📚 GCSE Cambridge Philosophy: Essay Writing Framework and Model Answers | GCSE 剑桥哲学：论文写作框架与范文
Writing a high-scoring essay in GCSE Cambridge Philosophy requires more than just knowing key theories. You need a clear structure that demonstrates knowledge, understanding, and evaluation. This guide provides a step-by-step framework, practical strategies, and a complete model essay to help you excel in exams like Paper 1 and Paper 2 of the Cambridge IGCSE Philosophy syllabus (0400). Whether you are tackling ethics, epistemology, or philosophy of religion, the approach remains the same: build a rigorous argument, engage with counterarguments, and show evaluative judgement.
在 GCSE 剑桥哲学中写出高分论文，需要的不仅是牢记关键理论。你需要一种清晰的结构来展示知识、理解和评价。这份指南提供了逐步框架、实用策略以及一篇完整的范文，帮助你在剑桥 IGCSE 哲学（0400大纲）的试卷一和试卷二这类考试中脱颖而出。无论你面对的是伦理学、认识论还是宗教哲学题目，方法始终如一：构建严密的论证、处理反论点，并展现评价性判断。
1. Understanding the Assessment Objectives | 理解评分目标
Before you start writing, you must know exactly what examiners are looking for. Cambridge IGCSE Philosophy uses three Assessment Objectives (AOs): AO1 Knowledge and understanding, AO2 Analysis and evaluation, and AO3 Selection and application of knowledge. AO1 is about recalling accurate information, defining key terms, and explaining philosophical concepts clearly. AO2 requires you to examine arguments critically, identify strengths and weaknesses, and construct well-reasoned evaluative points. AO3 focuses on using relevant examples, applying theories to specific scenarios, and bringing in scholarly references where appropriate. A top-grade essay balances all three AOs: roughly 30% AO1, 40% AO2, and 30% AO3, but this can vary slightly depending on the question type.
在动笔之前，你必须确切了解考官在寻找什么。剑桥 IGCSE 哲学采用三个评分目标：AO1 知识与理解，AO2 分析与评价，以及 AO3 知识的选取与应用。AO1 关于回忆准确信息、定义关键术语并清晰地解释哲学概念。AO2 要求你批判性地审视论证，识别优点与缺点，并构建论证充分的评价性观点。AO3 则侧重于使用相关的例子，将理论应用于具体情境，并在恰当之处引用学者观点。一篇高分论文会平衡这三个评分目标：大致上 AO1 占 30%，AO2 占 40%，AO3 占 30%，但会根据题目类型略有不同。
2. Structuring Your Philosophy Essay | 哲学论文的结构
Every philosophy essay should follow a logical ‘sandwich’ structure: Introduction, Main Body (at least three well-developed paragraphs), and Conclusion. More specifically, for a discursive essay, use the template: Introduction (state the issue and your thesis), Paragraph for the argument, Paragraph for a counterargument, Paragraph for a second argument (or evaluation), and a Conclusion that resolves the debate. Each body paragraph must follow the PEEL format: Point, Evidence/Example, Explanation, Link back to the question. This maintains clarity and ensures you are constantly addressing the exact wording of the prompt.
每一篇哲学论文都应遵循逻辑的“三明治”结构：引言、主体（至少三个充分展开的段落）和结论。更具体地说，对于论述型文章，使用这样的模板：引言（陈述问题与中心论点），正面论证段落，反论证段落，第二个论证（或评价）段落，以及一个解决辩论的结论。每个主体段落必须遵循 PEEL 格式：观点、证据/例子、解释、回扣题目。这能保持清晰度，确保你不断在回应题目的确切措辞。
- Introduction: Define key terms, show you understand the debate, and give a line of argument (your thesis).
- 引言：定义关键术语，表明你理解这场辩论，并给出论证主线（你的中心论点）。
- Body: Each paragraph tackles one clear point. Begin with a claim, support it with a philosophers idea or an example, explain its significance, and then link it to the question.
- 主体：每个段落处理一个明确观点。先提出一个主张，用哲学家的思想或例子支撑，解释其意义，然后将其与问题联系起来。
- Conclusion: Do not just repeat your introduction. Weigh the arguments, reach a justified verdict, and perhaps note implications or unresolved questions.
