise is offered in support of another statement, which would be called an intermediate conclusion, which in turn is offered as support to the final conclusion. A serial argument can have more than one step and so can have more than one intermediate conclusion.
2. A convergent argument: an argument with more than one premise but with each premise giving individual support to the conclusion.
3. A linked argument: an argument with more than one premise where the premises don't give individual support to the conclusion but jointly support the conclusion.
4. A complex argument: an argument with multiple premises that support the premises by being a combination of serial, convergent, and/or linked arguments.

Each type of argument can be represented by a corresponding diagram.

Answer the following questions.

(a) Which diagram best represents the following argument?
‘Driving too fast causes accidents. It also wastes fuel. So you shouldn’t drive too fast.’

(b) Which diagram best represents the following argument?
‘The cause of diabetes is either inherited or environmental. Seeing as the cause of diabetes is not environmental, it must be inherited.’

(c) Which diagram best represents the following argument?
‘It’s really icy, so the streets will be slippy. Therefore you need to be careful when you’re walking today.’

(d) Which diagram best represents the following argument?
‘Too much coffee leads to headaches. Headaches cause poor performance. Therefore too much coffee causes poor performance.’

In each case explain your answer.

***GPT says convergent, linked, serial, serial***

(a) The diagram that best represents the argument ‘Driving too fast causes accidents. It also wastes fuel. So you shouldn’t drive too fast’ is a convergent argument. This can be represented by the following diagram:

Premise 1: Driving too fast causes accidents.
Premise 2: Driving too fast wastes fuel.
Conclusion: You shouldn't drive too fast.

This is a convergent argument because each premise gives individual support to the conclusion, without relying on any other premises.

(b) The diagram that best represents the argument ‘The cause of diabetes is either inherited or environmental. Seeing as the cause of diabetes is not environmental, it must be inherited’ is a linked argument. This can be represented by the following diagram:

Premise 1: The cause of diabetes is either inherited or environmental.
Premise 2: The cause of diabetes is not environmental.
Conclusion: The cause of diabetes must be inherited.

This is a linked argument because the premises do not give individual support to the conclusion, but jointly support the conclusion.

(c) The diagram that best represents the argument ‘It’s really icy, so the streets will be slippy. Therefore you need to be careful when you’re walking today’ is a serial argument. This can be represented by the following diagram:

Premise 1: It’s really icy.
Intermediate conclusion: The streets will be slippy.
Conclusion: You need to be careful when you’re walking today.

This is a serial argument because it is composed of simple arguments joined together to form a chain, with one premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion, which is in turn offered as support to the final conclusion.

(d) The diagram that best represents the argument ‘Too much coffee leads to headaches. Headaches cause poor performance. Therefore too much coffee causes poor performance’ is a serial argument. This can be represented by the following diagram:

Premise 1: Too much coffee leads to headaches.
Intermediate conclusion: Headaches cause poor performance.
Conclusion: Too much coffee causes poor performance.

This is a serial argument because it is composed of simple arguments joined together to form a chain, with one premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion, which is in turn offered as support to the final conclusion.

5. What is the function of a counterexample?

6. Give a counterexample to the following claim ‘All dogs have four legs’.

***GPT says***
5.The function of a counterexample is to disprove a statement or hypothesis that claims to be universally true. By providing a single example that contradicts the claim, a counterexample can demonstrate that the claim is false or that it cannot be generalized to all cases.

6. A counterexample to the claim "All dogs have four legs" is a three-legged dog. Since this dog has less than four legs, it contradicts the claim that all dogs have four legs, thereby serving as a counterexample to the statement.

(a) State the form of the affirming the consequent fallacy.
(b) Give an example of an affirming the consequent argument.
(c) Using your example, explain the error in this form of reasoning.

*** GPT says ***

(a) The form of the affirming the consequent fallacy is:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

This is an invalid argument form, since there may be other explanations for why Q is true, besides the truth of P.

(b) An example of an affirming the consequent argument is:

If it rained last night, the streets will be wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it must have rained last night.

(c) The error in affirming the consequent reasoning is that there may be other explanations for why Q is true, besides the truth of P. In the example above, the streets may be wet for reasons other than rain, such as a nearby hose being used or a water main break. Therefore, just because the streets are wet does not necessarily mean that it rained last night. This makes the argument invalid, as it fails to prove the truth of its conclusion.

Read the following argument and answer the questions that follow.
‘James? A Chief Constable? Are you serious? He has two convictions for drunk driving. The guy is so irresponsible. No-one in their right mind would appoint him to this job.’
(a) Describe the essential features of an ad hominem fallacy.
(b) State why this argument is not an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

*** GPT says ***

(a) The ad hominem fallacy is a type of argument that attacks a person's character or personal traits, rather than addressing the substance of their argument. It involves attacking the person making the argument, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself. In other words, instead of evaluating the argument on its own merits, the ad hominem fallacy attempts to discredit the argument by discrediting the person making it.

(b) This argument is not an example of an ad hominem fallacy because it is not attacking the person making the argument, but rather questioning their suitability for a particular job. The argument is based on the premise that James has two convictions for drunk driving, which suggests that he may be irresponsible and not suitable for the position of Chief Constable. This is a relevant consideration in evaluating his suitability for the job, rather than an attempt to discredit his argument on some unrelated basis. Therefore, this argument is not an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Read the following argument and answer the question that follows.

Ever since I’ve been taking this new honey, I’ve had more energy, my focus has been incredible, and my hair has never been so glossy. There’s only one reasonable conclusion: this honey has changed my life.

It is not always obvious whether an argument is fallacious. Discuss whether or not the argument above contains a fallacy. In your answer you must include

• a definition of a fallacy
• an explanation of a fallacy that might be contained in the argument
• reasons why some people may think this argument contains that fallacy
• reasons why some people may think this argument does not contain that fallacy.

*** GPT says ***

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that results in an argument that is not logically sound. Fallacies can occur in any type of argument, and they can be intentional or unintentional.

One fallacy that might be contained in the argument above is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that just because one event happened after another event, the first event must have caused the second event. In this case, the person assumes that the new honey is responsible for the changes in their energy, focus, and hair, simply because they started taking the honey before they noticed these changes.

Some people may think that this argument contains the post hoc fallacy because there is no scientific evidence or logical explanation presented for why the honey would have such effects. The argument relies solely on the speaker's personal experience, which may be biased and unreliable. Furthermore, there could be other factors that explain the changes in the speaker's energy, focus, and hair, such as changes in diet, exercise, or stress levels.

On the other hand, some people may argue that the argument does not contain the post hoc fallacy, as the speaker is not making a direct causal claim. Rather, they are making an inference based on their personal experience, and the conclusion is not presented as an absolute truth, but rather as a reasonable conclusion. Additionally, personal experience can sometimes be a valid form of evidence, particularly in cases where scientific evidence is lacking or inconclusive.

