AQA A-Level Religious Studies Past Papers & Mark Schemes

The most significant factor distinguishing A from A* responses in Religious Studies is argumentative commitment. Many students present balanced accounts of both sides of a debate and conclude with a vague 'there are arguments for and against'. The AQA mark scheme at the highest band expects a 'coherent and well-articulated analysis' that develops a genuine critical position — not necessarily asserting absolute certainty, but constructing an argued, defended view. A student who argues, clearly and with philosophical rigour, that the cosmological argument fails specifically because Aquinas's claim that an infinite regress is impossible begs the question against the very infinite series it purports to explain — and who can defend this against counter-arguments — demonstrates more philosophical skill than one who presents five arguments and five objections with no resolution. Philosopher precision matters in this subject in a way that distinguishes it from most A-Levels. Anselm's ontological argument and Descartes' version are structurally different and receive different responses from Kant and Gaunilo — treating them as interchangeable loses marks. Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism differ in their treatment of the quality of pleasures in ways that are philosophically significant. Knowing the specific content of the arguments — not just the names — is what enables the analytical precision the mark scheme rewards. For ethics, understand the internal logical structure of each theory before applying it. Natural law's secondary precepts derive from its five primary precepts (self-preservation, reproduction, education of offspring, living in society, worship of God); its doctrine of double effect requires four conditions to be satisfied simultaneously. Kant's first formulation (universalisability) and second formulation (treating persons never merely as means) are meant to be analytically equivalent — a deep question you can engage with in essays. These internal relationships are what examiners probe in the most demanding questions. For Paper 2's dialogues dimension, the concept of 'dialogue' means more than 'how does this religion respond to X'. It means understanding the intellectual encounter between a religious tradition and a philosophical position or social movement — how Christian feminist theology, for instance, has both engaged with and challenged secular feminist theory. Questions on dialogues test whether you can navigate this mutual engagement, not just state a religious position.