- 结论：不要仅仅重复引言。要权衡论点，得出一个有根据的判断，或许再指出其意涵或尚未解决的问题。
3. Crafting a Clear Introduction | 撰写清晰的引言
Your introduction sets the tone. Start by briefly contextualising the question. For example, if the question is ‘God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving given the existence of evil. Discuss.’, you might write: ‘The logical problem of evil challenges the coherence of the traditional theistic concept of God as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. This essay will argue that while the evidential problem of evil presents a significant challenge, the free will defence offers a philosophically robust response.’ Notice how this introduction defines the terms implicitly, states the core issue, and presents a clear, evaluative thesis (not just ‘this essay will discuss both sides’).
引言为全文定调。开始时简要地交代问题的背景。比如，如果题目是“鉴于恶的存在，上帝不可能既是全能的又是全爱的。请讨论。”你可以这样写：“恶的逻辑问题挑战了传统有神论的上帝概念——全知、全能、全善——的一致性。本文将论证，尽管恶的证据性问题构成了重大挑战，但自由意志辩护提供了一个在哲学上强有力的回应。”注意这段引言如何隐含地定义了术语，陈述了核心问题，并提出了一个清晰、评价性的中心论点（而不仅仅是“本文将讨论正反两面”）。
Avoid generic openings like ‘This is a very important question’ or ‘Throughout history, philosophers have debated…’. Be specific. Use the philosophers names if relevant, but do not just list them. End your introduction with a signposting sentence that outlines your essay structure: ‘After examining the deductive formulation by J.L. Mackie, the evidential argument by William Rowe, and the free will defence, this essay will conclude that the problem of evil is not a decisive disproof of Gods existence.’
避免像“这是个很重要的问题”或“在历史长河中，哲学家们曾争论过……”这样笼统的开头。要具体。如果有必要就使用哲学家名字，但不要仅仅罗列他们。用一句导向性的句子结束引言，勾勒出你的论文结构：“在审视了 J.L. Mackie 的演绎形式、William Rowe 的证据性论证以及自由意志辩护之后，本文结论将是，恶的问题并非对上帝存在的决定性反驳。”
4. Developing Arguments and Counterarguments | 展开论点和反论点
High-grade essays are distinguished by their handling of counterarguments. Never present only one side. For each argument you propose, devote a separate paragraph to the strongest objection, then show why your position still holds or how it must be modified. For instance, if you argue that utilitarianism provides a clear decision-making procedure, you must then tackle the critique that it ignores justice and individual rights. Use sentence starters like ‘However, a key objection to this comes from…’ or ‘This view is challenged by the criticism that…’.
高分论文以对反论点的处理而见长。绝不要只呈现一面之词。对于你提出的每一个论点，要用一个独立段落去处理最有力的反对意见，然后说明为什么你的立场依然成立，或者必须如何修正。例如，如果你论证功利主义提供了一种清晰的决策程序，那么你就必须接着处理它忽视正义和个人权利的批评。使用诸如“然而，对此的一个关键反对来自……”或“这一观点受到……批评的挑战”这样的句子开头。
Do not just describe the counterargument and move on. Engage with it. Explain whether it fatally undermines the original argument, partially weakens it, or perhaps actually strengthens it by prompting a refinement. Use evaluative language: ‘This objection is not fatal because…’, ‘The counterargument is powerful insofar as it reveals a tension in…’, ‘Despite this challenge, the argument can be sustained if we…’.
不要只描述反论点就了事。要与它交锋。解释它是否致命地削弱了原论点，部分地弱化了它，还是通过促使论点完善而实际上加强了它。运用评价性语言：“这一反对并非致命，因为……”、“这个反论点在其揭示……的张力方面是强有力的”、“尽管有此挑战，如果我们……，该论点仍可维持”。
5. Evaluation: The Key to High Marks | 评价：高分的关键
Evaluation (AO2) is what separates a grade 7/8 from a grade 9. It means making a sustained judgement about the value, success, and limitations of an argument. You can evaluate by asking: Does the argument rely on questionable assumptions? Is the reasoning valid? Are there counter-examples that expose a flaw? How might a philosopher respond? A good technique is to compare two competing theories within one paragraph and then judge which is more convincing and why.