In conclusion, while the argument above may contain the post hoc fallacy, it is not necessarily a clear-cut case, and there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the debate.

A student, who had been studying Descartes, was set the following question:

Explain the role of the malicious demon hypothesis in Meditation 1.

The student complained that the question was ambiguous. Do you agree that there is an ambiguity in the question? Give reasons for your answer.

*** chatGPT says ***

As an AI language model, I can understand why the student might think that the question is ambiguous. The question asks to explain the role of the malicious demon hypothesis in Meditation 1, but it doesn't specify what kind of explanation is expected.

The question could be interpreted in a few different ways. For example, it could be asking:

• What is the purpose of Descartes introducing the malicious demon hypothesis in Meditation 1?
• How does the malicious demon hypothesis fit into the overall argument of Meditation 1?
• What is the significance of the malicious demon hypothesis for Descartes' philosophy as a whole?

Depending on how the student interprets the question, they may provide a different answer. It's possible that the student could write a valid response to the question, but the answer might not be what the examiner was looking for.

In summary, while the question is not necessarily ambiguous, it does leave room for different interpretations. It would be helpful for the student to clarify with their instructor what kind of explanation is expected.

How would you rephrase the question to avoid the ambiguity?

One possible way to rephrase the question to avoid ambiguity is:

"In what way does Descartes' hypothesis of the malicious demon contribute to his argument for radical skepticism in Meditation 1?"

This version of the question specifically asks the student to focus on the role of the hypothesis within the text of Meditation 1 and its contribution to Descartes' argument for radical skepticism. This phrasing also avoids the broader interpretation of the question that asks about the role of the hypothesis in Descartes' broader philosophical project or as a philosophical concept more generally.

Descartes Meditations is studied as part of a philosophy course. A student was asked to following questions requiring paragraph answers rather than essay answers. The number in brackets is the number of marks available and is an indication of the minimum number of discrete points that should be made in an answer.

Answer the following questions:

13. What did Descartes aim to achieve in his Meditations? (3)
14. In the deceiving God argument, why does Descartes conclude that he could doubt any one of his former beliefs? (2)
15. How successful is the deceiving God argument? (3)
16. Explain the role of the malicious demon hypothesis in Meditation 1. (2)

*** chatGPT says ***

13. In his Meditations, Descartes aimed to provide a foundation for knowledge that could not be doubted. He sought to establish a method of inquiry that could lead to certain and indubitable knowledge, by systematically doubting everything that he previously believed to be true. Ultimately, he hoped to arrive at a firm foundation of knowledge upon which to build a systematic philosophy.
14. In the deceiving God argument, Descartes posits the idea of a supremely powerful and deceitful God who could manipulate his thoughts and perceptions, even making him believe in things that are false. Since he cannot be certain that such a God does not exist, he concludes that he could doubt any one of his former beliefs. This is because, if there is a deceiving God, then his perceptions and beliefs could not be trusted as a reliable source of knowledge.
15. The success of the deceiving God argument is a matter of debate. Some philosophers argue that it effectively establishes radical doubt and undermines many of our ordinary beliefs, while others have criticized it for being overly skeptical and for relying on dubious assumptions. However, it is clear that the argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, and has stimulated much discussion and debate.
16. In Meditation 1, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a malicious demon who could systematically deceive him about the nature of reality. This hypothesis serves as a tool for radical doubt, allowing Descartes to call into question even his most basic beliefs about the world. By considering the possibility of a malicious demon, Descartes is able to generate a powerful sense of skepticism that he can then use as a starting point for his philosophical inquiry. Ultimately, this hypothesis helps Descartes to establish a new foundation of knowledge that is free from doubt.

How successful is the deceiving God argument? (3)

The success of the deceiving God argument is a matter of debate. Some philosophers argue that it effectively establishes radical doubt and undermines many of our ordinary beliefs, while others have criticized it for being overly skeptical and for relying on dubious assumptions. However, it is clear that the argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, and has stimulated much discussion and debate.

Award 1 mark for any of the following points:
It is successful

• if there was not an all-powerful God, then there would be nothing powerful enough to deceive you at all times
• it allows him to doubt his previous held beliefs and further his project of finding foundational truths.

It is not successful

• he does not apply the methodological scepticism as rigorously as he does in the rest of Meditation 1
• it is not convincing for someone who does not believe in God.

Any other relevant point.

You said that the deceiving God argument might be "relying on dubious assumptions". Can you be more specific about these dubious assumptions.

Certainly! There are a few assumptions that Descartes makes in the deceiving God argument that some philosophers have criticized as dubious:

The existence of a supremely powerful and deceitful God: Descartes assumes that it is possible for there to be a God who is powerful enough to manipulate his thoughts and perceptions, and deceitful enough to want to deceive him. Some philosophers have questioned whether such a being is even possible, or whether it makes sense to attribute deceitful intentions to a perfect God.

The reliability of clear and distinct perceptions: Descartes assumes that he can trust his clear and distinct perceptions as a reliable source of knowledge. However, some philosophers have argued that clear and distinct perceptions may not always be accurate, and that there may be cases in which they are deceptive or illusory.

The possibility of radical doubt: Descartes assumes that it is possible to doubt even our most basic beliefs, and that this doubt can lead to certain and indubitable knowledge. However, some philosophers have questioned whether radical doubt is a legitimate philosophical method, or whether it leads to excessive skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world.

Overall, while the deceiving God argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, some philosophers have raised questions about the plausibility of its assumptions and the soundness of its conclusions.

I have some problems with your reply.

With (1) Descartes provides an argument why it makes sense to believe that a perfectly good god can deceive us, albeit an argument that I think is flawed.
(2) is irrelevant as Descartes doesn't introduce the notion of clear and distinct perceptions until much later, and
(3) isn't an assumption behind the deceiving God argument. The whole point of the deceiving god hypothesis is that it does lead to a "skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world" at least until he realises that you cannot be deceived about your own existence.

Thank you for bringing these points to my attention. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. Allow me to provide a more accurate and detailed answer to your original question about the dubious assumptions underlying Descartes' deceiving God argument:

The existence of a supremely powerful and deceitful God: While Descartes argues that it is possible to conceive of a God who is both supremely powerful and deceitful, some philosophers have questioned the coherence of this concept. They argue that it is logically contradictory to attribute deceitful intentions to a perfectly good God, or that a being that is all-powerful would not need to resort to deceit in order to achieve its aims.

The reliability of perceptual experience: Descartes' argument relies on the assumption that perceptual experiences can be called into question. However, some philosophers have argued that it is difficult to doubt our perceptual experiences in the way that Descartes suggests. They argue that perceptual experiences are immediate and indubitable, and that it is only our interpretations of those experiences that can be doubted.

