📚 Common Misconceptions in Year 8 CAIE Philosophy and How to Correct Them | Year 8 CAIE 哲学常见误区与纠正方法
Many Year 8 students beginning their CAIE Philosophy journey arrive with a head full of assumptions about what philosophy is and how it works. Some think it is simply a space for sharing personal feelings; others believe it is a dusty discipline with no real-world relevance. These misconceptions can block genuine learning and prevent you from developing the critical thinking skills that philosophy aims to build. In this article, we will explore the most common mistakes students make when they first encounter philosophy, and more importantly, we will show you precise, practical ways to correct them. By clearing up these misunderstandings early, you will be able to engage with philosophical questions more confidently, construct stronger arguments, and see why this subject has excited thinkers for thousands of years.
许多刚开始学习 CAIE 哲学的 Year 8 学生对哲学是什么、哲学如何运作充满预设想法。有人认为哲学只是分享个人感受的空间；有人觉得这是一门毫无现实意义的枯燥学科。这些误区会阻碍真正的学习，让你无法培养哲学想要建立的那种批判性思维能力。在这篇文章里，我们将探讨学生初次接触哲学时最常犯的错误，更重要的是，我们会告诉你具体、实用的纠正方法。尽早厘清这些误解，你就能更自信地面对哲学问题，构建更有力的论证，并明白为什么这门学科几千年来一直让思考者激动不已。
1. Philosophy is just giving your opinion | 哲学仅仅是发表个人观点
Many newcomers treat philosophy as a free-flowing conversation where you simply say what you think and everyone nods along. They believe that any statement beginning with ‘I feel that…’ or ‘In my opinion…’ counts as a valid philosophical contribution. This is one of the most damaging misconceptions because it turns philosophy into a collection of unsupported claims. In a Year 8 classroom, you might hear a student say, ‘I believe lying is always wrong because I don’t like it,’ and stop there, thinking the job is done.
许多初学者把哲学当作一场自由流畅的谈话，你只需要说出自己的想法，大家点头附和即可。他们认为任何以’我感觉…’或’依我看…’开头的陈述都算有效的哲学贡献。这是最具破坏性的误区之一，因为它把哲学变成了一系列没有支持的断言。在 Year 8 的课堂上，你可能会听到学生说：’我认为撒谎永远是错的，因为我不喜欢撒谎。’然后他就此打住，以为任务完成了。
In genuine philosophy, an opinion is only the starting point. What matters is the reasoning you offer to support it. You need to explain why you hold that view, what evidence or logical steps lead you to it, and how you would respond to someone who disagrees. For example, instead of simply stating ‘lying is wrong,’ a philosophical approach would involve defining what a lie is, considering scenarios where lying might protect someone from harm, and engaging with moral theories such as utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. The correction is to always ask yourself: ‘What reasons can I give for this belief?’ and ‘Would these reasons convince a reasonable person who thinks differently?’
在真正的哲学中，个人观点仅仅是起点。重要的是你用来支持它的推理。你需要解释你为什么持有那个观点，是什么证据或逻辑步骤引导你得出它，以及你会如何回应持不同意见的人。例如，与其仅仅说’撒谎是错的’，一个哲学性的做法会涉及定义什么是撒谎、考虑撒谎可能在保护某人免受伤害的情况，并运用功利主义或康德伦理学等道德理论进行讨论。纠正方法就是始终问自己：’我可以为这个信念提供什么理由？’以及’这些理由能说服一个理性但持不同看法的人吗？’
2. All opinions are equally valid in philosophy | 在哲学里所有观点都同样有效
Closely related to the first misconception is the belief that philosophy is a realm of complete equality where no view can be judged better than another. You might hear students say, ‘Well, that’s just your truth and I have my truth,’ as if that ends all discussion. While philosophy encourages open-mindedness, it does not mean that all positions are equally strong or well-supported.