评价（AO2）是区分等级 7/8 与 9 的关键。它意味着对论证的价值、成功之处和局限性做出持续的判断。你可以通过提出这样的问题来进行评价：该论证是否依赖于有问题的假设？推理是否有效？是否存在揭其缺陷的反例？哲学家会如何回应？一个好的技巧是在一个段落内比较两个对立的理论，然后判断哪个更有说服力并说明理由。
Example evaluation: ‘Kants deontological ethics has the advantage of providing absolute moral rules that protect human dignity. However, it struggles with conflicting duties, as in the classic case of the inquiring murderer. Utilitarianism avoids this by focusing on consequences, but at the cost of allowing injustices if they maximise overall happiness. On balance, rule utilitarianism offers a more workable framework because it retains a general prohibition on lying and killing while permitting exceptions in extreme circumstances, thus capturing the strengths of both approaches without their most severe weaknesses.’
评价范例：“康德的义务论伦理学的优势在于提供了保障人类尊严的绝对道德规则。然而，它难以处理义务冲突，比如经典的“质问的杀人犯”案例。功利主义通过关注后果避开了此问题，但代价是允许不正义之事——只要它们能将总体幸福最大化。权衡之下，规则功利主义提供了一个更可行的框架，因为它保留了对撒谎和杀人的一般性禁令，同时允许在极端情况下的例外，从而既汲取了两种进路的优点，又避免了它们最严重的弱点。”
6. Using Philosophical Terminology | 使用哲学术语
Examiners expect you to use subject-specific vocabulary accurately. Words like ‘a priori’, ‘a posteriori’, ’empirical’, ‘rational’, ‘valid’, ‘sound’, ‘deductive’, ‘inductive’, ‘contingent’, ‘necessary’, ‘dualism’, ‘materialism’, ‘teleological’, and ‘ontological’ should become part of your writing. However, never use a term without explaining it unless it is entirely self-explanatory in context. Define it briefly the first time you use it. For instance: ‘A deductive argument is one where the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.’
考官期望你能准确使用学科专有词汇。像“先天的”、“后天的”、“经验的”、“理性的”、“有效的”、“可靠的”、“演绎的”、“归纳的”、“偶然的”、“必然的”、“二元论”、“唯物主义”、“目的论的”和“本体论的”这类词应成为你写作的一部分。然而，绝不要不加解释地使用某个术语，除非它在上下文中不言自明。第一次使用时简要定义它。例如：“一个演绎论证是指，如果前提为真，则结论必然为真的论证。”
| English Term | 中文术语 | Simple Definition | 简单定义 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity | 有效性 | If premises true, conclusion must be true. | 若前提为真，结论必然为真。 |
| Soundness | 可靠性 | Valid argument with true premises. | 前提为真的有效论证。 |
| Empiricism | 经验主义 | Knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience. | 知识主要来自感官经验。 |
| Dualism | 二元论 | Mind and body are distinct substances. | 心灵与身体是两种不同的实体。 |
Consistent and accurate use of terminology increases your AO1 marks and makes your essay sound sophisticated. But avoid overloading your essay with jargon; clarity is more important than complexity.
一贯而准确地使用术语能提高你的 AO1 得分，并使你的文章显得成熟老练。但要避免堆砌术语；清晰比复杂更重要。
7. Common Pitfalls to Avoid | 常见误区
Many students lose marks not because they do not know the material but because they make avoidable mistakes. Here are the most frequent pitfalls:
许多学生丢分，并非因为他们不了解内容，而是因为他们犯了本可避免的错误。以下是最常见的误区：
- Mere description: Reciting what a philosopher said without analysing or evaluating it. Every time you state an idea, ask ‘Why does this matter?’ or ‘How convincing is this?’
- 单纯的描述：只背诵哲学家说过什么，而不进行分析或评价。每当你陈述一个观点，要问自己“这为何重要？”或“这有多大的说服力？”
- One-sided essays: Ignoring counterarguments. The specification demands that you consider multiple perspectives.
- 一面之词：忽视反论点。大纲要求你考虑多元视角。
- Vague opening and closing: Weak introductions that do not establish a thesis, and conclusions that simply summarise.
- 模糊的开头和结尾：没有确立中心论点的薄弱引言，以及只是单纯总结的结论。
- Misusing key terms: Confusing ‘valid’ with ‘true’ or ‘proof’ with ‘evidence’.
- 误用关键术语：混淆“有效”与“真实”，或混淆“证明”与“证据”。
- Ignoring the question wording: Not addressing the specific command word, such as ‘discuss’, ‘assess’, or ‘to what extent’.