The legitimacy of radical doubt: The deceiving God argument is one of several strategies that Descartes uses to generate radical doubt. Some philosophers have questioned the legitimacy of this method, arguing that it is unclear whether it is possible to doubt everything, or whether radical doubt leads to excessive skepticism that undermines our ability to make meaningful claims about the world.

While the deceiving God argument has been influential in the history of philosophy, some philosophers have raised questions about the plausibility of its assumptions and the soundness of its conclusions.

Explain the role of the malicious demon hypothesis in Meditation 1. (2)

In Meditation 1, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a malicious demon who could systematically deceive him about the nature of reality. This hypothesis serves as a tool for radical doubt, allowing Descartes to call into question even his most basic beliefs about the world. By considering the possibility of a malicious demon, Descartes is able to generate a powerful sense of skepticism that he can then use as a starting point for his philosophical inquiry. Ultimately, this hypothesis helps Descartes to establish a new foundation of knowledge that is free from doubt.

Award 1 mark for any of the following points

• Descartes is concerned that his habitual opinions keep returning
• to counter the ‘weight in pre-conceived opinion’ he uses the idea of the malicious demon to deceive himself
• he will pretend that his previous beliefs are not just debateable but actually false
• he imagines a hypothetical malicious demon that has put every effort into deceiving him.

In Meditation 1, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a malicious demon. What reasons does Descartes give for doing so?

*** chatGPT says ***

In Meditation 1, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a malicious demon as a thought experiment to challenge his own beliefs and the foundations of knowledge. He suggests that there may be an evil demon, an all-powerful and cunning deceiver, who deceives him about everything, including his own existence, the physical world, and even basic logical truths.

Descartes introduces this hypothesis for several reasons:

1. To doubt all his beliefs: Descartes wants to doubt all of his beliefs and opinions that he has acquired throughout his life, even those that seem most certain, such as the existence of the physical world and his own body. By introducing the hypothesis of a malicious demon, Descartes can show that even his most basic and certain beliefs can be called into question.
2. To find a new foundation for knowledge: By doubting all of his beliefs, Descartes hopes to find a new foundation for knowledge that is absolutely certain and indubitable. By exploring the hypothesis of a malicious demon, Descartes can test the limits of his own skepticism and see if there is anything that he can be absolutely certain about.
3. To challenge the Aristotelian worldview: Descartes was living in a time when the Aristotelian worldview dominated the intellectual landscape. Descartes wanted to challenge this worldview and create a new method of inquiry that was based on reason and evidence rather than tradition and authority. By introducing the hypothesis of a malicious demon, Descartes can show that our senses and our common sense beliefs about the world can be deceptive and that we need to use reason and evidence to discover the truth.

In summary, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a malicious demon to challenge his own beliefs, find a new foundation for knowledge, and challenge the Aristotelian worldview. This thought experiment allows him to explore the limits of skepticism and begin to develop his own method of inquiry based on reason and evidence.

Read the following essay and assess it for both accuracy and thoroughness

This is the exam question:

Read the following: ‘Late one night a parent discovers that their child has a very severe headache and decides to take the child to hospital by car. They come to a junction where the traffic lights are at red. Seeing that there are no other cars at the junction, the parent decides to cross the red light. This is seen by police officers who stop the parent, question and breathalyse them. This is standard procedure for any driver stopped for committing a traffic offence. After issuing the parent with a fine for crossing the red light, they allow them to go on their way to hospital. Because they were stopped, they arrived later than they would have done if they had waited for the lights to change.’

Analyse and evaluate how utilitarians might respond to the parent’s decision to cross the red light.

In your answer you should make clear the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.

This is the student's essay:

[Here I pasted in a copy of the essay]

*** chatGPT says ***
The essay describes the concept of utilitarianism and the differences between act and rule utilitarianism. The author provides a brief history of the two schools of thought, with quotes from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The author then attempts to apply the principles of utilitarianism to the scenario given and provides their own evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of both act and rule utilitarianism.

The essay accurately describes the basic principles of utilitarianism and the difference between act and rule utilitarianism, but it lacks thoroughness in its analysis of the scenario. The author mentions the use of the hedonic calculus but does not explain it in depth and does not provide any supporting evidence for their claims. Additionally, the conclusion is not well-supported and does not provide a clear evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism in response to the scenario.

In terms of accuracy, the essay provides a basic understanding of utilitarianism, but it could be improved with further explanation and supporting evidence. The essay is not thorough in its analysis of the scenario, and the conclusion is not well-supported.

Can you give any examples of things the answer gets wrong?

Yes, there are several inaccuracies in the answer.

1. The definition of utilitarianism is incorrect. Utilitarianism is not just based on happiness, but rather the maximizing of overall well-being or utility.
2. The explanation of act and rule utilitarianism is misleading. Act utilitarianism is not a "free variation" of utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism is not simply utilitarianism with a set of rules added. Both theories have different approaches and criteria for determining the moral value of an action.
3. The explanation of the hedonic calculus is incorrect. Hedonic calculus is not used by all act utilitarians, and it is not a method for measuring happiness or unhappiness, but rather a tool for weighing the various factors that contribute to overall pleasure or happiness.
4. The description of rule utilitarianism is incomplete and oversimplified. Rule utilitarianism is not just about valuing the quality of happiness over quantity, and it is not as straightforward as saying that breaking rules is always wrong. Rule utilitarianism involves considering the social consequences of actions and the general rules that promote overall well-being in society.
5. The conclusion that both act and rule utilitarianism are only partially successful in answering the scenario is too broad and unsubstantiated. A more in-depth analysis of the situation and the specific implications of both theories would be necessary to reach a more accurate conclusion.

Read the following essay and assess it for both accuracy and thoroughness

This is the exam question:

Read the following quotation and answer the question that follows.

‘Kant’s moral theory is cold and detached from real life.’
To what extent do you consider this criticism to be fair?
In your answer you could include the following

• a description of Kant’s theory
• an explanation of how Kant says we should make moral decisions
• discussion of how the criticism applies to Kantian ethics
• evaluation of Kantian ethics in relation to this criticism.

This is the student's essay:

[Here I pasted in a copy of the essay]

*** chatGPT says ***
The student's essay provides a generally accurate and thorough assessment of Kant's moral theory in response to the criticism that it is "cold and detached from real life." The essay provides a clear description of Kant's theory, including the idea that it is deontological and focuses on the good will as the foundation of morality, and the importance of people being autonomous rational actors. The essay also includes an explanation of how Kant says we should make moral decisions, including the idea of the categorical imperative and the importance of checking for a contradiction in conception.

The essay also discusses the criticism that Kant's theory is detached from real life and argues against it by providing examples and addressing potential objections. The student presents the idea that the objection is based on emotive reactions rather than criticisms of the arguments presented by Kant. The essay addresses the common objection that Kant's theory disregards consequences by presenting an example of how relying on consequences can be problematic.

