📚 Mastering Case Studies in WJEC Year 10 Philosophy: A Practical Guide | WJEC Year 10 哲学：案例分析实战演练
In the WJEC Year 10 Philosophy syllabus, the ability to analyse case studies is not just a skill—it is the core of how you demonstrate philosophical understanding. Whether you are wrestling with ethical dilemmas, arguments for God’s existence, or questions about knowledge, you will be asked to break down complex scenarios, identify arguments, and evaluate them logically. This guide gives you a step-by-step framework and plenty of practice so you can tackle any philosophical case study with confidence.
在 WJEC Year 10 哲學課程中，分析案例的能力不只是一項技能，更是你展現哲學理解的核心方式。無論你是處理倫理兩難、上帝存在的論證，還是關於知識的問題，你都將被要求拆解複雜的情境、辨識論證，並以邏輯方式加以評估。這份指南提供了一套逐步實戰框架與大量練習，讓你能夠自信地應對任何哲學案例研究。
1. Understanding Philosophical Case Studies | 理解哲學案例分析
A philosophical case study is a carefully constructed scenario that raises a specific philosophical question. Unlike a story, its purpose is not to entertain but to force you to think about concepts such as right and wrong, truth, knowledge, or God. Recognising the type of question—ethical, epistemological, metaphysical—is your first analytical move.
哲學案例研究是一個精心建構的情境，它提出一個特定的哲學問題。與故事不同，它的目的不是娛樂，而是迫使你思考對錯、真理、知識或上帝等概念。辨識問題的類型——倫理學的、認識論的、形而上學的——是你分析的第一步。
In WJEC exams, case studies often appear as short passages describing a dilemma or an argument. Your job is to unpack what is being argued, not simply to describe the scenario. This means looking past the surface and asking: 'What is the philosophical problem here?'
在 WJEC 考試中，案例研究通常以描述兩難或論證的短文出現。你的任務是拆解正在被論證的內容，而不僅僅是描述情境。這意味著穿過表面現象，問自己：「這裡的哲學問題是甚麼？」
2. Step-by-Step Analysis Framework | 分步分析框架
Follow these five steps every time you encounter a case study. This methodical approach will keep your thinking organised and ensure you hit all assessment objectives.
每當你遇到一個案例研究時，請遵循以下五個步驟。這種有條理的方法將使你的思維保持組織，並確保你達成所有評分目標。
Step 1: Read and highlight the central question. Step 2: Extract the argument—identify the conclusion and the premises that support it. Step 3: Examine the logic: does the conclusion follow from the premises? Step 4: Search for hidden assumptions—unstated beliefs that must be true for the argument to hold. Step 5: Construct a balanced evaluation, including possible counter-arguments and your own justified judgement.
步驟一：閱讀並標示核心問題。步驟二：提取論證——找出結論及支持它的前提。步驟三：檢視邏輯：結論是否能從前提中推導出來？步驟四：搜尋隱含假設——論證成立必須為真的未明說信念。步驟五：建立一個平衡的評估，包括可能的反駁與你有理據的判斷。
Avoid jumping to a personal opinion too early. In philosophy, 'I feel' is not evidence; 'I think because' supported by reasoning and references to philosophical theories is what earns marks.
避免過早跳到個人意見。在哲學中，「我覺得」不是證據；「我認為是因為」並配合推理與哲學理論的引用，才是得分關鍵。
3. Identifying Key Arguments | 識別關鍵論證
Arguments consist of reasons (premises) given to support a main claim (conclusion). In Year 10 philosophy, you need to be able to locate these quickly. Signal words such as 'therefore', 'because', 'so', 'it follows that' can help you distinguish premises from conclusions.
論證由用於支持主要主張（結論）的理由（前提）組成。在 Year 10 哲學中，你需要能夠快速定位它們。「因此」、「因為」、「所以」、「由此可見」等信號詞可以幫助你區分前提與結論。
Consider this case: 'Euthanasia is morally wrong because life is sacred and only God can give or take it away.' The conclusion is 'Euthanasia is morally wrong'. The premises are 'life is sacred' and 'only God can give or take life away'. By restructuring the argument into a standard form, you make it easier to evaluate.
思考這個案例：「安樂死在道德上是錯誤的，因為生命是神聖的，只有上帝才能給予或取走生命。」結論是「安樂死在道德上是錯誤的」。前提是「生命是神聖的」以及「只有上帝才能給予或取走生命」。透過將論證重組為標準形式，你可以更容易地進行評估。
4. Evaluating Premises and Conclusions | 評估前提與結論
Once the argument is laid out, you must test both its truth and its validity. A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. But validity alone is not enough—the premises must also be true for the argument to be sound.
