📚 Year 12 CCEA Philosophy: Case Study Practice Drills | Year 12 CCEA 哲学：案例分析实战演练
In CCEA Year 12 Philosophy, case study questions challenge you to apply abstract theories to concrete scenarios rather than simply recall textbook definitions. This article provides practical drills, step-by-step strategies, worked examples and self-marking tools to sharpen your analytical skills and raise your examination performance.
在 CCEA Year 12 哲学考试中，案例分析题要求你把抽象理论运用到具体情境，而不是简单复述教材定义。本文提供实战练习、分步策略、范例分析与自评工具，帮助你提升分析能力，在考试中取得更好成绩。
Every drill below follows the same logic: read the case precisely, name the philosophical concept, map the theory onto the details, then evaluate with balance. Used regularly, these routines turn a vague "discuss" answer into a tightly structured argument that examiners can reward.
以下每个练习都遵循同一逻辑：精确阅读案例、点明哲学概念、把理论映射到细节、再做平衡的评价。坚持使用这套流程，你原本含糊的"讨论式"答案就会变成结构严谨、便于考官给分的论证。
1. Deconstructing the CCEA Case Study Question | 拆解 CCEA 案例分析题
CCEA Philosophy case study questions usually present a short narrative, such as a moral dilemma or a puzzling knowledge claim, followed by specific instructions. Typically you are asked to explain, apply a theory, evaluate reasoning, or compare two philosophical viewpoints.
CCEA 哲学案例分析题通常给出一段短篇叙述，比如道德困境或令人困惑的知识主张，然后提出具体要求。通常要求你解释、运用某个理论、评估推理，或者比较两个哲学观点。
Start by reading the case twice: first to grasp the situation, second to highlight any explicit philosophical terms or implicit assumptions. Underline action words such as "explain", "evaluate" or "to what extent" - they indicate the skill requirements, not just the topic.
先把案例读两遍：第一遍了解情境，第二遍标出任何明确的哲学术语或隐含假设。划出 "解释""评估""在多大程度上" 等指令词，它们指明的是技能要求，而不只是话题。
Next, break down the marks allocated. A 15-mark question usually demands a brief explanation (AO1), a sustained application (AO2) and a critical evaluation (AO2). Use this structure to plan your time rather than writing everything you know about the theory.
接着拆解分值分配。一道 15 分的题目通常要求简要说明（AO1）、持续的应用（AO2）和批判性评价（AO2）。请按这个结构规划时间，而不是把你知道的理论内容全部写上去。
| Instruction / 指令词 | Skill required / 所需技能 | Suggested time (15 marks) / 建议用时 |
| Explain / 解释 | Accurate AO1 definition and conditions / 准确的 AO1 定义与条件 | 4 minutes |
| Apply / 运用 | Link theory conditions to case details / 把理论条件与案例细节对接 | 8 minutes |
| Evaluate / 评估 | Weigh strengths, limits and alternatives / 权衡优点、局限与替代方案 | 6 minutes |
| To what extent / 在多大程度上 | Reach a justified overall judgement / 得出有依据的整体判断 | 2 minutes |
2. Spotting Key Philosophical Concepts | 识别关键哲学概念
Every case is built around a core conceptual puzzle. In ethics, look for terms like "greatest happiness", "duty" or "virtue". In epistemology, watch for "justified", "true", "belief" or "Gettier". In philosophy of religion, be alert to "omnipotence", "evil", "free will" or "soul-making".
每个案例都围绕一个核心概念难题构建。在伦理学中，留意 "最大幸福""义务""美德" 等术语；在认识论中，注意 "得到辩护的""真的""信念""Gettier"；在宗教哲学中，警惕 "全能""恶""自由意志""灵魂塑造"。
The concept you name should come directly from the wording of the case, not from your general revision notes. If the scenario mentions a nurse who lies to protect a patient, the concept is not simply "lying" but "the absolutist prohibition on lying" or "the conflict between beneficence and truth-telling".
你点明的概念应直接来自案例措辞，而不是泛泛的复习笔记。如果情境提到一位护士为保护病人而说谎，概念就不是简单地说谎，而是 "对说谎的绝对主义禁令" 或 "行善与说真话之间的冲突"。
A quick filter helps: ask whether the case tests a definition, a criterion, or a conflict. Definitions ask what a term means; criteria ask what must be true for something to count; conflicts ask which value wins when two principles collide. Naming this level prevents drifting into narration.
