Specimen Question Paper: Paper 2
The SQA marking instructions don’t include the question along with its answer. This makes them difficult to use, especially for pupils. To help with revision and exam preparation, I have produced a more integrated set of marking instructions for Paper Two of the Specimen Question Paper.
The official Specimen Question Paper is on the SQA's website.
Arguments in Action
Award 1 mark for definition of a statement, and 1 mark for any correct example.
- A statement is a sentence or part of a sentence which makes a claim. (1 mark) Or
- A statement is a sentence or part of a sentence with a truth value. (1 mark)
- Any correct example. (1 mark)
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
‘If someone knows in advance that their actions risk death, then when they voluntarily take those actions, they accept a risk of death. These conditions surely apply to rock climbers. Therefore, people who engage in rock climbing have accepted a risk of death.’
Explain with reference to the above passage why it contains an argument. [2]
Award 1 mark for each of the following:
- reasons are given to provide support for the claim that ‘rock climbers have accepted a risk of death
- there is a clue in the indicator word ‘therefore’, leading to the conclusion that rock climbers have accepted a risk of death.
Read the following argument and answer the question that follows:
‘Every kind of animal has some kind of reproductive system.
Dogs are animals.
Therefore, dogs have some kind of reproductive system.’
Arguments are often evaluated in terms of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency.
Is the first premise in the above argument acceptable?
Support your answer with a reason. [1]
Award 1 mark for any appropriate comments, such as:
- This claim is acceptable because it is a matter of common knowledge that a reproductive system is necessary for the survival of species.
What makes a premise in an argument relevant to the conclusion?
State two criteria. [2]
Award 1 mark each for any two from the following: The premise:
- provides some justification to support the conclusion
- gives support to another relevant premise
- contains an appropriate analogy
- attacks the claim rather than the person putting forward the claim.
[Personal note: There may be an issue with the last two bullet points.]
Explain the essential differences between deductive arguments and inductive arguments.
Support your answer with one example of a deductive argument and one example of an inductive argument. [4]
Award 2 marks for explaining the essential differences between deductive and inductive arguments, and 1 mark for an example of a deductive argument and 1 mark for an example of an inductive argument.
- Deductive reasoning attempts to draw certain conclusions from a given set of premises: in a valid deductive argument with true premises there is no way in which the conclusion can be false. (1 mark)
- Inductive reasoning attempts to draw probable conclusions from a set of premises: in an inductive argument, even if there is a lot of highquality supporting evidence, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. (1 mark)
Read the passage below and answer the question that follows.
‘I really don’t want to hear any more of your weak arguments. You haven’t convinced me at all. Decisions about free speech should be made in courts rather than in informal panel meetings. Examine the issues carefully. Consider that lawyers and judges are trained in legal argument, whereas lay people who are appointed to informal panels may not be. Furthermore, there are good facilities in court for questioning witnesses and examining all the evidence. It is also the case that people want to go to court if they have a serious case regarding free speech. Honestly, pull yourself together. If you are thinking logically, you will accept that crucial decisions about free speech should be made in court. End of the matter.’
Present the above argument in an argument diagram. [3]
Candidates must provide an appropriate key for their answer so that it is clear which statements the numbers in the argument diagram refer to. One way of doing this is:
I really don’t want to hear any more of your weak arguments. You haven’t convinced me at all. 1(Decisions about free speech should be made in courts rather than in informal panel meetings.) Examine the issues carefully. Consider that 2(lawyers and judges are trained in legal argument, whereas lay people who are appointed to informal panels may not be.) Furthermore, 3(there are good facilities in court for questioning witnesses and examining all the evidence.) It is also the case that 4(people want to go to court if they have a serious case regarding free speech.) Honestly, pull yourself together. If you are thinking logically, you will accept that 1 (crucial decisions about free speech should be made in court.) End of the matter!
- Award 1 mark for identifying the premises as stand-alone statements.
- Award 1 mark for identifying the conclusion as a stand-alone statement.
- Award 1 mark for showing in the diagram that the premises are convergent.
Award 1 mark for stating that:
- a conductive argument is one where each individual premise gives independent support to the conclusion.