与第一个误区紧密相关的是相信哲学是一个完全平等的领域，没有任何一个观点可以被评判为比另一个更好。你可能会听到学生说：’嗯，那是你的真理，我有我的真理。’仿佛这句话就能终结所有讨论。虽然哲学鼓励开放的心态，但这并不意味着所有立场都同样有力或同样有充分的支持。
The correction involves understanding the difference between respecting a person’s right to hold a view and evaluating the quality of the view itself. A philosophical claim is judged by its logical coherence, the strength of its premises, and its ability to withstand counterarguments. For example, the claim ‘The Earth is flat’ is not epistemically equal to ‘The Earth is an oblate spheroid’ simply because someone believes it. In ethics, the idea that ‘stealing is acceptable whenever it benefits me’ can be challenged by universalising the maxim, asking what would happen if everyone did that. Good philosophy requires us to rank arguments by their rational force, not by our emotional attachment to them.
纠正方法包括理解尊重一个人持有某一观点的权利与评估该观点本身的质量之间的区别。一个哲学主张是根据其逻辑连贯性、前提的力度以及抵御反论的能力来评判的。例如，’地球是平的’这一主张并不因为有人相信它，就在认知上与’地球是一个扁球体’具有同等地位。在伦理学中，’只要对我有利，偷窃就是可接受的’这个想法可以通过将准则普遍化来接受挑战，问问如果每个人都这样做会发生什么。好的哲学要求我们根据论点的理性力量来排出优劣，而不是根据我们对它的情感依恋。
3. Philosophy has no right or wrong answers | 哲学没有对错答案
Students often swing from the rigid certainties of mathematics and science to the assumption that because philosophical questions are open to debate, there are no standards at all. They might think any answer is as good as any other, so why bother trying to reach a conclusion? This can lead to a lazy relativism where effort is seen as pointless.
学生们常常从数学和科学的严格确定性摇摆到另一个极端，认为因为哲学问题是开放讨论的，所以根本没有任何标准。他们可能觉得任何答案都一样好，所以何必要费力得出结论呢？这会导致一种懒惰的相对主义，认为努力毫无意义。
While it is true that many philosophical problems do not have a single, universally agreed-upon solution like ‘2+2=4’, this does not mean there are no better or worse answers. Philosophical progress is measured by the clarity, depth, and rigour of the reasoning, not by finding a final answer that closes the book forever. An answer that ignores crucial objections or relies on flawed logic is simply a bad answer. For example, in the mind-body problem, simply saying ‘the mind is what the brain does’ without addressing qualia or subjective experience is a weak answer compared to a detailed functionalist account that engages with those difficulties. The correction is to see philosophy as a discipline of continuous improvement where we aim to make our positions increasingly defensible.
诚然，许多哲学问题并没有像’2+2=4’这样单一的、普遍认同的解决方案，但这并不意味着没有更好或更差的答案。哲学的进步是以推理的清晰度、深度和严谨性来衡量的，而不是找到一本万利的最终答案。一个忽略了关键反驳或依赖于有缺陷逻辑的答案，就是一个糟糕的答案。例如，在身心问题中，仅仅说’心灵就是大脑所做的事’而不处理感质或主观经验，与一个细致的、处理了这些难题的功能主义解释相比，就是一个薄弱的答案。纠正方法是将哲学视为一门持续改进的学科，我们的目标是让自己的立场越来越有辩护力。
4. A good argument means yelling or fighting | 好的论证意味着争吵对骂
In everyday language, an ‘argument’ often implies a heated quarrel where people raise their voices and try to win at all costs. When Year 8 students first hear that philosophy is about constructing arguments, they may picture a debate club shouting match. This misunderstanding can make them either aggressive or anxious, neither of which is conducive to careful thinking.
在日常语言中，’论证’（argument）常常意味着人们提高嗓门、不惜一切代价想要赢取的激烈争吵。当 Year 8 的学生第一次听说哲学是构建论证的学问时，他们可能会在脑海中浮现辩论社大声争吵的画面。这种误解可能让他们变得要么好斗，要么焦虑，而这两种状态都不利于深入思考。
In philosophy, an argument is a structured set of statements intended to establish a conclusion. It consists of premises (reasons) and a conclusion that logically follows from them. The aim is not to defeat an opponent but to test ideas and move closer to truth. A philosophical argument is evaluated by whether the premises are true and whether the reasoning is valid. For example, this is a simple argument: Premise 1 – All humans are mortal. Premise 2 – Socrates is a human. Conclusion – Therefore, Socrates is mortal. No anger, no personal attacks. The correction is to practise presenting your reasoning calmly, to listen carefully to counterarguments, and to see disagreement as an opportunity to refine your own thinking rather than as a battle to be won.
