AQA Philosophy 7172 | 200 Essay Writing Words

Learn 200 AQA Philosophy words for explaining theories, testing arguments and defending a judgement. Each entry pairs a plain-English definition with an example you can use when practising a philosophical answer.

AQA Philosophy 7172 has two written papers, each lasting three hours, worth 100 marks and counting for half of the A Level. Paper 1 covers epistemology and moral philosophy. Paper 2 covers the metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind.

200 words and examples
Exam requirements and worked examples
Fencing Method

200 essay vocabulary words and examples

Knowledge, justification and argument

epistemology — the study of knowledge and justified belief. epistemology asks how perception supports belief.
proposition — the content of a statement that can be true or false. the proposition is true even if the speaker doubts it.
justification — grounds that support accepting a belief. the observer’s evidence provides justification.
entailment — a relation in which one statement must be true if another is true. test whether the premise entails the conclusion.
validity — the property of a deductive argument whose true premises would guarantee its conclusion. validity depends on the relation between premises and conclusion.
soundness — the property of a valid deductive argument with true premises. challenge the soundness by challenging a premise.
induction — inference from evidence to a conclusion that goes beyond what the evidence guarantees. induction supports an expectation about the next case.
deduction — reasoning in which the conclusion follows necessarily if the argument is valid and its premises are true. check the deduction by testing the argument form.
scepticism — doubt about whether knowledge or justified belief is possible in a domain. external-world scepticism challenges perceptual knowledge.
empiricism — the view that experience has a central role in the origin or justification of knowledge. empiricism links many beliefs to observation.
rationalism — the view that reason can provide some substantive knowledge independently of sense experience. rationalism can appeal to intuition and deduction.
a priori — justifiable independently of particular sense experience. an a priori argument does not rely on a new observation.
a posteriori — justifiable through experience. a posteriori evidence depends on observation.
infallibility — the condition of being incapable of error in the relevant respect. the requirement of infallibility raises the bar for knowledge.
reliabilism — the view that justification or knowledge depends importantly on reliable belief formation. reliabilism asks whether the process usually produces true beliefs.
Gettier case — a case where a justified true belief seems true through luck and falls short of knowledge. use a Gettier case to test a proposed definition.
necessary condition — a requirement that must hold for something else to hold. truth is usually treated as a necessary condition for knowledge.
sufficient condition — a condition whose fulfillment guarantees the relevant result. test whether justified true belief is a sufficient condition for knowledge.
regress — a chain in which each step requires a further step of the same kind. a regress arises when each reason needs another reason.
defeater — information that removes or weakens a person’s justification. hearing that the lighting distorts colors supplies a defeater.

Moral philosophy, mind and metaphysics

consequentialism — the family of views that evaluate actions or related choices by outcomes. consequentialism gives outcomes a decisive role.
utilitarianism — a family of consequentialist views that evaluate options by overall utility. utilitarianism asks whose welfare changes and how.
deontology — a family of moral views in which duties or constraints can matter independently of outcomes. deontology can give duties a role beyond welfare.
virtue — a developed excellence of character. courage counts as a virtue in many accounts.
eudaimonia — flourishing or living well as a whole in Aristotelian ethics. eudaimonia is broader than a pleasant feeling.
maxim — the principle on which an agent acts in Kantian ethics. state the maxim before testing whether it can be universalized.
universalization — testing whether a principle of action can be willed as universal. universalization exposes a problem for a dishonest promise.
moral realism — the view that at least some moral claims state genuine moral facts. a moral realist can regard some moral judgements as true.
non-cognitivism — the view that moral language primarily expresses attitudes or prescriptions rather than factual beliefs. non-cognitivism treats moral approval as important to what an utterance does.
dualism — the view that the mental and physical are distinct in a fundamental respect. property dualism distinguishes mental and physical properties.
physicalism — the view that everything is physical or depends fundamentally on the physical. physicalism must account for conscious experience.
functionalism — the view that mental states are identified by their causal or functional roles. functionalism describes pain through inputs, effects and behavior.
qualia — the felt qualities of conscious experiences. the felt character of seeing red is an example of qualia.
supervenience — a dependence relation in which no difference in one set of properties occurs without a difference in another. mental supervenience rules out a mental difference without a relevant physical difference.
conceivability — the capacity to coherently imagine or conceive something. an argument may move from conceivability to possibility.
contingency — the condition of being able to have been otherwise. the contingency of the world can motivate a request for explanation.
omnipotence — the attribute of being all-powerful, interpreted in different ways. the paradox tests a proposed account of omnipotence.
omniscience — the attribute of knowing every truth. an argument can examine whether omniscience is compatible with human freedom.
theodicy — an attempt to explain why a good and powerful God would permit evil. a soul-making theodicy connects suffering with moral development.
category mistake — an error that treats something as belonging to the wrong logical type. a category mistake can arise when a mental concept is treated as a separate physical object.