- 忽略题干用词：未能处理具体的指令词，如“讨论”、“评估”或“在何种程度上”。
8. Time Management and Planning | 时间管理与规划
For a typical 45-minute essay, spend 5-7 minutes planning, 35 minutes writing, and 3-5 minutes proofreading. Your plan does not need to be elaborate: a simple spider diagram or bullet-point list with your thesis, three main arguments, key counterarguments, and a concluding judgement will suffice. Write down any specific quotes or scholars names you intend to use. This prevents your essay from drifting off-topic and ensures you address all AOs.
对于一篇典型的 45 分钟论文，花 5-7 分钟规划，35 分钟写作，3-5 分钟校对。你的规划不必很精细：一张简单的蛛网图或分点列表，写上中心论点、三个主要论据、关键反论点和一个结论性判断即可。把你打算使用的任何具体引文或学者名字写下来。这能防止文章跑题，并确保你覆盖了所有评分目标。
In the exam, read the question twice. Highlight the key words and the command term. Decide your overall verdict early: ‘I will argue that…’ or ‘I will defend the claim that…’. This gives your essay a driving purpose. Keep an eye on the clock, and do not spend too long on one paragraph. If you run short on time, prioritise writing a decisive conclusion over perfecting the third body paragraph.
考场上，仔细读题两遍。圈出关键词和指令词。尽早确定你的总体判断：“我将论证……”或“我将为……这一主张辩护”。这会赋予你的文章一个驱动性的目标。注意时间，不要在一个段落上花太长时间。如果时间紧迫，优先撰写一个决断性的结论，而不是去完善第三个主体段落。
9. Model Essay: The Problem of Evil | 范文：恶的问题
Below is a model essay in response to the prompt: ‘Assess the claim that the problem of evil makes belief in an all-powerful and all-loving God irrational.’ The essay demonstrates the structure, language, and evaluative depth required for top marks.
以下是一篇回应“评估这一主张：恶的问题使得相信一个全能全爱的上帝变得不理性”的范文。本文展示了获最高分所需的结构、语言和评价深度。
Introduction: The logical problem of evil, as classically articulated by Epicurus and reformulated by J.L. Mackie, asserts that the coexistence of a perfectly good, omnipotent God with the manifest presence of intense suffering is logically impossible. Mackie contends that if God were able and willing to prevent evil, evil would not exist; since evil does exist, such a God cannot. This essay will assess whether this deductive challenge renders theistic belief irrational. After examining the free will defence, the evidential problem of evil, and soul-making theodicies, I will argue that while the logical problem is largely resolved by the free will defence, the evidential dimension of gratuitous evil continues to pose a significant, though not definitive, rational challenge to classical theism.
引言： 恶的逻辑问题，正如伊壁鸠鲁经典表述并由 J.L. Mackie 重新系统阐述的那样，断言一个全善、全能的上帝与明显存在的深重苦难在逻辑上不可共存。Mackie 主张，如果上帝能够且愿意阻止恶，恶便不会存在；既然恶确实存在，这样的上帝便不存在。本文将评估这一演绎性挑战是否使有神论信仰变得不理性。在审视了自由意志辩护、恶的证据性问题以及灵魂锻造神义论之后，我将论证，尽管逻辑问题很大程度上已被自由意志辩护所解决，但无端之恶的证据性维度仍然对古典有神论构成了重大、但非决定性的理性挑战。
Body paragraph 1 – The free will defence: Alvin Plantingas free will defence contends that it is logically possible that God could not create a world containing moral good without also allowing the possibility of moral evil, because genuine free will entails the capacity to choose wrongly. Since a world with free creatures who sometimes choose good is better than a world of automata, God was justified in granting free will even knowing it would lead to evil. This defence successfully demonstrates that the existence of evil is not logically incompatible with Gods attributes. However, it only addresses moral evil and does not answer the evidential problem: the sheer quantity and seemingly pointless distribution of suffering, such as the prolonged agony of a fawn dying in a forest fire unobserved, as described by William Rowe.