The essay also addresses the objection that Kant's theory is too abstract and impractical by emphasizing that it is rooted purely in our will and logical consistency, rather than hypothetical outcomes or consequences. The student concludes with a defense of Kant's theory, arguing that the theory is substantive and relevant to real life because it provides a clear and consistent framework for making moral decisions.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of Kant's moral theory and presents a thoughtful response to the criticism that it is detached from real life. The student presents clear examples and arguments in support of their analysis, making the essay both accurate and thorough.

Can you give any examples of things the answer gets wrong?

Overall, the essay provides a generally accurate and thorough explanation of Kant's moral theory and his key concepts, including deontology, the good will, the categorical imperative, and autonomous rational actors.

However, there are a few areas where the essay could be improved or corrected:

1. The essay says that Kant's theory "disregarded consequences as something that was worthy of moral significance." While it is true that Kant believed that the moral worth of an action was not determined by its consequences, he did not disregard consequences entirely. In fact, Kant believed that we have a moral duty to promote the happiness and well-being of others as an end in itself, although this duty is subordinate to our duty to respect the moral law.
2. The essay uses an example of two individuals planning to commit a mass killing to argue that counting consequences in moral decision-making is problematic. While this example is effective in demonstrating that actions should not be judged solely on the basis of their consequences, it is an extreme and unrealistic scenario that may not be representative of the kinds of moral dilemmas that people actually face in everyday life.
3. The essay suggests that Kant's theory is not concerned with the real world, and that criticisms of his theory as cold and detached are based on emotional reactions rather than substantive arguments. While it is true that Kant's theory is highly abstract and conceptual, it is also true that his ethical framework is intended to be applicable to real-world situations. Moreover, criticisms of Kant's theory as cold or detached from reality are not necessarily based on emotional reactions, but may reflect legitimate concerns about the practicality or comprehensiveness of his moral system.
4. Finally, the essay asserts that Kant's theory is purely rooted in our will, and how logically consistent our will is. While it is true that Kant believed that moral decisions should be based on the categorical imperative, which requires us to will that our actions become universal laws, it is also true that Kant believed that our moral decisions should be motivated by a sense of duty and respect for the moral law, rather than mere self-interest or preference.

Read the following exam question, the student response and the marking criteria. What mark out of 30 would you give this essay?

Give reasons for the mark you have awarded.

This is the exam question:

Read the following: ‘Late one night a parent discovers that their child has a very severe headache and decides to take the child to hospital by car. They come to a junction where the traffic lights are at red. Seeing that there are no other cars at the junction, the parent decides to cross the red light. This is seen by police officers who stop the parent, question and breathalyse them. This is standard procedure for any driver stopped for committing a traffic offence. After issuing the parent with a fine for crossing the red light, they allow them to go on their way to hospital. Because they were stopped, they arrived later than they would have done if they had waited for the lights to change.’

Analyse and evaluate how utilitarians might respond to the parent’s decision to cross the red light.

In your answer you should make clear the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.

Pupil response:
[Here I pasted in the essay which the SQA had awarded 16/30]

The following is the marking criteria I want you to use:
[Here I pasted in the moral philosophy situation holistic marking criteria]

*** chatGPT says ***
I would give this essay a mark of 15 out of 30.

While the student provides a good definition of utilitarianism and explains the difference between act and rule utilitarianism, the essay is not very relevant to the given scenario. There is no clear application of the theory to the situation, and the discussion is quite general and abstract.

The student does not evaluate how utilitarians might respond to the parent’s decision to cross the red light, and the analysis provided is not well connected to the scenario. The essay includes some relevant information about utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, but this information is not used to analyse the scenario in a meaningful way.

The essay also includes several errors and inconsistencies. For example, the essay states that utilitarianism is based on happiness, but then contradicts itself by saying that utilitarianism contradicts Kantian ethics because it is not based on duty and responsibility. There are also some grammatical errors and spelling mistakes throughout the essay.

Overall, the essay provides some relevant information about utilitarianism, but it is not well applied to the given scenario, and there are several errors and inconsistencies.

The candidate was awarded 16 marks.

They have given a good introduction which describes some of the background to Utilitarianism. They describe Act Utilitarianism competently with good use of the quote from Bentham. They get a little bit muddled when describing Rule Utilitarianism. Their first sentence in paragraph 3 is correct, but then they wrongly associate the idea of Mill’s Higher and Lower Pleasures with Rule Utilitarianism. The rest of this paragraph is irrelevant to the scenario. Their reference to the situation shows some understanding of the application of the theories but does not go in to depth.

They give several evaluative comments that are quite superficial and not all directly relevant to the scenario. They miss the opportunity in their discussion of the scenario to point out that the predicted consequences were different from the actual consequences. They give a personal view on issues raised by the situation but with no real support to their position.

Read the following exam question, the student response and the marking criteria. What mark out of 30 would you give this essay?

Give reasons for the mark you have awarded.

This is the exam question:

Read the following quotation and answer the question that follows.

‘Kant’s moral theory is cold and detached from real life.’

To what extent do you consider this criticism to be fair?
In your answer you could include the following

• a description of Kant’s theory
• an explanation of how Kant says we should make moral decisions
• discussion of how the criticism applies to Kantian ethics
• evaluation of Kantian ethics in relation to this criticism.

Pupil response:
[Here I pasted in the essay which the SQA had awarded 30/30]

The following is the marking criteria I want you to use:
[Here I pasted in the moral philosophy quotation holistic marking criteria]

*** chatGPT says ***
I would give this essay a mark of 26 out of 30.

The student has demonstrated a thorough understanding of Kant's moral theory and has effectively explained the key elements of the theory, including deontology, the good will, and the categorical imperative. The student also effectively addresses the criticism that Kant's theory is cold and detached from real life, providing arguments and explanations to counter this criticism. The essay is well organized and clearly structured, with the ideas presented in a logical and coherent manner.

However, there are a few areas for improvement. The language used in the essay is sometimes complex and may be difficult for someone unfamiliar with Kant's theory to understand. The student could also benefit from providing more specific examples or real-life scenarios to illustrate the key points made in the essay. Additionally, the conclusion could be stronger and provide a more conclusive evaluation of Kantian ethics in relation to the criticism, rather than just acknowledging the criticism and leaving it at that.

The candidate was awarded 30/30 marks.

The candidate showed a thorough, in depth and accurate knowledge and understanding of the theory, application and reasonable interpretation of Kantian Ethics. They presented a detailed, methodical and sophisticated response to the issues raised by the quotation with evaluative comments woven throughout their essay in response to the points of theory they described. Their line of argument directly addresses the question and unpacks the different elements of the quotation, addressing the criticism that Kantian ethics is cold and also that it is detached from real life separately.