一个快速筛选有用：判断案例考的是定义、标准，还是冲突。定义问某术语是什么意思；标准问某事物成立必须满足什么；冲突问当两条原则相撞时哪一方胜出。点明这一层次可避免写成流水账。
3. Building a Theory Toolkit for AO1 | 建立理论工具箱（AO1）
Strong answers compress theory into a usable toolkit: a one-sentence definition, the conditions that must be met, and the name of a key scholar. Save the long historical background for essays that explicitly ask for it.
高分答案会把理论压缩成可用的工具箱：一句话定义、必须满足的条件、再加一位关键学者的名字。长篇的历史背景留给明确要求介绍理论由来的题目。
For example, act utilitarianism may be summarised as "an action is right if and only if it produces the greatest net happiness for the greatest number", with conditions of consequentiality, impartiality and maximisation. Kantian deontology becomes "act only on maxims you could will as universal law", with conditions of universalisability and respect for persons.
例如，行为功利主义可概括为 "当且仅当一个行为为最大多数人带来最大净幸福时，它才是正当的"，其条件包括后果导向、不偏不倚与最大化。康德义务论则是 "只按你能同时意愿其成为普遍法则的准则行动"，条件包括可普遍化与尊重人格。
Virtue ethics shifts the focus from acts to agents: "an action is right if it is what a virtuous person would characteristically do in the circumstances", with the doctrine of the mean and practical wisdom as criteria. Write these toolkits on one revision card each.
美德伦理学把焦点从行为转向行动者："如果一个行为是有德者在类似情境中通常会做的，它就是正当的"，其标准是中道学说与实践智慧。请把每个工具箱写在一张复习卡上。
4. Mapping the Case onto the Theory (AO2 Application) | 把案例映射到理论（AO2 应用）
Application marks come from matching each condition of the theory to a specific detail of the case. Use connective language such as "because", "in this case", "this means that" and "therefore the criterion is satisfied" to make the link visible to the examiner.
应用分来自把理论的每一项条件与案例的具体细节逐一对接。使用 "因为""在本案例中""这意味着""因此该标准得到满足" 等连接语，让考官清楚看到这条关联。
The condition-matching method works in three moves. First, state the condition. Second, quote or paraphrase the relevant fact. Third, state the verdict that follows. Repeat for each condition, then note any condition the case fails to satisfy.
条件匹配法分三步：先陈述条件，再引用或转述相关事实，最后说出由此得出的判断。对每项条件重复这三步，然后指出案例未满足的条件。
A useful self-check is the counterfactual test: if one detail of the case were changed, would the theory's verdict change? If not, you may be describing the theory rather than applying it to this particular situation.
一个有用的自检是反事实检验：如果改变案例中的某个细节，理论判断会随之改变吗？如果不会，你可能是在描述理论，而不是把它应用到这一具体情境。
5. Evaluation That Actually Earns Marks | 真正能得分的评价
Evaluation is not the same as disagreement. A weak answer says "this theory is flawed" and stops. A strong answer identifies the type of criticism, explains why it bites against this case, and then weighs its force.
评价不等于表示反对。弱答案只说 "这个理论有缺陷" 就停笔；强答案会说明批评的类型、解释它为何在此案例中奏效，再权衡其力度。
Internal criticism shows the theory conflicts with its own principles or with an intuition the theory itself accepts. External criticism brings a rival theory, such as virtue ethics challenging utilitarianism for ignoring character. Both are legitimate, but they must be aimed at the case.
内部批评指出理论与其自身原则或其所接受直觉相冲突；外部批评引入竞争理论，例如美德伦理学批评功利主义忽视品格。两者都成立，但都必须针对本案例开火。
Finish with a weighing sentence: "Although this objection is serious, it is not decisive here because the case involves a one-off decision where consequences are predictable." Judgements like this turn description into argument.
最后加一句权衡："尽管这一反驳很严肃，但在此并不具有决定性，因为本案例涉及的是一次性决策，且后果是可预测的。" 这样的判断能把描述变成论证。
6. Paragraph Templates and Timing | 段落模板与时间管理
Use a five-move paragraph: claim, definition, case application, evaluation, mini-conclusion. Each move can be one or two sentences, which keeps the argument visible without padding.
使用五步段落：主张、定义、案例应用、评价、小结。每一步一到两句即可，既让论证清晰，也避免注水。
For a 15-mark question, allocate roughly four minutes to AO1, eight to application and six to evaluation, leaving two minutes for planning and checking. Write the plan as bullet points in the margin, not as full sentences.