在哲学中，论证是一组结构化的陈述，旨在确立一个结论。它由前提（理由）和一个从前提中逻辑推导出的结论组成。目的不是击败对手，而是检验想法，更接近真理。评价一个哲学论证的标准是前提是否为真，以及推理过程是否有效。例如，一个简单的论证是：前提一——所有人都会死。前提二——苏格拉底是人。结论——因此，苏格拉底会死。没有愤怒，没有个人攻击。纠正方法是练习平静地陈述你的推理，仔细倾听反论，并将不同意见视为完善自己想法的机会，而不是一场必须赢得的战斗。
5. Philosophy is all about abstract nonsense | 哲学全是无意义的抽象空谈
‘It’s just a bunch of pointless questions that don’t matter in real life.’ This complaint is often heard from students who are introduced to philosophy through highly abstract puzzles without seeing their connection to everyday experience. They imagine philosophers sitting in ivory towers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and they conclude the subject is useless.
‘这不过是一堆与现实生活毫无关联的无用问题。’这种抱怨常常来自那些初次接触哲学时遇到高度抽象谜题，却未能看到它们与日常经验之间联系的学生。他们想象哲学家坐在象牙塔里讨论一根针尖上能站多少位天使，于是得出结论：这门学科毫无用处。
In reality, abstract thought experiments are tools to isolate and examine fundamental features of our world that are otherwise tangled in complexity. The famous Trolley Problem, for instance, is not about runaway trains; it is about the principles that guide our moral decision-making when we have to choose between letting several people die or actively causing one person’s death. These principles apply directly to real-world dilemmas in medicine, law, and public policy. Similarly, philosophical questions about personal identity (‘What makes you the same person over time?’) are central to debates about memory, responsibility, and even artificial intelligence. The correction is to always ask, ‘What principle is this thought experiment testing?’ and then look for how that principle operates in real situations.
事实上，抽象的思想实验是工具，用来隔离和审视我们世界中的基本特征，这些特征在其他情况下被复杂性所缠绕。例如，著名的电车难题并不是关于失控的列车；它是关于当我们必须在让多人死亡和主动导致一人死亡之间做出选择时，指导我们道德决策的原则。这些原则直接适用于医学、法律和公共政策中的现实困境。同样，关于个人同一性的哲学问题（’是什么让你在不同时间里成为同一个人？’）是讨论记忆、责任甚至人工智能的核心。纠正方法是始终问自己：’这个思想实验在测试什么原则？’然后去寻找这个原则在实际情况中如何运作。
6. Science has replaced philosophy | 科学已经取代了哲学
With the impressive achievements of modern science, some students believe that philosophy is an outdated predecessor that is no longer needed. They think that physics answers questions about reality, biology explains life, and neuroscience handles the mind, so what is left for philosophers to do? This misconception treats science and philosophy as competitors instead of partners.
随着现代科学取得了令人瞩目的成就，一些学生认为哲学是一个过时的前身，不再需要了。他们认为物理学回答了关于现实的问题，生物学解释了生命，神经科学处理了心灵问题，那么哲学家还剩下什么可做呢？这个误区把科学和哲学当成了竞争者，而不是伙伴。
Science itself rests on philosophical foundations. Questions like ‘What counts as good evidence?’, ‘What is the nature of scientific explanation?’, and ‘Are we justified in trusting induction?’ are philosophical, not scientific. When scientists interpret quantum mechanics or debate the ethics of gene editing, they are engaging in philosophy. Moreover, there are questions science cannot answer by its methods alone: questions about meaning, value, beauty, and justice. For example, science can tell us what people believe is right or wrong in different cultures, but it cannot tell us what is truly right or wrong. That requires ethical reasoning. The correction is to see philosophy as providing the conceptual framework within which scientific inquiry takes place, and as addressing the normative questions that science leaves open.
