Still waiting for my tma 03 mark.
I am already 75% through book 4 already. I have already started the tma 4.
I have also downloaded the last 6 years of exam questions and put them into a matrix to inform my revision.
I have a question for simon reed. In your comment to the blog post below, you mentioned last years a222, book 3 tma question, which was different to this years book 3 tma question.
Do you remember all of the tma questions from a222 october 2017 to june 2017.
I would be really keen to know, i could put that info into my matrix to see the relationship between tma and exam questions... that would help my revision program greatly.
Be very wary of trying to predict exam questions. They may, or may not, differ from the TMA questions. Exam-setters work very hard to make the questions unpredictable. I know this from my father having been an examiner and exam writer. He said that as soon as they had any hint the tutors were noticing any trends or patterns in how the questions were set, they would go out of their way to undermine their theories, even setting some questions effectively the same as the previous year to catch out those that did not revise last year's subjects on purpose.
This was reinforced by the final A222 open day I went to with two superb tutors in Scotland. They said much the same thing: the OU works hard to make exam questions unpredictable.
You must assume anything could could come up in the exam.
Is there anything that makes you the same person over time?
Is any version of the argument from design convincing?
What are the difficulties facing ‘act utilitarianism’ that ‘rule utilitarianism’ is meant to avoid? Does it manage to do so without generating insuperable difficulties of its own?
Can induction be rationally justified?
Can functionalism cope with the most serious objection it faces?
“Distributions don’t need to be equal to be just.” Discuss.
It says something that I can (and do) bore people about what was in T101, DD101, TM129, U122, DD210, A327 and my current DD301, yet I can't even tell you what some of those A222 TMA questions even mean.
TMA01 - Is there anything that makes you the same person over time?
Answer: what the module says disagrees with sociology, psychology, technology, experience and reality.
TMA02 - Is any version of the argument from design convincing?
Answer: No. And it's not worth discussing.
TMA03 - What are the difficulties facing ‘act utilitarianism’ that ‘rule utilitarianism’ is meant to avoid? Does it manage to do so without generating insuperable difficulties of its own?
Answer: Can't remember. It depends. And people don't act like that anyway. And that's not how society works. Irrelevant tosh. And stop calling railway points 'switches'.
TMA04 - Can induction be rationally justified?
Answer: I'm bleeding from the ears. FML that I had to read this tedious crap.
TMA05 - Can functionalism cope with the most serious objection it faces?
Answer: I have no idea what that means. God only knows how I got 52%. I must have copy 'n' pasted bits from the text book.
TMA06 - “Distributions don’t need to be equal to be just.” Discuss.
Answer: grow up and stop being silly.
Thank you Simon. That is very helpful.
I am not trying to work out potential questions, i am just trying to work out the spread and work out what 3 books are best and most efficient to revise. The is no way i will go near book 3, six philosophies across 4 chapters. The tma rules out 2 from one chapter, leaving 4 philosophers across 3 chapters. Thats bad odds.
I am just trying to make my revision efficient, the revision period is only 2 and a half weeks, so it will need to be tactical.
Oh, sorry, I see, my apologies. The "Don't revise what you wrote TMAs on, just read the TMA" approach to efficient revision.
I've just gone back to the TMA05 to see what it was about. In my folder is a page long explanation of why I think the entire chapter was bobbins. The TMA I submitted has three paragraphs about why I should not have done A222. Oh, lordy.
I had forgotten just how much I disliked A222. The material you have to learn is dire. It's like arguing the best way to detect phlogiston, or whether the people spiritualists converse with are really dead, or which of the four elements is the most god-like.