主体段落 1——自由意志辩护： Alvin Plantinga 的自由意志辩护主张，在逻辑上，上帝可能无法在不允许道德恶出现之可能性的情况下创造一个包含道德善的世界，因为真正意义上的自由意志必然包含选择错误的可能。既然一个拥有能自由择善之人的世界优于一个只有自动机器的世界，那么上帝赋予人自由意志便是正当的，即使他明知这会导向恶。这一辩护成功地表明，恶的存在与上帝的属性在逻辑上并非不相容。但它只处理了道德恶，而未回应证据性问题：痛苦的数量之巨和看似无意义的分布，例如 William Rowe 所描述的，一只无人目睹的幼鹿在森林大火中经受漫长折磨而死去。
Body paragraph 2 – Evidential problem and counter: Rowe argues that such instances of ‘gratuitous evil’ provide strong inductive evidence against the existence of a benevolent God. If an all-loving God existed, He would not permit pointless suffering; we observe intense pointless suffering; therefore, such a God probably does not exist. A theist might reply with the ‘sceptical theist’ objection: our cognitive limitations prevent us from discerning whether apparently gratuitous evil actually serves a greater good unknown to us. While this response is logically possible, it risks making God’s goodness unfalsifiable and thus unverifiable, weakening the rational basis of theism. Moreover, John Hick’s soul-making theodicy suggests that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth and the development of virtues like compassion and courage. However, critics note that this does not account for the suffering of victims who are destroyed rather than ennobled, nor for the suffering of animals.
主体段落 2——证据性问题与反驳： Rowe 论证，这类“无端之恶”的案例为反对仁慈上帝存在提供了强有力的归纳性证据。如果全爱的上帝存在，他就不会允许无意义的苦难发生；我们观察到大量无意义的苦难；因此，这样的上帝很可能不存在。有神论者或许会以“怀疑论式有神论”来回应：我们的认知局限使我们无法辨别，表面上的无端之恶是否实际上服务于我们所不知道的更大的善。尽管这一回应在逻辑上可能，但它有使上帝的善变得不可证伪继而不可验证的风险，从而削弱有神论的理性基础。此外，John Hick 的灵魂锻造神义论提出，苦难对灵性成长以及诸如同情和勇气等美德的发展是必要的。然而，批评者指出，这无法解释那些被摧毁而非被升华的受害者的苦难，也无法解释动物的苦难。
Conclusion: In conclusion, the logical problem of evil is not compelling as a disproof of Gods existence because the free will defence shows a possible world where God and evil coexist. Nevertheless, the evidential problem, especially the reality of gratuitous and horrendous suffering, makes belief in a fully benevolent, interventionist God rationally difficult to sustain without adopting a position of sceptical theism or reconceiving God’s attributes. Thus, the problem of evil does not render theism irrational per se, but it does expose a serious tension that requires the believer to either place significant limits on Gods power or goodness, or accept a degree of epistemic humility that itself sits uneasily with the claims of revealed religion. The debate remains philosophically alive.
结论： 总而言之，恶的逻辑问题作为对上帝存在的证伪并不有力，因为自由意志辩护表明了一个上帝与恶并存的可能性界。然而，证据性问题——尤其是无端且极其可怕的苦难这一现实——使得相信一个全然仁慈、干预历史的上帝在理性上难以维系，除非采纳怀疑论式有神论的立场，或对上帝的属性重新构想。因此，恶的问题并未使有神论自身变得不理性，但它确实揭示出一种严重的张力，要求信徒要么对上帝的能力或善加以重大限制，要么接受某种程度的认知谦卑，而这种谦卑本身又与启示宗教的主张难以共处。这一争论在哲学上依旧是充满活力的。
10. Analysing the Model Essay | 范文分析
Let us break down why this essay would score highly. The introduction defines the specific version of the problem (logical vs. evidential), names key scholars (Mackie, Rowe, Plantinga), and presents a nuanced thesis that directly answers the question. Each body paragraph begins with a clear claim, explains a philosophical position using technical vocabulary, then evaluates that position with a counterargument, and finally returns to the overall argument. The conclusion does not simply repeat points but synthesises the debate, offers a qualified judgement, and highlights remaining tensions. This demonstrates AO2 evaluation throughout, supported by AO1 knowledge and AO3 application (use of examples like the fawn, mention of souls-making, sceptical theism).