Testing evidence and reasoning

intermediate — coming between earlier reasons and the main result. identify an intermediate conclusion.
unstated — implied without being expressed directly. an unstated assumption about access.
premiss — a proposition offered as a reason for a conclusion. test whether the premiss is true.
jointly — together rather than separately. the two reasons jointly support the claim.
deductive — involving an inference intended to follow necessarily. a deductive argument with a missing premiss.
inductive — involving reasoning that extends beyond the observed cases. an inductive inference from a survey.
abductive — concerned with inferring a likely explanation. an abductive inference from an unexpected result.
counterinstance — an example that goes against a general claim. one counterinstance challenges the rule.
equivocal — open to different meanings or interpretations. an equivocal use of the word free.
circular — using the conclusion itself as part of its supposed support. circular reasoning provides no independent reason.
fallacy — a flaw in reasoning. identify a fallacy in a forced choice.
confounder — a factor that can distort a proposed causal relationship. distance may be a confounder.
denominator — the reference total against which a count or rate is expressed. check the denominator in the reported rate.
response — a reply or a contribution to a survey. a low survey response rate.
self-selection — the process by which participants choose whether to take part. self-selection limits the survey.
comparability — the extent to which items can be fairly compared. question comparability across the two periods.
interested — having a stake that could affect an account. an interested source may still provide accurate data.
contemporaneous — made or existing at the same time as an event. contemporaneous records of attendance.
weight — the importance assigned to a piece of evidence. give more weight to direct measurements.
decisive — strong enough to settle a question under the available evidence. the documents do not provide decisive support.

Testing an issue and its boundaries

absolutist — treating a rule or claim as admitting no exception. an absolutist reading of the recommendation.
generalisability — the extent to which a finding applies beyond its original setting. test the generalisability of a pilot result.
necessary — required for a result or condition. a necessary condition for participation.
sufficiency — the quality of being enough to establish or achieve something. question the sufficiency of one example.
counterfactual — a reasoned account of what might happen under different conditions. consider a counterfactual without the policy.
falsifiable — capable in principle of being shown false by evidence. a falsifiable claim about participation.
confound — make the effect of one factor hard to separate from another. age may confound the comparison.
causal — concerned with a relationship in which one thing produces an effect. a causal explanation of the decline.
conditional — true or applicable only when a requirement is met. conditional support for a public subsidy.
contingent — dependent on a particular circumstance. the benefit is contingent on consistent access.
generalise — draw a conclusion that covers cases beyond those observed. generalise cautiously from a local trial.
speculative — based on possibilities that have yet to be established. a speculative prediction about behaviour.
prescriptive — setting out what people should do. a prescriptive claim about public spending.
descriptive — stating what is observed or claimed to happen. a descriptive statement about current practice.
presume — take something to be true as a starting point. presume that users have reliable internet.
necessitate — make an action or condition necessary. a larger intake may necessitate extra staff.
invalidate — make a claim or inference no longer valid. one error can invalidate the comparison.
indeterminate — not settled or precisely known. the long-term effect remains indeterminate.
unwarranted — unsupported by sufficient reason or evidence. an unwarranted inference about demand.
tenability — the ability of a view to withstand reasonable criticism. test the tenability of a broad claim.