There is considerable evaluative discussion through the course of the essay and a well-supported personal position on the issues raised by the quotation is shown by the candidate. This is an excellent essay.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 1.
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Heat oven to 180C/fan 160C/gas 4.
Beat together 225g softened unsalted butter and 225g caster sugar until pale and creamy, then add 4 eggs, one at a time, slowly mixing through.
Sift in 225g self-raising flour, then add the finely grated zest of 1 lemon and mix until well combined.
Do not use a waxed lemon. The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter.

1. What distinguishes a statement from other types of sentences? (1 mark)
2. Identify a statement in the passage above. (1 mark)
3. Give a counterexample to the universal claim in the above passage. (1 mark)

Marking instructions for Question 1

1. Award 1 mark for saying either that a statement asserts or denies a claim or that statements have a truth value, whilst other types of sentences do not.
2. Award 1 mark for ‘The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter.’
3. Award 1 mark for any appropriate counterexample, such as ‘this waxed lemon is not very bitter’.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 1.

1. A statement is a sentence with a truth value.
2. "The zest from all waxed lemons is very bitter."
3. The zest from some waxed lemons is not bitter.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 3 marks.

The pupil's answer demonstrates a clear understanding of what constitutes a statement and provides an appropriate example of a statement from the given passage. The answer to part (c) is also appropriate and offers a valid counterexample to the universal claim made in the passage. Therefore, the pupil has correctly answered all three parts of the question and deserves full marks.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for correctly noting a statement has truth value.
2. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for identifying the statement.
3. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for the counterexample.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 2.
Read the following argument and answer the questions that follow.

‘A square has 4 sides.
A triangle has 3 sides.
Therefore, a square has more sides than a triangle.’

Arguments are often evaluated in terms of the acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of their premises.

1. Choose one of the premises in the above argument. What makes this premise acceptable?
2. What makes this argument deductive?

Marking instructions for Question 2

1. Award 1 mark for saying one of the following
• it’s an a priori truth
• it’s true by definition
• it’s a necessary truth
• it’s true
• it’s common knowledge

It will not be accepted if the candidate says that it is unambiguous or plausible.

2. Award 1 mark for saying the conclusion is established for certain or if the premises are true, the conclusion is true or any other appropriate answer.

No marks should be awarded for saying that a deductive argument moves from a general to specific claim or any other formation of this point.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 2.

1. "A triangle has 3 sides." By definition this must be true because as soon as another side is added, it's no longer a triangle.
2. You are going from small claims to a large one.

*** chatGPT says ***
For part (a), the candidate correctly identifies that "A triangle has 3 sides" is true by definition, and therefore earns 1 mark.

However, for part (b), the candidate's response is not accurate. They suggest that the argument goes from "small claims to a large one," but this is not a relevant criterion for why the argument is deductive. Therefore, no mark can be awarded for part (b).

Overall, the candidate earns 1 mark.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for saying the premise is acceptable because it is true by definition.
2. The candidate was awarded 0/1 mark.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 3.

Read the following argument.
Premise 1 — There was a massive spider in my sink this morning.
Premise 2 — I’ve just seen a massive spider running across my living room floor.
Conclusion —

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the premises?
Give two reasons for your choice.

1. My house is over-run by spiders.
2. There may be two massive spiders in my house.
3. There is no longer a spider in my sink.

Marking instructions for Question 3

If B is chosen:
Award 1 mark for each appropriate explanation, such as…
You would have to check the sink to establish whether or not there is still a spider in there. (1 mark)
You would have to have seen many more than two spiders to know that the house is over-run by spiders. (1 mark)
Because of ‘may be’, B is the weakest claim, and it would be reasonable to conclude that there may be two spiders if you have had two spider sightings. (1 mark)

If C is chosen:
Award a maximum of 1 mark if a reasonable explanation is given, for example the spider in the sink may have moved to the living room.

No marks if A is chosen.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 3.
B. Just because you have seen a similar looking spider, doesn't mean it's the same one and that's no reason to assume that there is no longer a spider in the sink.
Similarly, having only had 2 spider sightings, that doesn't warrant the thought that there is an infestation.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the pupil 2 marks for their answer to Question 3, as they have provided two appropriate explanations to support their choice of answer B. The first explanation acknowledges the need to check the sink to confirm whether there is still a spider there, which is a valid reason for choosing B. The second explanation points out that having only two spider sightings is not enough evidence to conclude that there is an infestation, which also supports the choice of B. Overall, the pupil's answer demonstrates a good understanding of the reasoning behind their choice of answer.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 5.
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

‘It’s simply not enough to ban plastic straws. There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean. There is a social media campaign to ban plastic straws. However, plastic straws are only a tiny fraction of the problem. Just by banning them, we are not going to solve the problem.’

Present the argument above in standard form.

Marking instructions for Question 5

Candidates may approach this question in different ways. Regardless of how
they approach it, they should receive credit for the following

• 1 mark for putting it into standard form, that is, laying out premises and conclusion each taking a separate line and labeled accordingly.
• 1 mark for recognising that ‘By banning plastic straws we are not going to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean’ is an intermediate conclusion
• 1 mark for including an appropriate premise and conclusion.

A correct representation of this argument in standard form would be:

P1: There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean.
P2: Plastic straws are only a tiny fraction of the problem of plastic in the ocean.
IC: By banning plastic straws we are not going to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean.
MC: It’s simply not enough to ban plastic straws.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 5.
P1: There are 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean.
P2: There is a social media campaign to ban plastic straws.
P3: Plastic straws are only a fraction of the problem.
C: It's simply not enough to ban plastic straws.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer includes three of the required elements: P1, P2, and C. However, it does not identify the intermediate conclusion, which is required for full credit. Therefore, I would award the pupil 2 out of 3 marks. They receive 1 mark for putting the argument in standard form and 1 mark for including appropriate premises and a conclusion. However, they do not receive the mark for recognizing the intermediate conclusion.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 6.
Read the following argument.
‘The lamb is ready to eat so you should go and set the table.’

1. Explain the ambiguity in this argument.
2. How does the ambiguity affect this argument?

Marking instructions for Question 6

1. Award 1 mark for pointing out that ‘the lamb is ready to eat’ can be understood in two different ways — either that the lamb is ready for its dinner or that the lamb is ready for your dinner. Maximum of 1 marks for (a)
2. Candidates may approach this question in different ways. To receive marks for their answer they must consider the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. 1 mark for an appropriate point and an additional mark for a development of that point. For example
• the fact that the statement is ambiguous makes the premise ‘the lamb is ready for its dinner’ unacceptable (1 mark) because this makes it difficult to say whether the premise should convince us of the conclusion or not (1 mark)
• if the lamb is ready for its dinner then you don’t need to set the table (1 mark). That reading of the premise makes the premise irrelevant to the conclusion (1 mark)
• the conclusion can only be drawn on the reading that the lamb is ready for your dinner (1 mark) because you would have no reason to set the table if the lamb is ready for its dinner (1 mark)
• ambiguity doesn’t affect this argument because the context makes clear what the meaning is (1 mark) because it would only be appropriate to set the table if it is the lamb that is being eaten for dinner. (1 mark)

Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 6.

