QCE Philosophy and Reason exam 2026Exam: Wed 28 Oct · QCAA timetable
Your QCE Philosophy and Reason exam:
When and how long
- Philosophy & ReasonMorning session2 h plus 15 min perusal or planning time
QCAA's timetable sets the day and the morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) session, not a start time: your school tells you when to arrive. Durations are working time plus perusal or planning time.
Source: QCAA external assessment timetable 2026 (QCAA), checked Wednesday 23 September 2026. Where a start time, reading time or duration isn't shown, the timetable doesn't publish it: check your personal timetable and the front of your paper.
What the exam covers
We don't have past-paper frequency data for this exam, so here is the course, module by module. Make sure every module is covered.
Night-before and exam-morning checklists
The night before
- QCAA's timetable fixes the day and the AM or PM session only: confirm the start time and venue with your school.[2]
- Check your calculator is on QCAA's approved list for the subject.[1]
- Pack a clear plastic container or zip-lock bag: black or blue pens, pencils, eraser, sharpener, a highlighter.[1]
- An ordinary watch only if you want one (no smart watch or fitness tracker); it goes on the desk.[1]
- Pack a water bottle (it stays on the floor).[1]
Exam morning
- Arrive at least 30 minutes before the start.[1]
- Switch your phone off and leave it in your bag outside the room.[1]
- More than 40 minutes late needs permission, and you lose perusal and planning time.[1]
- During perusal and planning time, don't write in the response book or touch your calculator.[1]
- You can't leave in the first 40 minutes or the last 10 minutes.[1]
Exam-week survival kit: The last 7 days · The night before and exam morning · What to bring, and what's banned · How to use reading time · If you're sick or something goes wrong · Handling exam-week stress.
Last-week revision
QCE Philosophy and Reason cram sheet
Key formulas, definitions and facts copied from our Philosophy and Reason syllabus pages. One page when printed.
Unit 3: Reason and formal logic
An argument can commit a fallacy yet reach a true conclusion, and a sound-looking argument can reach a false one. Identifying a fallacy criticises the reasoning, not the truth of the claim. Saying "the conclusion is false" is not the same as identifying the logical error that makes the argument fail.
P is a sufficient condition for Q if P guarantees Q (if P then Q). P is a necessary condition for Q if Q cannot occur without P (if Q then P, equivalently if not-P then not-Q). A condition can be one, both or neither.
A universal law cannot be proven by any number of confirming cases, but it can be refuted by a single counter-example, mirroring modus tollens. This asymmetry is the engine of Popper's falsificationism and his answer to Hume: science advances by refuting bold conjectures, not by piling up confirmations.
Deductive arguments are valid or invalid (no middle ground); inductive arguments are strong or weak by degree. Never describe an inductive argument as "valid" or a deductive one as "strong." The correct quality pairs are valid plus true equals sound, and strong plus true equals cogent.
Unit 4: Moral philosophy and metaphysics
The formula of humanity is the most quoted part of Kant's ethics: rational beings have dignity and may never be used merely as tools, even to produce good outcomes. This is why Kantian ethics protects individual rights against the utilitarian temptation to sacrifice a person for the greater total good.
For utilitarianism only outcomes determine rightness: not intentions, duties or the type of act. This is its great strength (it is impartial and outcome-focused) and the source of its deepest problem, since maximising total happiness can in principle justify sacrificing an individual's rights for the greater sum.
The duplication or fission case shows that psychological continuity could hold between you and two future people at once, yet you cannot be numerically identical to both. This drives Parfit's claim that what we really care about is continuity and connectedness, not strict identity, which reframes the whole debate.
Utilitarianism asks which act maximises good and Kant asks which maxim is universalisable, but virtue ethics asks what a person of good character would do, focusing on stable dispositions cultivated by habit and guided by practical wisdom. The mean is the appropriate response to a situation, not a bland midpoint.