Evaluating limits and assumptions

presuppose — treat something as already true before arguing. presuppose that demand is fixed.
conflate — treat distinct things as if they were the same. conflate availability with accessibility.
elide — leave out or pass over a distinction or detail. elide the difference between choice and constraint.
overgeneralise — draw a conclusion that covers more cases than the evidence allows. overgeneralise from one institution.
extrapolate — extend an observed pattern beyond the data available. extrapolate from a small pilot.
circumscribe — limit something to a defined range. circumscribe the policy’s application.
predicate — base a claim or decision on a condition. predicate success on continued funding.
reductive — simplifying a subject in a way that loses important detail. a reductive account of motivation.
tenable — capable of being maintained under criticism. a tenable explanation of the discrepancy.
fallacious — based on faulty reasoning. a fallacious comparison between unlike cases.
ambivalent — having mixed or opposing feelings about something. an ambivalent response to regulation.
normative — concerned with what ought to be done or valued. a normative claim about fairness.
empirical — based on observation or evidence from experience. empirical evidence on take-up.
asymmetry — a significant difference between two sides that are compared. an asymmetry in bargaining power.
contention — a claim presented as part of an argument. the contention that access is universal.
caveat — a warning or limitation attached to a statement. accept the proposal with a caveat.
paradox — an apparently contradictory situation or statement. the paradox of choice without access.
compatibility — ability to work or coexist together. compatibility with local practice.
salience — importance or prominence in a particular context. the salience of cost in the debate.
commensurate — matching another thing in size or degree. support commensurate with need.

Synthesising sources

attribute — identify where an idea or quotation comes from. attribute the statistic to Source A.
cite — identify the source of material used in an argument. cite the survey in Source B.
paraphrase — restate a source’s meaning in your own words and structure. paraphrase the author’s reasoning.
excerpt — a passage taken from a longer work. an excerpt from a public address.
provenance — the origin and history of a piece of material. check the provenance of a photograph.
testimony — a person’s account offered as evidence. testimony from residents.
dataset — an organised collection of data. a dataset on bus ridership.
sample — a subset examined to learn about a larger group. a sample of city schools.
metric — a defined quantity used to measure performance or change. an attendance metric.
variable — a factor that may vary or be deliberately changed. control for a confounding variable.
baseline — a reference point used to judge later differences. measure change against the baseline.
methodology — the overall system of methods used to investigate a question. question the study’s methodology.
outlier — a result far from the others in a set. identify an outlier.
independent — arising separately from the source or factor under discussion. an independent source.
convergence — movement towards agreement or a shared conclusion. convergence between findings.
divergence — movement apart or difference between results or views. divergence between local and national data.
complement — add a missing part or strength to something else. complement the survey with testimony.
complicate — show that a simple explanation leaves important things out. complicate the initial conclusion.
reconcile — explain how apparently conflicting claims can fit together. reconcile the two findings.
triangulate — check a claim by comparing different independent sources or methods. triangulate claims across three sources.

Building commentary and argument

commentary — reasoning that explains how evidence supports a claim. develop the commentary after a quotation.
warrant — the reasoning that connects evidence to a claim. explain the warrant for the claim.
grounds — the basis or reasons for holding a position. give grounds for a limited trial.
scope — the range of cases a statement or argument covers. limit the scope of the argument.
inference — a conclusion reached from available evidence. draw an inference from the pattern.
encoding — conversion of information into a form that can be stored. encoding may depend on attention.
generalization — a broad statement drawn from specific cases. a generalization from a narrow sample.
analogue — a comparable case with a similar structure or function. an analogue from a neighboring district.
precedent — an earlier case used as a guide for a later one. cite a legal precedent.
exception — a case to which a rule or pattern does not apply. allow for an exception.
criterion — a single standard for judging something. use reliability as one criterion.
condition — a circumstance required for a claim or proposal to hold. state a condition for success.
implication — what follows from a statement even when left unstated. consider the implication for families.
counterexample — a case that shows a general claim does not always hold. offer a counterexample to an absolute claim.
oversimplification — an explanation that drops important complexity. avoid oversimplification.
falsehood — a statement that is untrue. identify a falsehood in a source.
equivocation — a shift between meanings of a term within a line of reasoning. detect equivocation over the meaning of freedom.
governance — how institutions make and carry out decisions. local governance shapes enforcement.
tentative — held provisionally pending stronger evidence. a tentative explanation.
defensible — capable of being supported with sound reasons. a defensible thesis.