1. The ambiguity here is to do with the word "lamb." One person may think that the speaker means the meat of a lamb has been prepared for a person to eat but another person may think that a baby sheep is ready for it's dinner.
2. It affects the argument because if the person who believes that a baby sheep is about to eat it wouldn't make any sense to set the table as the sheep wouldn't eat at the table. Therefore, that person is in the right to criticise the speaker's logic, meaning the table will never get set.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 1 mark for part (a)

The pupil correctly identifies the ambiguity in the argument, but does not fully explain it. They only provide one possible interpretation of "the lamb is ready to eat" rather than the required two.

Mark awarded: 1 mark for part (b)

The pupil provides an appropriate point, stating that the ambiguity affects the argument because one interpretation makes the premise irrelevant to the conclusion. However, they do not fully develop this point or provide additional points, so only one mark can be awarded.

SQA Commentary on Question 6(b)
The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that on reading that the baby sheep is ready to eat, it does not make sense to set the table. 1 mark was given for the claim that it would be right in this case to criticise the speaker’s logic.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 7.

1. What is confirmation bias?
2. Explain how confirmation bias might affect a police investigation.

Marking instructions for Question 7

1. Award 1 mark for confirmation bias involves seeking evidence that confirms what you already believe.
   Award 1 mark for confirmation bias involves ignoring evidence that would disprove what you already believe or point in another direction.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (a)
2. There may be a number of ways that confirmation bias could affect a police investigation, 1 mark should be given for explanation of how evidence is sought to confirm a belief and 1 mark for explanation of how evidence is ignored that counters their belief, for example:
   Award 1 mark for an explanation of how a police investigation might look for evidence that would back up a hunch that someone is guilty of a crime.
   Award 1 mark for an explanation of how a police investigation might ignore evidence that might indicate someone else is guilty of that crime.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 7.

1. Confirmation bias is when somebody tries to prove their theory when working something out instead of trying to disprove it, therefore they get further and further from the answer.
2. If suspect A didn't do the crime but an inspector is certain of his theory that suspect A did do the crime he will keep trying to prove that instead of trying to disprove and getting the answer that he didn't in fact do it. This means that the inspector wastes time when he could be proving that suspect B was the one who done it.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer correctly defines confirmation bias as the tendency to seek out evidence that confirms one's beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them. However, the answer in part (a) includes an additional and incorrect explanation, leading to a mark deduction. Thus, the pupil's answer should be awarded 1 mark for part (a).

In part (b), the pupil's answer provides a reasonable explanation of how confirmation bias can affect a police investigation by offering an example of an inspector being too certain of their theory and overlooking evidence that may point in another direction. As the answer covers both aspects of the marking instructions, it should be awarded 2 marks for part (b).

Therefore, the total mark for the answer is 3 out of 4.

SQA Commentary on Question 7(b)
The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for noting that the police may keep trying to prove his theory and 1 mark for noting that this would waste time when they could be proving that someone else had done it.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 8.

1. What is a fallacious appeal to emotion?
2. Give an example of a fallacious appeal to emotion and explain why it is bad reasoning.

Marking instructions for Question 8

1. Award 1 mark for stating that a fallacious appeal to emotion is when in an argument, instead of using relevant premises to persuade someone, emotion is used to manipulate people into accepting their conclusion. Maximum of 1 mark for (a)
2. Award 1 mark for any appropriate example. Award 1 mark for explaining why that example is fallacious.
   Candidates should not be credited with any marks for examples that are not fallacious.
   Maximum of 2 marks for (b)

Answer 8.

1. A fallacious appeal to emotion is when somebody tries to convince somebody else of a conclusion by making them angry, sad, happy, embarrased etc instead of using reason to win them over.
2. Hector won't eat his greens so his dad says "Eat your greens, there are starving kids in poverty who would kill for that." This is bad reasoning as Hector's dad is making Hector feel bad for kids in poverty so he eats his greens when actually Hector eating his greens or not has no real impact on kids in poverty.

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 2 marks.

Explanation:
The answer satisfies the requirements for both (a) and (b) parts of the question.

For part (a), the answer provides a definition of a fallacious appeal to emotion, although it is not as precise as the marking instructions. It also provides examples of emotions that could be used to manipulate someone in an argument. While the answer does not state that the emotion is used to replace relevant premises, it implies that the person is not using reason to win the argument, which is a similar idea. Therefore, the answer is worth 1 mark for part (a).

For part (b), the answer gives an appropriate example of a fallacious appeal to emotion, which is worth 1 mark. It also explains why the example is fallacious by stating that the appeal to emotion is not relevant to the argument and has no real impact on the situation at hand. Therefore, the answer is worth 1 mark for explaining why the example is fallacious.

Overall, the answer is worth 2 marks.

Is that 2 marks for part (b) making a total of 3 marks?

I apologize for the confusion. You are correct that the answer would receive a total of 3 marks if it received 2 marks for part (b). So, the answer would receive 1 mark for part (a) and 2 marks for part (b), for a total of 3 marks. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

1. The candidate was awarded 0/1 mark.
2. The candidate was awarded 2/2 marks. 1 mark was given for the example and 1 mark was given for explaining that it was not relevant to the conclusion.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 9.

1. State the form of the denying the antecedent fallacy.
2. Give an example of denying the antecedent.
3. Using your example, explain the error in this form of reasoning.

Marking instructions for Question 9

1. Award 1 mark for ‘If P then Q; Not P; Therefore not Q’.
   No mark for answers starting with a universal claim rather than a conditional statement.
   Maximum of 1 mark for (a)
2. (Award 1 mark for any example. No mark for stating the form.
   Maximum of 1 mark for (b)
3. Award 1 mark each for any of the following points
• denying the antecedent is invalid
• the fact that P is false does not guarantee that Q is also false
• with reference to the example, an explanation of circumstances in which the consequent could be true even when the antecedent is false
• given the truth of ‘If P then Q’, the truth of P is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the truth of Q
• in the denying the antecedent fallacy it is assumed that P is a necessary as well as a sufficient condition for the truth of Q.

Or any other appropriate answer
Maximum of 3 marks for (c)

Answer 9.