15 分题大致分配为：AO1 四分钟、应用八分钟、评价六分钟，另留两分钟规划与检查。把提纲以要点形式写在页边，不要写成完整句子。
Your final paragraph must answer the stem directly. If the question asks "to what extent", state the extent: "largely", "only partially", or "not at all" - and give the reason in the same sentence.
最后一段必须直接回扣题干。若题目问 "在多大程度上"，就明确给出程度："很大程度上""仅部分""完全不能"，并在同一句中给出理由。
7. Deploying Scholars and Quotations | 学者与引语的运用
Named scholars add precision, but only when the name does real work. Mill supports maximisation, Kant supports universalisability, Aristotle supports the mean, Hume raises the is-ought gap, Gettier attacks the justified-true-belief analysis.
点名学者能提高精确度，但前提是这个名字真正起作用。密尔支持最大化，康德支持可普遍化，亚里士多德支持中道，休谟提出实然与应然的鸿沟，Gettier 攻击"得到辩护的真信念"这一分析。
In philosophy of religion, Mackie presses the logical problem of evil, Plantinga offers the free-will defence, Hick develops soul-making theodicy and Augustine appeals to the fall and privation of good.
在宗教哲学中，Mackie 推进恶的逻辑问题，Plantinga 提出自由意志辩护，Hick 发展灵魂塑造神正论，奥古斯丁诉诸堕落与善的缺失。
Accuracy matters more than quantity. One correctly attributed and correctly used scholar outweighs five names dropped without explanation. If you cannot recall the exact wording of a quotation, paraphrase it and attribute the idea.
准确比数量更重要。一位归属正确、使用得当的学者，胜过五个不加解释的名字。若记不住引语原文，就转述其观点并注明归属。
8. Worked Drill A: The Moral Dilemma | 实战演练 A：道德困境
Case: A doctor has one dose of a vaccine and two patients. One is a young parent of three; the other is an elderly retired surgeon who still trains medical students. The doctor must decide who receives it. Explain and evaluate how act utilitarianism would resolve this case.
案例：一位医生只有一剂疫苗，却有两名病人。一位是育有三个孩子的年轻家长，另一位是仍在培养医学生的年迈退休外科医生。医生必须决定给谁。请解释并评估行为功利主义会如何处理这一案例。
Step one, state the condition: act utilitarianism requires maximising net happiness, treating each person's happiness as equally important. Step two, apply: estimate the consequences of each choice, noting that the parent's survival may affect three dependants while the surgeon's survival may benefit future patients.
第一步，陈述条件：行为功利主义要求最大化净幸福，并把每个人的幸福视为同等重要。第二步，应用：估算两种选择的后果，注意年轻家长的存活可能影响三个受抚养者，而外科医生的存活可能惠及未来的病人。
Step three, evaluate: the calculation depends on contestable predictions, and the theory may permit sacrificing the elderly simply because their projected contribution is lower. Ask whether this conflicts with the intuition that all lives have equal basic worth.
第三步，评价：这一计算依赖有争议的预测，而且该理论可能仅因老人预期贡献较低就允许牺牲他们。此时可追问：这是否与"所有生命具有同等基本价值"的直觉相冲突？
Step four, conclude: "Act utilitarianism offers a clear procedure here, but its verdict is only as reliable as the predictions it uses, so it can guide the decision without fully justifying it."
第四步，结论："行为功利主义在此提供了明确程序，但其结论的可靠性取决于所用预测，因此它能指导决策，却无法完全证成该决策。"
9. Worked Drill B: A Gettier-Style Knowledge Claim | 实战演练 B：Gettier 式知识主张
Case: Amara looks at a stopped clock that happens to show the correct time. She forms the belief that it is 3 p.m., which is true and which she is justified in holding on the basis of what she sees. Does she know that it is 3 p.m.?
案例：Amara 看了一眼停摆的钟，钟面恰好显示正确时间。她因此相信现在是下午三点，这个信念是真的，而且基于她所见，她有理由持有它。那么她知道现在是下午三点吗？
The standard analysis states that knowledge requires a justified true belief, and Gettier cases are designed to show this is insufficient. The classic formula runs: belief + truth + justification does not guarantee knowledge.
标准分析认为知识需要得到辩护的真信念，而 Gettier 案例正是要表明这并不充分。经典表述是：信念 + 真 + 辩护并不保证知识。
JTB ≠ knowledge when the justification depends on a false lemma
Apply the terms: the belief is true, it is justified by perceptual evidence, but the justification rests on the false assumption that the clock is working. The truth of the belief is therefore accidental relative to the evidence.