Taking a position

claim — a statement you want the reader to accept. make a claim.
stance — your position on a question. take a clear stance.
thesis — the central position or interpretation your response develops. support the thesis.
premise — an idea the argument starts from. question the premise.
assumption — something treated as true without being established. test the assumption.
assert — state a position firmly. assert that access matters.
argue — give reasons in support of a position. argue for a trial.
maintain — continue to hold or defend a view. maintain that the policy is fair.
contend — put forward a position that can be challenged. contend that the proposal is workable.
justify — give sufficient reasons for a decision or judgement. justify the expense.
advocate — publicly support an action or change. advocate for reform.
defend — answer criticism of a view or choice. defend a decision.
qualify — limit a statement so it applies only where warranted. qualify the conclusion.
concede — acknowledge a valid point made by the other side. concede that costs may rise.
rebut — answer an opposing claim with reasoning or evidence. rebut the objection.
counterargument — a reasoned objection to a position. address a counterargument.
reservation — a concern that makes agreement incomplete. express a reservation.
distinguish — show what makes two things different. distinguish cost from value.
criteria — standards used to judge something. agree on the criteria.
verdict — a final judgement reached after consideration. reach a verdict.

Using evidence and reasoning

evidence — information that helps establish a claim. draw on evidence.
example — a specific case that makes a general point clearer. give a concrete example.
illustrate — make an idea clearer through a case or detail. illustrate the difficulty.
demonstrate — show how or why something is true. demonstrate a connection.
substantiate — support a claim with convincing information. substantiate the allegation.
corroborate — provide independent support for an existing account. corroborate the witness’s account.
infer — draw a conclusion from available clues. infer a motive from the wording.
imply — suggest a meaning without saying it directly. imply that change is possible.
interpret — explain what something means in context. interpret a figure in context.
analyse — examine how parts work together. analyse the writer’s choices.
evaluate — judge the strength, quality or value of something. evaluate the proposal.
plausible — reasonable enough to believe given what is known. a plausible explanation.
credible — worthy of belief or trust. a credible source.
relevant — directly connected to the issue being considered. relevant to the question.
sufficient — enough for the purpose or conclusion at hand. sufficient for a limited trial.
representative — typical enough to reflect a larger group. a representative sample.
anecdote — a brief account of a particular incident. open with an anecdote.
limitation — something that restricts what a method or claim can establish. acknowledge a limitation.
contradict — state or show something incompatible with another claim. contradict the earlier finding.
synthesise — combine ideas from separate sources into a new account. synthesise competing accounts.

Explaining cause and effect

cause — produce or bring about an outcome. cause avoidable delays.
contribute — play a part in bringing about an outcome. contribute to overcrowding.
trigger — set a process or reaction in motion. trigger a review.
accelerate — make a process happen faster. accelerate the transition.
intensify — make something stronger or more severe. intensify competition.
exacerbate — make an existing problem worse. exacerbate existing inequalities.
mitigate — reduce the severity or harmful effect of something. mitigate the harm.
prevent — stop something from happening. prevent further damage.
deter — discourage someone from taking an action. deter people from taking risks.
enable — make an action possible. enable students to attend.
facilitate — make an action or process easier. facilitate access to training.
reinforce — strengthen an effect, belief or behaviour. reinforce an existing pattern.
undermine — weaken something, often gradually. undermine public trust.
sustain — keep something going over time. sustain the improvement.
displace — push something or someone out of an existing place or role. displace smaller operators.
redistribute — change how something is shared. redistribute public funds.
consequence — an outcome that follows an action or event. an unintended consequence.
mechanism — the process through which an effect occurs. identify the mechanism.
correlation — a pattern in which two things vary together. observe a correlation.
constraint — a condition that limits what can be done. work within a budget constraint.

Exam requirements and worked examples

How the 25-mark essays work

Each paper has two sections with five questions per section. Use the official past papers and mark schemes to distinguish shorter explanation tasks from the extended evaluation question. The published June 2024 Paper 1 mark scheme illustrates the 25-mark split of 5 marks for knowledge and understanding and 20 for analysis and evaluation.