1. If P then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q
2. If I go to the lemonade stand I can get lemonade. I didn't go to the lemonade stand. Therefore, I didn't get lemonade.
3. An error in the reasoning of this example is that it is entirely possible that I could have gotten lemonade somewhere else, like a supermarket. This translates to every type of argument that follows the same structure. Just because P didn't happen doesn't mean that Q can't happen.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer for (a) correctly states the form of the denying the antecedent fallacy and therefore is awarded 1 mark.

The pupil's answer for (b) provides an example of denying the antecedent, and therefore is awarded 1 mark.

The pupil's answer for (c) explains the error in the reasoning of denying the antecedent, specifically highlighting that the falsity of P does not guarantee the falsity of Q, and provides a relevant example to support their explanation. The answer is appropriate and insightful and therefore, is awarded the maximum of 3 marks.

Overall, the pupil is awarded 5 out of 5 marks for this question.

1. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for correctly identifying the structure.
2. The candidate was awarded 1/1 mark for giving a correct example.
3. The candidate was awarded 2/3 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that in the example it is possible that the person could get lemonade somewhere else, 1 mark was given for the general explanation that even because P didn’t happen doesn’t mean that Q can’t happen.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 10.
When is an attack on the person (ad-hominem) not fallacious?
You may support your answer with an example.

Marking instructions for Question 10
Award 1 mark for noting that an attack on the person is not fallacious if it
is relevant to the conclusion of the argument.
Award 1 mark for an appropriate example.
Candidates should not be credited with any marks for examples that are fallacious.
Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 10.
If the ad hominem is relevant to the argument e.g. if you're having an argument about who is smarter one could say "You are extremely stupid." Even though it is an attack on the person, it is relevant to the argument taking place.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer correctly notes that an ad hominem attack is not fallacious if it is relevant to the conclusion of the argument, and provides an appropriate example to support their answer. Therefore, the pupil should be awarded the full 2 marks available.

Question 11.

Why does Descartes think the cogito is a truth he can be absolutely certain of?

Marking instructions for Question 11
Award 1 mark each for any relevant point and an additional mark for a
development of that point, for example

• it is a self-evident truth that cannot be denied
• even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived
• it is impossible for him to doubt his own existence
• ‘I exist’ is necessarily true every time one thinks or conceives it
• it is contradictory to believe ‘I don’t exist’.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 11.
Descartes doubted everything and came to the conclusion that the only thing he can be certain of is himself because he is thinking and there cannot be thoughts without a thinker, therefore, he must exist.

*** chatGPT says ***

I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a relevant point: Descartes thinks the cogito is a truth he can be absolutely certain of because he is thinking and there cannot be thoughts without a thinker, therefore, he must exist.

This corresponds to the point: "even if he is being deceived, he must exist to be deceived" in the marking instructions. However, the answer does not develop this point further or mention any of the other relevant points in the marking instructions.

SQA Commentary for question 11
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark for the claim that there cannot be thoughts without a thinker.

Question 12.
Explain what Descartes means by ‘clear and distinct perception’.

Marking instructions for Question 12
Award 1 mark for each of the following

• a perception is ‘clear’ when it is present and accessible to the attentive mind
• a perception is ‘distinct’ if, as well as being clear, it is separated from all other perceptions and contains only what is clear.

Any answer that shows an understanding of these terms as used by Descartes should be credited.
Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 12.
A clear and distinct perception is something that is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused for anything else.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a partial definition of clear and distinct perception as "something that is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused for anything else." However, it does not mention both of the relevant points in the marking instructions.

The answer only covers the "clear" part of the definition of clear and distinct perception, and it does not mention the idea of a perception being separated from all other perceptions and containing only what is clear, which is the "distinct" part of the definition. Therefore, the pupil has demonstrated some understanding of the concept but has not fully answered the question.

SQA Commentary on Question 12
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark for it ‘is so obvious in his mind that it cannot be confused with anything else’.

Question 13.
In Meditation 2, what reasons does Descartes give for his belief that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’?

Marking instructions for Question 13
Award 1 mark each for any relevant point, for example

• the cogito is Descartes’ absolute certain truth and he sees this clearly and distinctly
• if it were possible that he could have such a perception and it be false then he would not be able to trust in the cogito
• a non-deceiving God guarantees the truth of clear and distinct perceptions.

Or

Award 2 marks for presenting Descartes’ argument as follows

• P1 — If something I perceived clearly and distinctly could be false then perceiving ‘I exist’ clearly and distinctly would not be enough for me to be certain of it
• P2 — I am certain that ‘I exist’ because I have a ‘clear and distinct perception of it
• C — Everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true.

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 13.
Because clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused for anything else, they cannot be confused for anything false.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award the answer 1 mark.

The pupil answer provides a relevant point: clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused for anything else, and therefore they cannot be false. However, this point is incomplete and does not fully address the question.

The marking instructions provide several reasons why Descartes believes that whatever he perceives very clearly and distinctly is true. The pupil answer only covers one of these reasons and does not mention the other relevant points. Therefore, the pupil has demonstrated some understanding of the concept, but the answer is not complete.

SQA Commentary on Question 13
The candidate was awarded 1/2 marks. 1 mark was given for claiming that ‘Because clear and distinct perceptions cannot be confused with anything else, they cannot be confused for anything false’.

Question 14.
Explain two problems with the claim ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’.

Marking instructions for Question 14
Award 1 mark for an appropriate point and an additional mark for a development of that point, for example

• how do we know Descartes is not mistaken about the claim that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’ (1 mark). He previously mistook the things he experienced from his senses to be real based on believing they were clear and distinct (1 mark)
• some things that Descartes doubts in Meditation 1 for example truths of geometry are later claimed to be clear and distinct. (1 mark) How was it possible for these to be doubted if they are meant to be certain (1 mark)
• Descartes claims often that man is ‘subject to error’. (1 mark)
• Therefore, could we be mistaken about having clear and distinct perceptions? (1 mark)
• Descartes’ explanation of what he means by clear and distinct perceptions is vague (1 mark) — what is clear and distinct to Descartes may not be clear and distinct to someone else (1 mark)
• the Cartesian Circle — In order to help guarantee that we can have knowledge based on the clear and distinct rule; Descartes brings in his proof for God (1 mark). His argument for God relies on clear and distinct perceptions. This is circular reasoning. (1 mark) No marks for just stating the Cartiesan circle.

A superficial explanation of a criticism may only be awarded 1 mark.
Maximum of 4 marks

Answer 14.
One problem is the problem with reason. Descartes said that he had to doubt everything in order to find what knowledge what truly indubitable. However, he doesn't seem to doubt his reasoning that "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true". This is bad for Descartes as it shows that he is unwilling to stick to his own rules, which shows lack of integrity, which means people are less inclined to believe him.
Another problem with this claim is the problem with language. This means that Descartes said he would doubt everything, but didn't even doubt the language that he was using. According to his own examples, the evil demon could be manipulating him to think that what he's writing makes sense but he is in fact writing in complete gibberish. This is an issue for Descartes as it, again, shows his lack of respect for himself.

