AQA AS Religious Studies Past Papers & Mark Schemes

Philosophy questions demand logical precision. When explaining the cosmological argument, don't simply describe Aquinas's reasoning — identify the logical structure: premise 1 (everything that exists has a cause), premise 2 (an infinite regress of causes is impossible), conclusion (therefore there must be a first uncaused cause, which we call God). Then evaluate each premise: does quantum mechanics challenge premise 1? Does the concept of actual infinity in mathematics undermine premise 2? Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises? The strongest answers engage with specific philosophical objections (Hume's critique of necessary causation, Russell's brute fact response) rather than generic statements about 'not everyone agreeing with the argument'. Ethical theory questions at AS level test your ability to apply theories to specific moral dilemmas. If asked about euthanasia, a utilitarian analysis would calculate the aggregate happiness and suffering of all affected parties — the patient, family members, medical staff, society — and determine which action maximises overall utility. But strong evaluation recognises the problems: how do we measure happiness? What about the potential for a slippery slope? Would an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian reach different conclusions? Each theory has internal tensions that the examiners want you to explore. For Paper 2, sacred texts should be used as primary evidence, not as proof-texts. When discussing Christian attitudes to poverty, quoting 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:25) is more powerful than writing 'Jesus said rich people shouldn't be rich.' But the strongest answers also acknowledge that texts are interpreted differently — liberation theologians read this passage as a call to structural economic change, while others interpret it as a personal spiritual challenge. Each essay should have a clear thesis stated in the introduction, developed through the body paragraphs, and restated (with nuance added by the argument) in the conclusion. The conclusion should never introduce new material — it should draw together the threads of your argument and make your final judgement explicit.