科学本身立足于哲学基础之上。诸如’什么算作好的证据？’、’科学解释的本质是什么？’以及’我们相信归纳推理是正当的吗？’这些问题是哲学问题，不是科学问题。当科学家解释量子力学或辩论基因编辑的伦理时，他们就是在从事哲学。此外，有些问题是科学仅凭其方法无法回答的：关于意义、价值、美和正义的问题。例如，科学可以告诉我们不同文化中人们认为什么是对错，但它无法告诉我们什么才是真正对错。这需要伦理学推理。纠正方法是将哲学视为为科学探究提供概念框架的学科，并处理科学未能触及的规范性问题的学科。
7. You don’t need logic, just follow your heart | 无需逻辑，跟着感觉走
In a culture that often celebrates emotion and intuition, students may assume that philosophy is about tapping into deep inner feelings and that logical analysis is cold, rigid, and somehow inauthentic. They might trust their gut reaction to a moral problem and resist any attempt to scrutinise it because it ‘feels true.’
在一个经常颂扬情感和直觉的文化中，学生可能会以为哲学就是深入挖掘内心深处的情感，而逻辑分析则是冰冷、死板且某种程度上不真实的。他们可能相信自己对某个道德问题的直觉反应，并抗拒任何试图审视它的尝试，因为那’感觉就是对的’。
While emotions and intuitions can be useful starting points, they are not reliable guides to truth on their own. Our gut feelings are shaped by upbringing, culture, and personal biases, and they can lead us badly astray. Logic is the systematic study of the principles of valid reasoning; it gives us the tools to check whether our conclusions actually follow from our premises. Without logic, philosophy becomes a mere clash of feelings with no way to resolve disagreements. For example, someone may feel strongly that capital punishment is justified, but when forced to examine the logical consistency of that position – considering whether it violates the principle of the sanctity of life, or whether the risk of executing innocents is acceptable – the feeling may give way to a more nuanced view. The correction is to treat logic not as an enemy of emotion but as a necessary filter. Use it to test whether your heartfelt beliefs can stand up to rational scrutiny.
虽然情感和直觉可以作为有用的出发点，但它们本身并不是可靠的真理指南。我们的直觉受到成长环境、文化和个人偏见的影响，可能会严重误导我们。逻辑是对有效推理原则的系统研究；它为我们提供了检查结论是否确实从前提中推导出来的工具。没有逻辑，哲学就变成了各种感觉的冲突，无法解决分歧。例如，某人可能强烈地觉得死刑是正当的，但当被迫检验该立场在逻辑上的一致性时——考虑它是否违反了生命神圣原则，或者执行无辜者的风险是否可接受——这种感觉可能会让位于一个更细致入微的观点。纠正方法是将逻辑视为情感的必要过滤器，而非敌人。用它来检验你发自内心的信念是否经得起理性审视。
8. Thought experiments are just made-up stories | 思想实验只是虚构故事
When a teacher presents a scenario like the Trolley Problem or the Experience Machine, some students dismiss it with ‘That would never happen in real life, so it doesn’t matter.’ They treat thought experiments as silly fantasies and refuse to engage with them seriously. This prevents them from grasping the philosophical concepts the experiment is designed to illuminate.
当老师提出像电车难题或体验机器这样的情境时，一些学生会以’这在现实中永远不会发生，所以无关紧要’来加以否定。他们将思想实验视为愚蠢的幻想，不肯认真对待。这使他们无法抓住该实验旨在阐明的哲学概念。
Thought experiments are not predictions or news reports; they are conceptual tools. They work by stripping away irrelevant detail to focus our attention on a specific principle or conflict. The Trolley Problem, for example, isolates the distinction between doing harm and allowing harm, a distinction that matters in countless real-life medical and legal contexts. The Experience Machine, proposed by Robert Nozick, asks us to imagine a life of perfect simulated pleasure, and our reluctance to plug in reveals that we value authenticity and real achievement, not just subjective experience. These insights would be nearly impossible to extract from messy real-world cases without the clarity of a tightly constructed thought experiment. The correction is to engage with the logic of the scenario, not its realism. Ask, ‘What principle is at stake here?’ and then see how that principle operates in everyday decisions.
