I have been asked to share some of my tips for writing data response economic questions. I hope this helps! 🙂
1) Know how many mark question they are e.g. I know in my Jan exam for the Data response there are 4 question and the marks they hold (4, 12, 8 and 16 marks)
2) Know how the marks are split e.g. in unit three except for the 4 mark one they tend to be 50% analysis and 50% evaluation.
3) Know how to split that further so if evaluation is worth 6 marks know that you can discuss two factors worth 3 marks each or 3 factors worth 2 marks each.
4) Once you know this all you need to do is write down you points whether analysis or evaluation to marks you allocated above.
5) It is good to know this structure off by heart, memorise it and use it for planning big questions in exams
6) In terms of analysis, you are defining key terms, applying economic theories such as theory of PED to the question and drawing diagrams.
7) In evaluation all you are doing is saying whether this is different in the long-run, is this an actual realistic thing, other factors that affect what you said in evaluation, ceteris paribus (is it assumed that all factors are equal), prioritising and justifying points, if for example you are talking at tax or subsidy then you can discuss that it depends on the size of the tax for the effects to happen etc.
Deontology and Teleology are two specialist terms used to separate ethical theories. They difference between deontology and teleology, is in essence, the same as the difference between absolutist and relativist theories.
Deontology: This means the same as absolute. The ethical systems are based on some form of a rule system. Following a deontological system such as Kant, Natural Law or some forms of Christian ethics means that the moral thing to do is one that does not change from situation to situation. For example, according to Kantian ethics it will always be wrong to lie even if it saves someone’s life. This is because consequences are not taken into account and the universal law does not change.
Teleology: Teleological theories are the same as relativist theories. They state that the moral thing to do is one which will change from situation to situation because the consequence of an action is sovereign. Ethical systems like Utilitarianism and Situation ethics voice this belief. They suggest that lying can only be moral if it results in the most pleasure for the most people (Act Utilitarianism) or the most love towards the most people (Situation Ethics).
Below is a video outlining this and some key strengths and weaknesses:
Kantian Ethics is summarised in the video tutorial below:
The strengths & weaknesses of the theory can be summarised as follows:
Strengths and weaknesses to Kant’s deontological theory of ethics
- The clear distinction between ‘emotions’ and ‘duty’ is important, it ensures that decisions are made out of something more than ‘urges of the moment’. For example, if you see someone hurt on the street, rather than acting just out of compassion, it is better to act of duty. This is gives something extra to the action taken.
- The theory can be applied to everyone, regardless of culture, race, religion etc.
- The appeal to innate human reason establishes a clear criteria for what constitutes a moral action. This makes it easier to deduce right actions to take.
- It respects human life without exception. Kant’s deontological of theory goes against suicide, abortion, murder etc. Even killing out of love is seen as unmoral.
- This respect in time demonstrates that human beings have rights e.g. they have a right to be told the truth.
- It is wholly secular which means it does not rely on the assumption that there is a God.
- It works only if everyone agrees to it especially when fulfilling the maxim of Kingdom of Ends.
- There can be conflicts of duty e.g. we have a duty to protect human life as well as we have duty not to lie but what if lying is the only way to save someone’s life? Kant’s reply to this criticism is interesting, he says that there is no such thing as a conflict in duty we need to identify which one of the two is not a duty.
- Kant’s theory falls into making a naturalistic fallacy – can ‘ought’ really imply ‘can’ and if this fails so does Kant’s ethical system.
- Can we really say that the action itself is really more important than the consequences?
- Does this theory really apply to everyone – what if someone is not capable of rational decision- making like a baby or someone with a disability.
- There is not a mutual consensus between everyone tat ‘my duty in one situation is my duty in every situation’
- Can this theory really be used in real life e.g. to be moral does everyone really need to try and fulfill their potential or give others happiness, can they not just be happy in themselves without causing others harm.
- Is Kant correct in saying that happiness is a by-product of leading a moral life not the intention behind it.
- For Kant, ‘rationality’ is extremely important, but just following the above point is it really realistic for Kant to overlook ‘fellowship’ because emotions, concerns, hopes etc are not part of his moral equation. I mean after all we are mortals.
- Obviously, for some theist the fact that God is excluded from the moral exclusion is a definite negative.
Evaluation of the use of analogy for ‘God-talk’
1. Defects the problems raised by equivocal and univocal language
2. Shows religious language is not absurd and can provide some understanding of God.
3. It avoids anthropomorphism.
4. Hick argues that enables to make statements yet still preseve the mysterious element to the Judaeo-Christian God.
5. Affirm the nature of the deity to the believer as well as allowing the believer to believe they are in a purposeful relationship with the deity
1. If we say John is bad is that also a refection of God’s attribute? How do we know which analogies are appropriate to God.
2. Duns Scotus argues that it is vague and leaves us unable to understand God and his actions.
3. Assumes similarity between humans and God which is difficult to accept if God is an external being which is completely different to humans.
4. In respect to the analogy of proportion, is it really possible to make comparisons between necessary and contingent beings, its like comparing apples and pears.
5. Why bother with religious language if God is mysterious? It is far too neat – is the believer just trying to have his cake and eat it.
6. Patrick Sherry points out the believers usually use religious claims literally not analogically.
- Defines symbol
- Distinguishes between sign and symbol
- Distinguishes between equivocal and univocal language
- Looks at arguments put forward by Tillich, Ricoeur, Gilkey & Wittenstein
- Ends with a quote from Rowan Williams.
The strengths & weaknesses of symbols