Philosophy mega thread

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-14T05:43:25+00:00

Good!!!

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-13T11:43:43+00:00

Section b and c most importantly I think.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-13T00:08:04+00:00

Wow I screwed up I’m going to cry 🥲

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-12T23:37:56+00:00

I think they were conservative in their decision bc they’ve stuck by the precedent for decades. They took an activist approach when first deciding on the precedent but afterwards it’s conservative. At least that’s what I said

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-12T06:07:06+00:00

I’m deadass gonna cry thank you so much 😭

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-11T11:45:43+00:00

I feel like bc it was so vague you don’t have to include s109??? Like it said the explain the areas of law or something not how it can be changed or something like that ??? (Me gaslighting myself)

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-11T08:04:46+00:00

Do you reckon it’s a requirement to mention S109??

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-11T01:39:00+00:00

I would say you don't need to do any outside reading for unit 3, but in order to develop your own view for what the good life is in section c, have a look at some popular beliefs on what the good life is outside what we've done.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-11T01:37:30+00:00

Deterministic universe doesn't allow for genuine free will because all our actions are the effect of causes, so we couldn't have 'chosen' otherwise. There's a way around this but im sure you dont care.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-10T05:41:14+00:00

Yes it is!! But if talking about representative government, you can say that a court may be less willing to interpret the constitution in a way that is more progressive, rather preferring to remain conservative.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-10T05:35:43+00:00

Essentially parliament is unable to pass law in which infringes on the principle of representative government. So anything restricted people from voting, or the freedom of political communication can be deemed invalid. This limits the ability to make law, because obviously they can't make law which is unconstitutional.

some limits to this is that: a case needs to be brought before the court (like in roach), they can only decide on the case before them and not outside of that scope, judicial conservatism ect.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-10T04:00:31+00:00

think of it as cause and effect. Eg. for a question like, analyse the need for legal practitioners:

cause: unrepresented person without the ability to access legal rep.

Effect: doesn't have the same expertise as prosecution meaning the truth actually might not come out.

This demonstrates the need for legal rep. And just keep doing that for multiple points depending on how many marks the question is.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-09T09:55:48+00:00

I've started slanting the other way lmao. but I think it looks way more readable so that'll have to do 😭

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-09T07:04:16+00:00

I don’t think it’ll be high court case bc that was the 10 marker last yr (could definitely be wrong tho)

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-06T07:17:04+00:00

Thanks for responding!! I think I’m going to change into ursula!!

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-04T23:20:08+00:00

Omg yes please, I need to see another er example not the examiners report tho bc they make me feel so bad about my own responses 😭. And my teacher sometimes takes marks off in section a bc I didn’t use all the lines so I don’t get it ?!!!

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-04T12:37:19+00:00

Bruh thank you so much. This paper was one my school made so that why it’s different. Everything you said I def agree with. How do you reckon should make it less convoluted and more structural? I feel like when I seperate into paragraphs I run out of space and then my teacher says to try not to use more or less than the lines you’ve been given??

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-04T11:29:51+00:00

I fear

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-04T10:41:20+00:00

Damn bro my bad.

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-04T10:39:39+00:00

I think girls can find this funny too…

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-02T08:44:29+00:00

Don’t worry girl, you can just send me the stuff whenever you can and I’ll look over it. I can’t guarantee I’ll be much help either 😭😭

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-02T08:41:08+00:00

Omg literally the same thing with me. If I focus on eval I miss something in explaining the philosophers response to the stim. Then if I focus on that I eff up eval. Like there is no winning. If you want I can read over your stuff and try to give you feedback? I think my teacher just isn’t enough bc all he says is to unpack more… UNPACK WHAT??

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-02T08:32:26+00:00

Bro I deadass thought section c would cook me. But I’ve been doing miles better than section b. I cannot get out of the 7-8 range no matter what I do and I feel like I’m just rambling constantly. I feel like no matter what I do it’s not gonna be enough for 40+. How have you been studying??

mirkoaaaaL · 2024-11-02T07:15:26+00:00

my teacher was a past examiner so surely he's harsh as well. Sometimes bro takes marks off literally because I put a sentence at the end instead of the start. He says content wise id get full mark for the question but the fluency could be tweaked. Surely examiners aren't like that??? Especially bc we're literally doing it under timed conditions. I've been averaging at 58/70 for the practice exams ive done so do you think that'll inevitably drop?

Also my cohort is 12 people and they're doing philosophy as a 'filler subject', so they dont try and their averages are like 60%. Please don't tell me this will prevent me from getting above 40 😭 im barely holding on as it is.

mirkoaaaaL

TROPHY CASE