In an extended answer, formulate the theory in the relevant sense, reconstruct the strongest reasoning for it and identify where a challenge has force. Compare the objection and reply before reaching a judgement. Keep the title in sight. An objection that defeats one version of a theory may leave another version available. Explain whether that difference changes your answer.

Official exam and example sources

Worked argument about utilitarianism

Suppose a decision would improve the welfare of many people at a serious cost to one innocent person. A critic might argue that act utilitarianism permits the decision if it produces the greatest total utility, even if a commonly recognized right is violated. The objection depends on a conflict between a welfare-maximizing act and a moral constraint.

One reply is that allowing violations can damage trust and raise future costs, which an act utilitarian can include in the calculation. This reply has force when the costs are sufficiently high. To test whether it solves the underlying problem, stipulate a case in which the welfare gain remains greatest after indirect effects are included. A rule utilitarian can offer a different reply by asking which rules generally promote welfare. The judgement should say which version has been tested and what would count as a successful defence.

Fencing Method for a philosophical term

Start with The argument is valid. Add detail. If both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Refine the tone. The conclusion follows from the premises, whose truth still needs support. Add logic. The objection challenges soundness by rejecting the second premise. Transfer the distinction by testing an argument from moral duties, then one from perception.

A second drill uses necessary condition. Use the direction test. If knowledge requires truth, then knowledge implies truth. Truth alone leaves open whether a person believes the proposition or has grounds for it. Draw the direction of implication and write it as a sentence. You can then apply the same check to a different proposed definition.

Practise objection, reply and verdict

Put the central argument into a few numbered lines. Mark the premise that a critic would reject. If the critic accepts the premises, check whether they reject the inference. Write the reply in the form its defender would recognize. Finish by naming the part of the reply that succeeds or fails and give a reason.

If you use a thought experiment, state the principle it tests. Change one feature and see whether your judgement changes. That tells you which feature is doing the work. A short case that reveals a specific tension will help you evaluate an argument more directly than a long story with several competing sources of disagreement.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need a fixed number of philosophers? Follow the prompt and use the theories or philosophers needed to make a precise argument. Can I start with my conclusion? You can state a provisional position early and defend it as the discussion develops. Is an example an objection on its own? Explain which premise or implication the example challenges and why it matters.

Identify the premise that carries the argument

Try a small epistemology exercise. Suppose someone claims that if an experience is indistinguishable from a misleading experience, it cannot give knowledge. Write that conditional as a premise. Add the claim that the present experience could have an indistinguishable misleading counterpart. Then state the conclusion the sceptic wants about the present case. Each line gives you a separate point to test.

One response might reject the first premise by arguing that a successful perceptual connection can matter even when the subject cannot tell the experiences apart. A different response might examine the sense in which the misleading case is possible. Decide which response addresses the argument you reconstructed. If the reply changes the subject, rewrite it around the disputed premise before evaluating it.

Use examples to test definitions

Take a proposed definition and ask whether it gives necessary conditions, sufficient conditions or both. Write a case in which the conditions are met and the concept still seems absent. Then explain why the case targets sufficiency. For a condition claimed to be necessary, seek a case where the concept applies despite the absence of that condition. Keep the two tests separate in your notes.

After the test, offer a reasoned verdict. A counterexample to a definition can reveal a missing condition, an ambiguity or a mistaken assumption about what the concept includes. Compare two possible repairs and ask whether the same objection returns. This turns a memorized example into an evaluation of how well the revised account explains the cases it was meant to cover.

Make the final verdict match the evidence

Before writing the conclusion, note the strongest objection you considered and the most plausible reply. Give each a sentence that states the reason it has force. Then explain why one carries more weight on the exact question. A narrow verdict might say that a particular objection undermines one version of a theory because a proposed reply depends on a premise the theory cannot defend.

Practise this method on the problem of evil or a debate about the mind. Start by choosing the specific argument you will assess. Keep the meanings of key terms stable while considering the response. If you use a second sense of possibility, duty or explanation, tell the reader where the meaning changes. Finish by checking that your final judgement answers the question you began with. A concise conclusion can do this by naming the decisive premise and saying what the debate established about it.

Top 200 Vocabulary Word List for AQA A Level Philosophy (7172) | Essay Writing