Explain the difference between an analogy used as part of an argument and an analogy used as an explanation. [2]
Award 1 mark for each of the following points:
- an account of how analogies are used in arguments, for example analogical arguments work by saying that x is true of A so x is probably also true of B because B is relevantly similar to A
- an account of how analogies are used as explanations, for example analogical explanations work by comparing something familiar or easy to imagine with something that is difficult to understand.
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
‘No-one objects to a doctor looking up a complicated case in medical books. So students sitting a complicated exam should be allowed to use their textbooks to help them in the exam.’
Is the use of analogy in the above passage effective?
Explain your answer. [2]
Award 1 mark for any of the following points:
- this is a weak analogy because there is very little similarity between the two cases
- the only point of similarity would seem to be the act of consulting a book for information
- very different purposes are served by consulting a book in the two situations — one situation is about testing someone’s knowledge; the other is about a doctor diagnosing a patient’s problem. The doctor has already sat exams to prove their competency as a doctor.
Award marks for any other appropriate comment.
Do not award marks for saying this is a weak analogy without any accompanying explanation.
State two types of ambiguity.
Support your answer with one example of each type of ambiguity. [4]
Award 2 marks for stating two types of ambiguity, and 1 mark for each example of each type of ambiguity.
- Lexical ambiguity or equivocation. (1 mark)
- Syntactic ambiguity or amphiboly. (1 mark)
It is not acceptable to merely say that ambiguity makes the premise ‘vague’ or ‘unclear’.
- An example of lexical ambiguity or equivocation. (1 mark)
- An example of syntactic ambiguity or amphiboly. (1 mark)
Award 1 mark for a correct definition such as one of the following:
- this fallacy is committed if it is assumed in the course of an argument that, because x and y occur one after the other, x causes y
- the fallacy lies in a conclusion based only on the order of events, rather than taking into account other potentially relevant factors that might rule out the connection.
Read the following argument.
‘The child’s arm started to swell after a bee stung her. Bee venom can cause pain and sometimes even more serious reactions. So the bee sting caused the swelling.’
Is the above argument an example of a post hoc fallacy?
Support your answer with an explanation. [1]
Do not award marks for just saying it is not an example of a post hoc fallacy. Candidates must give a reason for their answer.
1 mark for either of the following:
- in this case it is reasonable to take the order of events as a basis for confidence in a causal link — this is because it is known that bee venom can cause serious reactions including swelling
- in this case it is reasonable to take the order of events as a basis for confidence in a causal link — it is likely that the swelling of the arm is directly related to the bee sting.
Award a mark for any other appropriate comment.
Name and explain the fallacy in the following argument.
‘I’ve been working very hard and I’m exhausted. There’s been illness in the family and I’ve had to help with my sister’s children. Also I’m having really overwhelming headaches. Life is treating me badly right now. I need that promotion at work so you should give it to me.’ [3]
Award 1 mark for each of the following:
- this is a fallacious appeal to emotion
- a fallacious appeal to emotion is an attempt to gain acceptance of a claim by appealing to some emotion rather than a reasoned appraisal of the facts
- in this case, the premises stated by the arguer are not relevant to his conclusion that he deserves the promotion.
Award 1 mark for any appropriate example of denying the antecedent. For example:
- If you are a doctor, then you have a job. You are not a doctor. So you do not have a job.
Award 1 mark for an appropriate example of affirming the consequent. For example:
- If the mortgage rate falls, then I will have extra money to spend. I have extra money to spend. So the mortgage rate must have fallen.
Hume
Award 2 marks for any of the following points:
- there is a difference of degree: impressions have more force and vivacity than ideas • the liveliest idea has less force and vivacity than the dullest impression
- impressions are the immediate experiences and ideas are memories of these sensations.
How does Hume explain our ability to have ideas of things we have never experienced?
