The big idea: Building an argument is half the job. Evaluation is the other half — and it is what lifts an answer into the top band.
Not just disagreeing: To evaluate is not to say 'I disagree'. It is to show exactly where an argument is strong or weak.
There are only two ways to attack any argument. Learn them and you can test anything.
Attack the premises
- Accept the logic, but deny a premise is true
- 'Your reasoning is fine, but premise 2 is false'
- The argument is valid but not sound
Attack the logic
- Accept the premises, but deny the conclusion follows
- 'Even if all that's true, it doesn't prove your point'
- The argument is invalid — there's a gap
The evaluator's two questions: 1. Is each premise true? (If not: unsound.)
2. Does the conclusion follow? (If not: invalid.)
Every objection you'll ever make is one of these two.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Two tools do most of the work: the counterexample and the named fallacy.
The counterexample: A counterexample is a sniper's shot: one clear case that breaks a sweeping claim.
Claim: 'All birds can fly.' Counterexample: the penguin. One bird settles it — the claim is false. In an essay, a well-chosen counterexample can topple a whole premise in a sentence.
A fallacy is a reasoning trap. Naming one precisely is far stronger than a vague 'that's unfair'.
Straw man
Attacking a weaker, distorted version of someone's view instead of what they really said.
Ad hominem
Attacking the person ('you would say that') instead of their argument.
Begging the question
Assuming the very thing you're trying to prove — going in a circle.
False dilemma
Pretending there are only two options when there are more.
Slippery slope
Claiming one small step must lead to a disaster, with no reason given for the slide.
Hasty generalisation
Drawing a big general claim from one or two cases.
How this is tested: 'This begs the question' or 'that's a false dilemma — there's a third option' shows precise philosophical skill. Vague disagreement doesn't. Name the move, then show why it breaks the argument.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
The very top band asks for more than attack. It asks you to be fair to the other side, weigh the objections, and decide.
First, avoid the straw man by building a steelman — the strongest version of the view you're testing. Beating a weak version proves nothing.
A tradition of fairness: purvapaksa: Classical Indian philosophy built fairness into its very method. Before replying, a thinker had to state the opponent's view in full — the purvapaksa — and only then give their own answer (the uttarapaksha).
Steelmanning as a rule: It is steelmanning as a rule of the game: you earn the right to object only after showing you truly understood. Exactly what the top band rewards.
Weak evaluation
- 'I disagree because I think it's wrong'
- Attacks a distorted version (straw man)
- Lists points but never decides
Strong evaluation
- Names where the argument fails (premise or logic)
- Tackles the strongest version (steelman)
- Weighs both sides and reaches a reasoned conclusion
The evaluation recipe: Steelman the view → locate its weak point (premise or logic) → weigh it → decide. That sequence is the difference between describing and evaluating.
Where the marks are: On every 'evaluate' or 'discuss' task — the [15]-mark part of Papers 2 and 3, and all of Paper 1 §A/§B — the marks live in evaluation. Attack precisely, be fair, and conclude.
Practice task — Evaluate this argument: 'Anyone who truly understood ethics would always act well. Some very clever ethics professors act badly. So they cannot really understand ethics.'
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Straw-manning. Attack the strongest version, not a caricature.
2. Vague disagreement. Name the premise or the gap.
3. Listing without deciding. Weigh the objections and conclude.
4. Ad hominem. Attack the argument, never the person.