思想实验不是预测或新闻报道；它们是概念工具。它们通过剥离无关细节来让我们集中注意力于某个特定的原则或冲突。例如，电车难题隔离了’积极造成伤害’与’任由伤害发生’之间的区别，这一区别在无数现实医疗和法律情境中至关重要。罗伯特·诺齐克提出的体验机器让我们想象一种在完美模拟中体验快乐的生活，而我们不愿接入机器的反应揭示出，我们珍视真实性和真实的成就，而不仅仅是主观体验。如果没有一个精心构造的思想实验所提供的清晰度，这些洞见几乎不可能从混乱的现实案例中提取出来。纠正方法是参与处理情境的逻辑，而非其真实性。问自己：’这里涉及的是什么原则？’然后观察这个原则在日常决策中如何运作。
9. If something feels right, it must be true | 感觉对了就一定是真理
Students sometimes treat a strong feeling of certainty as evidence that a belief is correct. They might say, ‘I just know that God exists because I can feel it in my soul,’ or ‘It’s obvious that we have free will – I feel like I make choices every day.’ This confuses the psychological comfort of a belief with its justification.
学生有时会将强烈的确定感视为某个信念正确的证据。他们可能会说：’我就是知道神存在，因为我的灵魂能感觉到。’或者：’我们有自由意志是显而易见的——我感觉我每天都在做选择。’这将一个信念带来的心理舒适与其正当性混为一谈。
The history of human error is filled with examples of things that ‘felt right’ but turned out to be false: the feeling that the Sun moves around the Earth, that some races are naturally inferior, or that heaviness makes objects fall faster. Philosophical reasoning demands that we separate the cause of a belief from its truth. A belief might make us feel safe, happy, or special, but that does not make it true. The correction involves developing the habit of asking for reasons that can be publicly examined and challenged. If your only reason for holding a belief is an internal feeling that nobody else can access or test, then you have no way to distinguish it from a delusion. Philosophy asks us to step outside our own heads and build arguments that can be assessed by others.
人类犯错误的历史中充满了’感觉对了’但结果却是错误的例子：感觉太阳绕地球转，感觉某些种族天生低劣，或者感觉重的物体下落更快。哲学推理要求我们将信念的原因与其真值分开。一个信念可能让我们感到安全、快乐或特别，但这并不能使其为真。纠正方法包括养成寻求理由的习惯，这些理由可以被公开检验和质疑。如果你持有一个信念的唯一理由是一种他人无法触及或检验的内在感觉，那么你就无法将其与幻觉区分开来。哲学要求我们走出自己的头脑，构建可以被他人评估的论证。
10. Philosophers always agree with each other | 哲学家们总是意见一致
When new philosophy students read a textbook and see different theories laid out side by side – realism vs. anti-realism, utilitarianism vs. deontology, compatibilism vs. libertarianism – they may feel overwhelmed and ask, ‘Why can’t philosophers just agree on one answer? What’s the point if they are all still arguing after thousands of years?’
当哲学新生阅读教科书，看到不同理论并排陈列——实在论与反实在论、功利主义与义务论、相容论与自由意志论——他们可能会感到不知所措，问道：’为什么哲学家就不能统一于一个答案？如果争论了几千年还在继续，学这个有什么意义？’
Disagreement is not a sign of failure in philosophy; it is a sign of depth. The very fact that intelligent, well-informed people can construct powerful arguments for incompatible positions tells us that we are dealing with genuinely hard questions where the evidence does not force a single conclusion. Progress in philosophy is not measured by ending debate but by refining the terms of the debate, eliminating weak arguments, and gaining a clearer understanding of what is at stake. Think of a map: even if cartographers disagree on how to project the globe onto a flat surface, each projection teaches us something valuable about distortion and accuracy. Similarly, studying competing philosophical theories equips you with a rich set of concepts and critical skills. The correction is to value the process of philosophical inquiry over achieving final consensus. The goal is to become better at reasoning, not to find the one answer that will silence everyone forever.
在哲学中，意见分歧不是失败的标志，而是深度的标志。聪明、见多识广的人能够为不相容的立场构建有力的论证，这一事实本身就告诉我们，我们面对的是真正困难的问题，其中证据并不能强制推出唯一的结论。哲学的进步不是以终结辩论来衡量的，而是通过提炼辩题的术语、淘汰薄弱的论证，并更清晰地理解其中的利害关系。想象一张地图：即使制图师对于如何将地球投影到平面上意见不一，每种投影都教给我们一些关于变形和准确性的有价值的东西。同样，研究相互竞争的哲学理论为你提供了丰富的概念和批判技能。纠正方法是重视哲学探究的过程，胜过达成最终共识。目标是成为更好的推理者，而不是找到那个能让所有人永远闭嘴的唯一答案。
11. Ethical relativism means ‘anything goes’ | 伦理相对主义意味着“怎么都行”
A common early response to learning about cultural differences in moral beliefs is to adopt a simplistic relativism: ‘If different cultures disagree about what is right, then there is no objective truth in ethics, so nobody can judge anyone.’ Students sometimes use this to shut down moral discussion, saying, ‘It’s all relative, so let’s just leave it.’