一旦論證被陳列出來，你必須測試其真實性與有效性。有效的論證是指結論能從前提中邏輯地推導出來。但單有有效性並不足夠——前提還必須是真實的，該論證才是健全的。
Using the euthanasia example: Is it true that life is sacred? Who defines sacred? Is it a religious claim or a universal one? Could it be that life is valuable but not in a way that rules out euthanasia? These are the critical questions you should raise. Always probe the strengths and weaknesses of each premise before reaching a conclusion.
使用安樂死的例子：「生命是神聖的」是真的嗎？誰來定義神聖？這是一個宗教宣稱還是普遍的宣稱？有沒有可能生命是有價值的，但並不完全排除安樂死？這些都是你應該提出的批判性問題。在得出結論之前，務必探究每個前提的優點與弱點。
5. Recognizing Assumptions | 識別隱含假設
Many philosophical arguments rely on assumptions that are not explicitly stated. These unspoken beliefs often carry the real weight of the argument. Identifying them is a high-level skill that will set your analysis apart.
許多哲學論證依賴於未明說的假設。這些隱而未宣的信念往往承載了論證的真正份量。辨識它們是一項高階技能，能讓你的分析脫穎而出。
For instance, in the claim 'The brain is like a computer, so our thoughts are just physical processes', the hidden assumption is that all complex systems can be fully explained by their physical components. This is a materialist assumption that many dualists would reject. Pointing this out shows the examiner you can see beneath the surface.
例如，在「大腦就像一部電腦，所以我們的思想只是物理過程」這個主張中，隱含的假設是「所有複雜系統都可以完全由其物理組成部分來解釋」。這是一個唯物主義的假設，許多二元論者會反對。指出這一點可以向考官展示你能夠看到表象之下。
6. Spotting Logical Fallacies | 發現邏輯謬誤
Philosophical case studies often contain flawed reasoning. The ability to name and explain a fallacy—such as begging the question, attacking the person, or false dilemma—demonstrates precise analytical skill.
哲學案例研究經常包含有缺陷的推理。能夠指出並解釋一個謬誤——例如乞題、人身攻擊或假兩難——展現了精確的分析能力。
Here are common fallacies you should watch for:
| Fallacy | Meaning | Quick Example |
|---|---|---|
| Ad Hominem | Attacking the person, not the argument. | 'You're too young to understand morality.' |
| Straw Man | Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. | 'You want to reduce crime, so you think we should just open all the prisons.' |
| False Dilemma | Presenting only two options when more exist. | 'Either you believe in God or you have no morals.' |
| Begging the Question | The conclusion is assumed in the premises. | 'The Bible is true because God wrote it, and we know God exists because the Bible says so.' |
When you spot a fallacy, explain why it weakens the argument rather than just labelling it. For instance, a false dilemma oversimplifies a complex issue, forcing a choice that ignores realistic middle-ground positions.
當你發現一個謬誤時，要解釋為何它會削弱論證，而不只是貼標籤。例如，假兩難過度簡化了複雜的議題，強迫做出一個忽略了現實中間立場的選擇。
7. Applying Ethical Theories in Cases | 在案例中應用倫理理論
Ethical case studies form a large part of the WJEC syllabus. You will meet scenarios about lying, stealing, euthanasia, animal rights, and more. Your analysis needs to show how different ethical theories would approach the same situation.
倫理案例研究構成了 WJEC 課綱的一大部分。你會遇到關於說謊、偷竊、安樂死、動物權利等情境。你的分析需要展示不同的倫理理論如何處理同一個情境。
Consider a case where a friend asks if you like her new haircut, which you actually find unflattering. A utilitarian would weigh the consequences: telling the truth might hurt her feelings and achieve no overall good, while a kind lie might maximise happiness. A Kantian would focus on the duty to tell the truth regardless of consequences, because lying cannot be universalised. A virtue ethicist would ask what an honest but compassionate person would do. Using these theories to structure your evaluation makes your answer philosophically rich.
思考一個案例：一位朋友問你是否喜歡她的新髮型，而你實際上覺得不好看。效益主義者會權衡後果：說真話可能傷害她的感受而得不到整體好處，而善意的謊言可能最大化快樂。康德主義者會著重於無論後果如何都有說真話的義務，因為說謊無法被普遍化。德性倫理學者則會問一個誠實但富有同情心的人會怎麼做。運用這些理論來建構你的評估，能使你的答案在哲學上更加豐富。
8. Analysing Arguments for God’s Existence | 分析上帝存在的論證
In the philosophy of religion section, you will encounter classic arguments such as the Design Argument and the First Cause Argument. When these are presented as case studies, your task is identical: extract the logic and test it.
