The big idea: Paper 1 Section A gives you an unseen stimulus and asks you to explore a philosophical issue related to what it is to be human [25].
The freeing part: The issue is yours to choose. Your job is not to 'get the right answer' — it is to do philosophy with whatever the stimulus sparks.
The command word is explore. Exploring means arguing and weighing — not describing. The markers reward two skills.
AO2 — explain
- Set out an idea or view clearly
- Show you understand what it means
- Necessary — but on its own, only mid-band
AO3 — evaluate
- Argue for and against the views
- Weigh them and reach a reasoned conclusion
- This is what lifts you into the top band
The four-step method
Read the stimulus
Text or image. Note the tension or question hiding inside it.
Name one issue
Turn that tension into a clear philosophical issue about being human.
Argue + evaluate
Bring 2–3 views into tension. For each: argue it, then object to it.
Conclude
Reach a reasoned, consistent judgement that answers your issue.
Read → Issue → Argue+Evaluate → Conclude
Your toolkit of issues: You already have six ready-made issues from Being human:
identity · the self and the other · consciousness · personhood · human nature · freedom.
Most stimuli connect to at least one. Reach for the one that fits best.
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.
The hardest step is turning a few lines into a real philosophical issue. The trick: find the tension — where the stimulus quietly assumes something you could question.
Surface reading (weak)
- 'This is about a robot and a person.'
- Retells what the stimulus says
- Leads to description, not philosophy
Philosophical reading (strong)
- 'This assumes only humans can feel — can they?'
- Finds the hidden claim you can argue about
- Leads straight to an issue and views
Worked example: a text stimulus: Stimulus: "My grandmother forgets my name now, but when I sing our old song, her hand still finds mine. 'She's still in there,' my mother says."
From stimulus to issue
Find the tension
The mother assumes there is a 'she' who survives even as memory fades.
Name the issue
Personal identity — what makes the grandmother the same person when her memory is going?
Reach for the toolkit
This is identity (memory vs body view) — and touches the self and the other (she is held in relationship).
Tension → Issue → Toolkit
How this is marked: You are not marked on choosing the 'correct' issue — there isn't one. You are marked on how well you argue whatever issue you choose, and on referring back to the stimulus explicitly as you go.
Never wonder what to study next
Get a personalized daily plan based on your exam date, progress, and weak areas. We'll tell you exactly what to review each day.
Half the time the stimulus is an image, not a text. Images feel harder because they don't hand you words — but the method is the same: find the tension, name an issue.
How to read an image
Describe it plainly
Say what is literally there — the figures, the setting, the contrast.
Ask what it symbolises
A person alone in a crowd? A machine mimicking a human? Look for the idea.
Find the tension
What claim about being human does the image quietly make?
Name the issue
Link it to one toolkit concept and go.
Describe → Symbol → Tension → Issue
Then plan before you write. A Section A essay has a simple, strong shape. Spend a few minutes on this skeleton and the essay writes itself.
Stimulus — Image described: a child sits between two mirrors, so their reflection repeats endlessly into the distance, each copy a little more blurred than the last.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Structure in one line: Intro (name the issue + link stimulus) → 2–3 views, each argued AND objected to → reasoned conclusion. That shape alone puts you in reach of the top band.
Put the method together: One unseen stimulus, the full four-step method: read → name an issue → argue and evaluate 2–3 views → conclude. Refer to the stimulus explicitly the whole way through.
Argue, don't describe: There is no model answer. The marks are for doing philosophy — building and testing an argument and reaching a reasoned conclusion — not for how much you know.
Stimulus — "The app promises: 'Answer 200 questions and we will tell you who you really are.' Millions take the test. Almost no one asks how a quiz could know." With explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, explore a philosophical issue related to what it is to be human.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Retelling the stimulus. Find its hidden claim instead.
2. No clear issue. Name one philosophical issue early.
3. Only describing views. Argue AND object.
4. Ignoring the stimulus after the intro. Keep linking back.
5. No conclusion. Finish with a reasoned judgement.