让我们分析一下这篇文章为何能得高分。引言界定了该问题的具体类型（逻辑的与证据性的），点出了关键学者（Mackie, Rowe, Plantinga），并提出了一个微妙而直接回应题目的中心论点。每个主体段落以明确的主张开始，使用专业词汇解释一种哲学立场，然后用反论点评价该立场，最后回到整体论证上。结论没有简单重复要点，而是综合了辩论，给出了有保留的判断，并凸显了残余的张力。这通篇展示了 AO2 评价，并得到 AO1 知识和 AO3 应用（如幼鹿例子，灵魂锻造、怀疑论式有神论的提及）的支撑。
Notice the use of signposting: ‘This defence successfully demonstrates…’, ‘However, it only addresses…’, ‘While this response is logically possible, it risks…’. Such evaluative connectives guide the reader and foreground judgement. The essay also consistently links back to the question wording: ‘irrational’ is addressed by concluding that theism is not ‘irrational per se’ but faces a ‘serious tension’.
注意路标词的使用：“这一辩护成功地表明……”、“然而，它只处理……”、“尽管这一回应在逻辑上可能，但它有……风险”。这类评价性连词引导读者，并突出判断。文章也持续地回扣题干的措辞：“不理性”通过结论——有神论“自身并非不理性”但面临“严重的张力”——得到了处理。
11. Practice Questions and Tips | 练习题与建议
To master the framework, apply it to past paper questions. Below are three typical prompts with hints for structuring your response.
要掌握这一框架，就要将它应用于历年真题。以下是三个典型题目，并附上了组织回答的提示。
Question 1: ‘Humans have no free will and are entirely determined by prior causes.’ Discuss.
题目 1： “人类没有自由意志，完全由先前的因所决定。”请讨论。
- Define determinism, hard determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism.
- 定义决定论、强硬决定论、相容论、自由意志论。
- Argument for: Laplace’s demon, causal closure of physics, evidence from neuroscience (Libet experiments).
- 支持论点：拉普拉斯妖，物理因果闭合，神经科学证据（Libet 实验）。
- Counterargument: compatibilism (Hume, Ayer) distinguishes free will from freedom from causation; moral responsibility does not require contra-causal freedom.
- 反论点：相容论（Hume, Ayer）区分自由意志与免于因果的自由；道德责任不要求反因果的自由。
- Evaluation: Does compatibilism merely redefine free will? Can we hold someone morally responsible if their actions are predetermined?
- 评价：相容论是否只是在重新定义自由意志？如果行为已被预定，我们还能让人负道德责任吗？
Question 2: ‘The mind is a separate substance from the body.’ Evaluate this claim.
题目 2： “心灵是独立于身体的一种实体。”评价这一主张。
- Explain substance dualism (Descartes), interaction problem, indivisibility argument.
- 解释实体二元论（笛卡尔）、交互问题、不可分割性论证。
- Counterargument: category mistake (Ryle ‘ghost in the machine’), materialism (identity theory), the problem of other minds.
- 反论点：范畴错误（Ryle“机器中的幽灵”）、唯物主义（同一论）、他心问题。
- Evaluation: Does dualism fit better with subjective experience (qualia)? Does materialism explain consciousness away?
- 评价：二元论是否更符合主观体验（感受质）？唯物主义是否消解了意识？
- Bring in property dualism as a middle ground.
- 引入属性二元论作为折中立场。
Question 3: Assess the view that the design argument successfully proves Gods existence.
题目 3： 评估那种认为设计论证成功证明了上帝存在的观点。
- Outline Paleys watchmaker analogy, teleological argument, Aquinas Fifth Way.
- 概述 Paley 的钟表匠类比、目的论证、阿奎那的第五路证明。
- Critique: Hume’s objections (analogy weak, could be multiple gods, world more like a vegetable), Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
- 批评：休谟的反对（类比薄弱、可能有多神、世界更像蔬菜），达尔文的自然选择进化论。
- Evaluation: Does the argument work as an inference to the best explanation? Can it be reformulated as a fine-tuning argument (Swinburne)?
- 评价：该论证能否作为最佳解释推理而成立？能否被重新表述为一个精细调谐论证（Swinburne）？
12. Final Checklist Before the Exam | 考前最终清单
Use this checklist to self-assess your essay before submitting it in practice or the real exam. Tick each item as you review:
在练习或正式考试中提交论文前，用这份清单来自我评估。边回顾边勾选：
- Have I written a clear introduction that defines terms and states a thesis?
- 我是否写了清晰的引言，定义了术语并陈述了中心论点？
- Does each body paragraph follow PEEL and contain at least one explicit evaluation?
- 每个主体段落是否遵循 PEEL 结构，并至少包含一处明确的评价？
- Have I addressed a counterargument
Published by TutorHao | GCSE 哲学 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Cancel reply