逐个套用术语：信念为真，也由知觉证据得到辩护，但该辩护依赖 "钟在走" 这一错误假设。因此相对于证据而言，信念为真是偶然的。
Evaluate: one response is to add a no-false-lemma condition; another is to require that the belief be caused by a reliable process, as in reliabilism. Weigh which response handles this case more economically and whether it creates new counterexamples.
评价：一种回应是增加 "无错误引理" 条件；另一种是要求信念由可靠过程产生，即可靠主义。权衡哪种回应更简洁地处理本案例，以及它是否制造新的反例。
10. Worked Drill C: The Problem of Evil | 实战演练 C：恶的问题
Case: A hospital chaplain comforts a family after a child dies from a rare illness. The parents ask how an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God could permit this. Explain and evaluate one response to this challenge.
案例：一位医院牧师在患儿因罕见疾病去世后安抚家属。父母问：一位全能、全知、全善的上帝怎么能允许这种事发生？请解释并评估对这一挑战的一种回应。
Mackie's logical problem claims that omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and evil cannot all exist together. The free-will defence replies that genuine free will requires the possibility of moral evil, while soul-making theodicy argues that suffering can be instrumentally valuable for character development.
Mackie 的逻辑问题主张：全能、全知、全善与恶不可能同时存在。自由意志辩护回应说，真正的自由意志要求道德恶的可能性；灵魂塑造神正论则主张苦难对品格成长具有工具性价值。
Apply to the case: the child's illness is apparently natural rather than moral evil, which weakens the free-will defence unless one accepts a broader causal chain. Soul-making may speak to the parents' endurance, but it risks instrumentalising the child's suffering.
套用到案例：孩子的疾病显然是自然恶而非道德恶，这削弱了自由意志辩护，除非接受更宽泛的因果链。灵魂塑造或许能解释父母的忍耐，却有可能把孩子的苦难工具化。
Evaluate: the logical problem depends on whether the theist must accept a definition of omnipotence that rules out self-limitation. If omnipotence means "able to do all logically possible things", the contradiction may not follow, and the debate shifts to the evidential problem.
评价：逻辑问题取决于有神论者是否必须接受一种排除自我限制的全能定义。若全能指 "能做一切逻辑上可能之事"，矛盾未必成立，争论便转向证据性的恶的问题。
11. Common Mark-Losing Habits and a Self-Marking Checklist | 常见失分习惯与自评清单
The most frequent loss is narration: retelling the story instead of analysing it. The second is assertion without support, such as "Kant would disagree" with no reason given. The third is undirected evaluation that criticises a general theory without tying the criticism to the case.
最常见的失分是讲故事：复述情境而不加分析。其次是缺乏支撑的断言，例如只说 "康德会反对" 却不给理由。第三是无定向评价，泛泛批评理论，却不把批评与案例挂钩。
Other losses include ignoring the specific instruction word, misattributing a scholar, using technical terms inaccurately, and running out of time before writing a conclusion that answers the stem.
其他失分点还包括忽视具体指令词、学者归属错误、术语使用不准确，以及时间不足、未写出回扣题干的结论。
After each timed practice, mark your own answer against these checks: Did I name the concept in the first two sentences? Did I apply at least two conditions to two details? Did I offer one internal and one external criticism? Did I weigh the objection? Did I answer the question directly?
每次限时练习后，用以下清单自评：我是否在前两句点明概念？我是否至少把两项条件应用到两处细节？我是否给出一个内部批评和一个外部批评？我是否权衡了反驳？我是否直接回答了问题？
- Concept named within the first two sentences / 前两句内点明概念
- Two conditions mapped to two case details / 两项条件对应两处案例细节
- One internal and one external criticism / 一个内部批评与一个外部批评
- Explicit weighing sentence / 明确的权衡句
- Conclusion answers the stem word for word / 结论逐字回扣题干
Run one drill per week, rotating ethics, epistemology and philosophy of religion, then rewrite the weakest paragraph from memory. This four-week cycle builds both speed and precision, which is exactly what CCEA case study questions reward.
每周做一个练习，在伦理学、认识论与宗教哲学之间轮换，然后凭记忆重写最弱的那一段。四周循环下来，速度与精确度都会提高，而这正是 CCEA 案例分析题所看重的能力。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图