Support your answer with two of Hume’s examples. [4]
Award 2 marks for explaining how Hume explains our ability to have ideas of things we have never experienced. Candidates may respond in different ways, such as:
- Hume says that when we carefully examine the creative powers of the mind we become aware that all ideas are formed from materials supplied to us by the senses and our feelings (2 marks)
Or
- we can create complex ideas in our minds because of our ability to combine (compound), transpose, enlarge (augment) and shrink (diminish) the materials provided to us by the senses and experience. (2 marks)
Award 1 mark each for two of Hume’s examples:
- we can imagine a ‘golden mountain’ because our imagination can compound two things known to us — ‘gold’ and ‘mountain’ (1 mark)
- we can imagine a ‘virtuous horse’ because our imagination can compound two things known to us — ‘virtue’ and ‘horse’. (1 mark)
To gain full marks, candidates must show that they understand what is meant by complex ideas.
Award 1 mark for each of the following points:
- the idea of God can be traced back to preceding impression(s
- this idea of God is derived from extending beyond all limits the qualities of goodness and wisdom which we find in our own minds.
Award 1 mark each for any two examples from the following:
- a blind man cannot form a notion of colours and a deaf man cannot form a notion of sounds
- a Laplander has no notion of the taste of wine
- a gentle person cannot form the idea of determined revenge or cruelty, and a selfish person cannot easily conceive the heights of friendship and generosity
- non-humans have senses we cannot be aware of because we have not experienced them.
Utilitarianism
Award 1 mark for:
- the principle that tells us an action is right or wrong according to whether it promotes happiness.
[Personal note: There may be an issue with this question.]
Why does Mill believe that higher pleasures are better in quality than lower pleasures? [4]
Award 1 mark for any of the following, up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- because those acquainted with both give a consistent preference for one over the other (1 mark) even if it is accompanied by more discontent (1 mark)
- those who have experienced pleasures that use their higher faculties do not want to lose them for any amount of the lower pleasures (1 mark) because no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool (1 mark)
- it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. (1 mark)
Award marks for any appropriate answer.
Award 1 mark for the following:
- someone who has had experience of both types of pleasure: higher and lower.
What is the essential difference between act and rule utilitarianism when making moral decisions? [2]
Award 1 mark for each of the following:
- for act utilitarians, an action is right if it maximises happiness.
- for rule utilitarians, an action is right if it conforms to a rule that maximises happiness.
To gain marks, candidates must show understanding of both positions in terms of the greatest happiness principle. It is not sufficient to say rule utilitarians follow rules and act utilitarians don’t follow rules.
Award 1 mark for stating a criticism and 1 mark for developing that point. Award marks for any appropriate criticism such as:
- it is difficult to construct objective rules that work for every situation
- as with deontological ethical theories, there may be a problem with conflicting rules.
Personal observation on : What makes a premise in an argument relevant to the conclusion?
I'm not too sure about the last two bullet points.
To say that a premise is relevant because it has 'contains an appropriate analogy' is just another way of saying that it contains a relevant analogy but that doesn't say why it is relevant. It is like saying that a premise is relevant because it is a relevant statement.
It is also a little odd to say that the premise 'attacks the claim rather than the person putting forward the claim' as it would normally be the whole argument that attacks the claim not just the premise. There is also the wider issue that it is sometimes legitimate to show that someone is an unreliable witness.
However, both of these points are listed in the Higher Course Specification so, while that is the case, I'm sure they will have to be accepted as legitimate answers.
Personal observation on : What does Bentham mean by ‘the principle of utility’?
This is not a text-based part of the course and the phrase ‘principle of utility’ does not occur in the mandatory part of the Course Specification. It doesn’t even occur in the illustrative extracts from Bentham. Instead, pupils will have been introduced to the phrase ‘The Greatest Happiness Principle’. It is entirely possible for the course to be taught thoroughly without the pupils coming across the phrase ‘principle of utility’, so I think it unlikely that a question like this would make it into the actual exam.
Incidentally, if it did, it would be important to note that for Bentham ‘action’ doesn’t just, or even primarily, mean the actions of individuals, it also refers to the actions of governments and their representatives, i.e. those who make and enforce the law. Bentham is very clear on this point.
Bentham says,
‘By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever. according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.’
In a footnote it is added,
‘Greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle: this for shortness, instead of saying at length that principle which states the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question, as being the right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of human action: of human action in every situation, and in particular in that of a functionary or set of functionaries exercising the powers of Government.’