*** chatGPT says ***
Based on the marking instructions, I would award this answer 2 marks. The first point about the problem with reason is relevant and developed to some extent, but it is not directly addressing the claim "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true." The second point about the problem with language is more directly related to the question, but it is not well developed and could be clearer in its explanation. Therefore, it earns 1 mark for each point.

SQA Commentary on Question 14
The candidate was awarded 4/4 marks. 1 mark was given for claiming that Descartes doesn’t doubt the claim that ‘whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true’. 1 mark was given for expanding on this point to say that he is not sticking to the rules he set for himself. 1 mark was given for saying he doesn’t doubt his own language. 1 mark was given for developing this point with the possibility that the evil genius could be deceiving him into thinking it makes sense when it does not.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 15.
What does Mill mean by ‘higher pleasures’ and ‘lower pleasures’?

Marking instructions for Question 15
Higher pleasures appeal to higher faculties, lower pleasures are animalistic. (1 mark)

Maximum of 1 marks

Answer 15.
A higher pleasure is one that only a human can appreciate. A lower pleasure is one that even a pig could appreciate

*** chatGPT says ***
Mark awarded: 1 mark

Explanation:
The answer accurately defines Mill's concept of "higher pleasures" and "lower pleasures" as outlined in the marking instructions. The answer correctly states that higher pleasures appeal to higher faculties and lower pleasures are more animalistic in nature. Although the answer presents these ideas in slightly different words, it still demonstrates an understanding of the core concepts, and therefore earns the full mark of 1.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 16.
Why did Mill draw the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

Marking instructions for Question 16
Any of the following should be awarded 1 mark

• Mill wanted to refute Bentham’s claim that all pleasures are equal
• Mill thought that morality should focus on quality as well as quantity
• Mill wanted to answer the criticism that Utilitarianism was a ‘swine philosophy’

Maximum of 2 marks

Answer 16.
Mill believed that we should only ever indulge in higher pleasure and that lower. pleasures were for animilstic people who couldn't care less about true pleasure. It was said that "It's better to be a socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil answer touches on the idea of higher and lower pleasures, but it does not fully answer the question and it contains a misrepresentation of Mill's view. The pupil states that Mill believed we should only ever indulge in higher pleasures and that lower pleasures were only for "animalistic people" who did not care about true pleasure. This is a misrepresentation of Mill's view, which holds that some pleasures are intrinsically better than others, but that people can still legitimately enjoy lower pleasures. Additionally, the pupil's answer does not address the specific question of why Mill drew the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Based on the marking instructions, the answer should receive 0 marks as it does not address any of the possible reasons given for why Mill drew the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 17.
Why does Mill believe that a competent judge would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures?

Marking instructions for Question 17
Candidates should be awarded 1 mark for any appropriate point.
These are likely to include

• competent judges have experienced both higher and lower pleasures
• competent judges would consider the quality of pleasure, not just the quantity
• competent judges would regard some pleasures as more valuable than others — Mill thought it was undeniable that human pleasures are superior to animalistic pleasures
• Mill thinks no person would choose to become like an animal
• consistently choosing lower pleasures would be for a person to become like an animal or for an educated person to become ignorant
• to be happy is to exercise our minds/be involved in developing ourselves in some way
• ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.’ 1 mark for any description of this quote.

Maximum of 4 marks

Answer 17.
Mill believes a competent judge would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures because he believed that everybody would prefer higher to lower pleasures when given the option as higher pleasure expand our intellect and they broaden our horizons but lower pleasures simply indulge us like animals, like eating a big slice of cake or sunbathing, these do nothing for our minds and make us unhealthy. Anybody of sound mind would prefer to pick the higher pleasure like read a book over eat at a fast food restaurant as books help us undersdtand the world and they make us smarter but fast food basically poisons our bodies and makes us extremely unhealthy and can lead to heart problems which can lead to death in bad cases.

*** chatGPT says ***
I would award this answer 2 marks out of a maximum of 4.

The first mark can be awarded for the explanation that Mill believed that competent judges would prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures because higher pleasures expand our intellect and broaden our horizons, while lower pleasures only indulge us like animals. This is a correct statement and corresponds to the second and third bullet points in the marking instructions.

The second mark can be awarded for the correct identification and explanation of the quote "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question." This corresponds to the last bullet point in the marking instructions.

However, there are some inaccuracies and irrelevant information in the answer that do not correspond to any of the points in the marking instructions. For example, the specific examples of eating at a fast food restaurant or sunbathing are not relevant to the question and do not add to the explanation of Mill's belief. Additionally, the statement that fast food "poisons our bodies" is an opinion that is not necessarily shared by everyone and is not supported by any evidence or argument. Therefore, these inaccuracies and irrelevant information do not contribute to the overall mark.

SQA Commentary on Question 17
The candidate was awarded 3/4 marks. 1 mark was given for recognising that Mill believed that everybody would prefer higher to lower pleasures when given the option because higher pleasures expand our intellect and broaden our horizons. 1 mark was given for the expansion of this claim using the examples of reading a book and fast food to explain the point.
1 mark was given for reference to the marking instruction quote ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ was added from the answer to Question 16.

Read the following question, marking instructions and pupil answer. Award a mark based on the marking instructions and say what the mark was awarded for.

Question 18.
‘Mill was wrong. I’d much rather go for a pizza than go to the opera.’
Explain why this could be seen as an unfair criticism of Mill’s higher and lower pleasures.

Marking instructions for Question 18
Candidates should be awarded 1 mark for any appropriate point.
These are likely to include

• this criticism wrongly assumes that Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures is based on his personal preferences
• going to the opera is his example of the sort of thing that would, if it appealed to the higher faculties, count as a higher pleasure
• going for a pizza is unlikely to ever be the kind of experience that would appeal to the higher faculties/exercise the mind/contribute to self-development
• Mill doesn’t say that people would always choose the higher pleasures over the lower pleasures
• Mill recognises that humanity is weak.

Maximum of 3 marks

Answer 18.
This could be seen as an unfair criticism as it is the opinion of one person being used to say that Mill's entire theory was wrong even when that person probably wasn't who he intended to read his theory. He intended this to be read by scholars like himself who would share some similar viewpoints. He didn't account for people who are more interested in greasy food than those interested in the art of opera.

*** chatGPT says ***
The pupil's answer does not address any of the appropriate points listed in the marking instructions. Therefore, no mark can be awarded for this response.

The pupil's response focuses on the idea that Mill's theory was not intended for the general population but only for scholars like himself. However, this argument is not relevant to the question of why the criticism of Mill's higher and lower pleasures might be seen as unfair. The pupil's response also does not provide any analysis or explanation of Mill's theory or how the criticism misrepresents it.