在宗教哲學的單元中，你會遇到經典的論證，例如設計論證和第一因論證。當這些論證以案例研究形式出現時，你的任務是一樣的：提取邏輯並加以檢驗。
For example, a simplified Design Argument might read: 'The universe is like a watch: complex and ordered. A watch needs a watchmaker, so the universe must have a designer—God.' To analyse this, identify the analogy as the key premise. Then question whether the analogy holds: is the universe genuinely similar to a human artefact? What about natural explanations like evolution? Could there be multiple designers? Challenging the strength of the analogy is central to a strong evaluation.
例如，一個簡化的設計論證可能這樣寫：「宇宙就像一只錶：複雜而有序。錶需要製錶師，所以宇宙必定有一位設計者——上帝。」要分析這個論證，就要辨識出類比是關鍵前提。然後質疑這個類比是否成立：宇宙真的與人造物品相似嗎？像演化這樣自然解釋又如何？可能有許多位設計者嗎？挑戰類比的強度是強力評估的核心。
9. Knowledge and Justification Cases | 知識與辯護案例
Epistemology cases often involve the classic tripartite definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB), plus Gettier-style counterexamples. In Year 10, you might be given a short scenario where someone has a true belief that is justified but still doesn't seem to be knowledge.
認識論的案例經常涉及知識的經典三要素定義——被證成的真信念（JTB），以及蓋梯爾式的反例。在 Year 10，你可能會拿到一個簡短情境，其中某人有一個被證成的真信念，但似乎還是不算是知識。
Imagine this case: Lucy looks at a clock showing 3:00 and forms the belief that it is 3:00. Unknown to her, the clock stopped exactly 12 hours ago, so it is in fact 3:00. Lucy's belief is true and justified (clocks are normally reliable), but does she know it is 3:00? Most philosophers say no, because her justification is based on a faulty mechanism. Your analysis should explain why this challenges the JTB definition and why a proper connection between justification and truth matters.
想像這個案例：露西看著一個顯示 3:00 的時鐘，形成了現在是 3:00 的信念。她不知道的是，時鐘恰好在 12 小時前停了，所以現在確實是 3:00。露西的信念是真實且被證成的（時鐘通常可靠），但她是否知道現在是 3:00？大多數哲學家說不，因為她的證成基於一個有缺陷的機制。你的分析應該解釋為何這挑戰了 JTB 定義，以及為何證成與真實之間的正確連結很重要。
10. Practice Makes Perfect: Putting It Together | 熟能生巧：綜合演練
Let's work through a final extended case to pull all the skills together. Read the scenario carefully:
讓我們透過一個最終的延伸案例來整合所有技能。仔細閱讀情境：
'A scientist claims: “Since all physical events have physical causes, and mental events like decisions are just brain events, everything you do is determined by prior physical states. Therefore, free will is an illusion and moral responsibility does not exist.”'
「一位科學家主張：『既然所有物理事件都有物理原因，而像決定這樣的心靈事件只是大腦事件，你所做的每件事都是由先前的物理狀態決定的。因此，自由意志是一種幻覺，道德責任並不存在。』」
Extract the argument: Premise 1: All physical events have physical causes. Premise 2: Mental events are just physical brain events. Conclusion 1: All actions are determined by prior physical states. Conclusion 2: Free will is an illusion and moral responsibility does not exist. Now evaluate. Is Premise 2 true? Many dualists would argue mental events have non-physical properties. Does the chain of physical causes eliminate moral responsibility, or is compatibilism possible? How might a Kantian or a utilitarian respond to the claim that responsibility disappears? Your evaluation should weigh both sides before giving your own reasoned conclusion.
提取論證：前提一：所有物理事件都有物理原因。前提二：心靈事件只是物理的大腦事件。結論一：所有行動都由先前的物理狀態決定。結論二：自由意志是幻覺，道德責任不存在。現在進行評估。前提二為真嗎？許多二元論者會主張心靈事件具有非物理屬性。物理原因的鎖鏈是否消除了道德責任，還是相容論是可能的？康德主義者或效益主義者會如何回應責任消失的主張？你的評估應該在給出自己有理由的結論之前，衡量雙方觀點。
By systematically applying the framework, you show you can think like a philosopher. That is exactly what the WJEC examiners are looking for.
透過有系統地應用這個框架，你展現了自己能像哲學家一樣思考。這正是 WJEC 考官所尋找的。
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