Questions from sample assessment materials with student
responses and commentaries – 9 mark items
Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. Version 1.0.
1
Outline and explain the key differences between idealism and
indirect realism. (9 marks)
Response 1:
Both argue that we perceive ideas or sense data. BUT indirect realism says that objects
really do exist and idealism says they don’t.
Comments
This is really just an outline of one difference – the second sentence. So it is a relevant point, but it
isn’t precise – idealism doesn’t actually say that physical objects don’t exist, but that they don’t
exist independent of the mind.
The student’s point about what we perceive is correct, but there is no link between the two
sentences – so no attempt to explain. There is sensible use of technical language – so ideas/sense
data.
This response is in the 1-3 band. Some relevant points, but no integration. Insufficient material that
is relevant (though none that is irrelevant). 2 marks.
Response 2:
Idealism and IR are empiricist theories, so knowledge comes from sense perception. We
perceive sense data not objects. The major difference is that IR thinks that our sense data
represent physical objects – so they come from them and are like them. So we have a link.
Idealism does not have a link – all we perceive are ideas – so idealism.
Comments
This begins by establishing the similarities, which wouldn’t be relevant except that the student uses
those similarities to identify a key difference. S/he manages to identify the differentiating point well
for indirect realism – the existence of physical objects as the causes (come from them) of our
sense data and giving information about the external world (are like them). S/he summarises this in
terms of a “link.” S/he then goes on to argue that Idealism does not have that link and all we
perceive are ideas. You can see what s/he is getting at, but the point isn’t clear or precise.
This answer is reasonably clear and coherent and the student sticks to the point. There is a clear
attempt to set out the logical links. Some points (about IR) are made clearly, but not all. It is largely
correct.
Had this been as strong on Idealism as it was on IR, it would have got into the top band. As it
stands, it is in the 4–6 band. Probably the middle of the band – so 5 marks.
Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. Version 1.0.
2
Response 3:
Key difference – what physical objects like tables are.
Ind realism is realist – there are real trees in the external world. We perceive them through
our senses. But not directly – because trees are not green in the dark. We perceive our sense
data and then we infer that they are caused by trees and are like trees. Trees exist whether
or not we perceive them.
Idealism is not realist – anti realist. There are no trees in the external world. We perceive
ideas, so trees are ideas. We perceive ideas directly. If trees are ideas then we perceive
trees directly.
For ind realism, trees are objects out there. For idealism, they are ideas in a mind.
Comments
The question asks for key differences and the student identifies two: the realist/anti realist
difference and the direct/indirect perception issue. Don’t be fooled by the first sentence – the
student doesn’t make just one point.
This is not an elegant answer – the language is clunky and the student starts by talking about
tables and then moves on to trees. The student does use philosophical terminology consistently
and appropriately, showing that s/he understands what the terms mean and what the implications
of them are.
The answer is logical and strongly integrated – what the student says about indirect realism, s/he
then addresses about idealism. There is no redundancy in here.
This just makes it into the top band. 7 marks.
Response 4:
Both are theories of perception, but idealism is anti-realist and IR is realist. For idealism,
there is no material external world (there is the mind of God for Berkeley), but for IR there
is a material external world that causes our perceptions.
Idealism is a direct theory of perception – we directly perceive trees, but trees are sense
data. IR is indirect – we don’t directly perceive trees but we are aware of them indirectly,
through a representation of them which is direct.
Comments
As for response 3, the student begins with a similarity, but uses it to indicate an immediate and key
difference – realism/anti-realism. S/he then goes on to the second key difference – idealism as a
direct theory and IR as an indirect theory of perception.
This is clear, integrated and logical and the content is correct. There is no redundancy and what
the student says – in appropriate philosophical terminology – is precise.
This is a 9 mark response.
Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. Version 1.0.
3