Evaluating Good and Evil and Exam Skills
Why Evaluation Matters
The highest-mark questions in your GCSE Religious Studies exam ask you to evaluate a statement — to weigh different religious and non-religious views against each other and reach a reasoned conclusion. These questions are where most marks are gained or lost. Many students know the relevant beliefs and teachings but lose marks because they describe views without weighing them, or list points without a genuine evaluation. This lesson teaches you how to construct high-quality evaluation answers on the Good and Evil theme.
Your exam tests two skills: AO1 — Knowledge and Understanding (demonstrating what religious traditions teach) and AO2 — Analysis and Evaluation (weighing arguments and reaching a reasoned conclusion). The short questions on each theme carry the AO1 marks. The 15-mark evaluation question carries the AO2 marks, and your spelling, punctuation and grammar are credited on this paper as well. You need both skills to score well.
The Structure of a Strong Evaluation Answer
A strong evaluation answer on a Good and Evil question follows a clear pattern:
1. Agree paragraph: State arguments that support the statement. Use at least one named religious source of authority. Explain what the source teaches and why it supports the view — do not just name it. For example, if the question is about capital punishment, you might explain that the Catholic Catechism (2266–2267) states the death penalty is inadmissible because it offends human dignity, then develop this by explaining the Catholic teaching on the sacredness of every human life.
2. Disagree paragraph: State arguments that challenge the statement. Again, use named sources. A contrasting view might draw on Islamic teaching about divine justice (‘adl), or on the Sikh concept of the five evils. Include a non-religious viewpoint (Humanist or secular) — this is often required in the question rubric.
3. Conclusion: Reach a clear, justified personal conclusion. State which view you find most convincing and explain specifically why. A conclusion that says “both views are valid” without taking any position will not gain the top marks. The conclusion should connect back to the arguments you have made.
These are the problems that most often cost students marks in evaluation answers. Avoiding them will raise your grade:
- Bullet points: Never use bullet points in extended evaluation answers. They prevent you from developing your argument and are seen as a sign of listing rather than analysing.
- Answering the question you wished was set: Read the statement carefully. If it says “reformation is the most important aim of punishment,” your answer must engage with this specific claim — not give a general account of punishment.
- Naming a source without using it: Simply writing “Genesis teaches about the Fall” gains nothing. You must explain what Genesis 3 teaches about the origin of evil and why that supports or challenges the statement.
- One-sided argument: Even if you personally agree strongly with one view, the question tells you to consider more than one point of view. A one-sided response cannot reach the top band, however good the content.
Using Sources of Authority Effectively
A source of authority in Religious Studies is any text, tradition or teaching that a religious community treats as carrying weight — the Bible, Qur’an, Guru Granth Sahib, Talmud, Catechism, Dhammapada and so on. Aim to use them at three levels:
Emerging — Mention: “Christians believe in forgiveness.” (Gains little.)
Secure — Reference: “The Lord’s Prayer teaches that forgiveness must be given in order to receive it.” (Better — specific content.)
Mastering — Interpret: “Matthew 18:21–22 records Jesus teaching that forgiveness should be given seventy times seven, meaning without limit. This challenges the idea that there is a moral threshold beyond which forgiveness is no longer required, suggesting that for Christians the duty to forgive is unconditional.” (Full marks territory.)
The three-step approach to using sources: name it (Matthew 18:21–22), explain it (seventy times seven means forgiveness without limit), link it (this shows Christians see forgiveness as unconditional). Missing any step limits your mark.
Including Non-Religious Perspectives
Many evaluation questions require or reward a non-religious perspective. Humanists approach Good and Evil empirically: suffering is caused by natural and social forces, and the response should be compassionate practical action rather than theological explanation. Richard Dawkins represents a secular view that the problem of evil is evidence against a good God. On capital punishment, Humanists oppose it on grounds of irreversibility and weak deterrence evidence. On forgiveness, Humanists value it for its psychological and social benefits rather than as a divine command. Including this perspective — and explaining why some people find it more or less convincing — strengthens your evaluation significantly.
Sample question: “Capital punishment should never be used.”
Agree paragraph (strong): Many religious traditions support this view. Catholic teaching, as expressed in the Catechism (CCC 2266–2267), holds that the death penalty is “inadmissible” because it violates the inherent dignity of the human person. This is grounded in the Christian belief that all humans are made in the image of God (imago Dei). Similarly, Buddhism opposes capital punishment because the first of the Five Precepts prohibits the taking of life, and karuna (compassion) demands a merciful response even towards those who have done wrong. Humanists oppose it because execution is irreversible and miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected.
Disagree paragraph (balanced): Some traditions, however, acknowledge that states may need to protect society. Islamic jurisprudence recognises the death penalty for certain offences under very strict conditions of evidence and due process, grounded in the Qur’an’s emphasis on justice (‘adl). The Hebrew Bible (Exodus 20:13) is interpreted differently by different Jewish scholars — some argue it prohibits only unlawful killing, not state execution. These traditions would argue that justice sometimes demands proportionate consequences for the most serious crimes.
Conclusion: On balance, I find the arguments against capital punishment more persuasive because the irreversibility of execution means any judicial error is uncorrectable — a point that crosses both religious and secular reasoning. The emphasis most traditions place on human dignity and the possibility of reformation supports a system where even those who commit the worst crimes retain the possibility of change.
Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar
The extended evaluation question carries a small additional mark weighting for the quality of your writing. To protect these marks: write in full sentences, check your spelling of key religious terms (theodicy, conscientious, Dhammapada, teshuvah, ahankar), and structure your answer in clear paragraphs rather than bullet points. Good writing also makes your argument clearer and more persuasive.