了解不同文化之间存在道德信念差异后，一种常见的早期反应是采取一种简单化的相对主义：’如果不同文化在对错问题上意见不一，那么伦理学中就没有客观真理，所以没人可以评判别人。’学生有时会以此来终止道德讨论，说：’一切都是相对的，就别谈了。’
This misconception confuses descriptive relativism (the observation that moral beliefs differ across societies) with normative relativism (the claim that all moral beliefs are equally correct). However, just because people disagree does not mean there is no truth of the matter. For example, cultures have disagreed about whether the Earth is flat, but that does not make the shape of the planet a matter of cultural preference. Moreover, even committed relativists usually do not accept that ‘anything goes’ within a society: they still believe that a culture’s moral rules ought to be followed by its members. The correction involves understanding that cultural differences are an important fact that any moral theory must account for, but they do not automatically prove that morality is a free-for-all. We can acknowledge cultural diversity while still using reason to evaluate moral beliefs – for example, by checking for internal consistency or by examining whether a practice respects the dignity of persons.
这个误区混淆了描述性相对主义（观察到不同社会之间道德信念存在差异）和规范性相对主义（声称所有道德信念都同样正确）。然而，人们意见不一并不意味着问题没有真相。例如，不同文化曾就地球是否平坦有过分歧，但这并没有让地球的形状成为文化偏好问题。而且，即使是坚定的相对主义者通常也并不接受在一个社会内部’怎么都行’：他们仍然认为一个文化的道德规则应该被其成员遵守。纠正方法包括理解文化差异是任何道德理论都必须解释的重要事实，但它们并不自动证明道德是随心所欲的。我们可以承认文化多样性，同时仍然使用理性来评估道德信念——例如，通过检验其内在一致性，或考察某种做法是否尊重人的尊严。
12. Philosophy doesn’t affect real life | 哲学不影响现实生活
Perhaps the most persistent misconception is that philosophy is a luxury for people with too much time, disconnected from the practical concerns of jobs, money, and daily living. Students may ask, ‘When am I ever going to use this?’ and treat philosophy as a mere academic hoop to jump through.
或许最顽固的误解是，哲学是有闲之人的奢侈品，与工作、金钱和日常生活等实际关切毫无关联。学生可能会问：’我到底什么时候会用上这个？’然后把哲学仅仅当作一个必须跳过去的学术障碍。
Philosophy is inescapable. Every time you argue about what is fair, question whether a news story is reliable, or decide how to spend your time, you are engaged in philosophical reasoning. The skills you learn in a CAIE Philosophy course – identifying assumptions, evaluating evidence, constructing clear arguments, and recognizing fallacies – are directly transferable to law, medicine, journalism, business, and technology. Beyond careers, philosophy helps you live a more examined life. It helps you figure out what you truly value and why, making you less likely to be swayed by manipulation or empty rhetoric. The correction is to start noticing the philosophical dimensions of ordinary situations. When you see a political advert, ask what values it appeals to and whether its reasoning is valid. When you face a personal dilemma, treat it as a chance to clarify your principles. Philosophy is not a subject you study and leave behind; it is a way of engaging with the world that stays with you for life.
哲学无法逃避。每当你争论什么是公平，质疑一则新闻故事是否可靠，或者决定如何支配你的时间时，你就已经在进行哲学推理了。你在 CAIE 哲学课程中学到的技能——识别假设、评估证据、构建清晰的论证、识别谬误——可以直接迁移到法律、医学、新闻、商业和技术领域。除了职业之外，哲学帮助你过一种更具省察的生活。它帮助你弄清自己真正珍视的东西及其原因，使你不太可能被操纵或空洞的言辞所左右。纠正方法是开始注意普通情境中的哲学维度。当你看到一则政治广告时，问一问它诉诸了哪些价值观，其推理是否有效。当你面临个人困境时，将其视为澄清自己原则的机会。哲学不是一门学完就扔的学科；它是一种与世界相处的方式，并会伴随你一生。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导