Great RS essays aren’t about squeezing in as many quotations as possible—they’re about answering the question with a clear argument, accurate scholars/sources (AO1), and balanced evaluation that leads to a justified conclusion (AO2).

Use the structure and examples below to plan quickly, write decisively, and pick up marks efficiently.

1) A simple essay blueprint (PEEL/PEACE)

• Intro (2–3 sentences): define scope + give a thesis (your overall judgement).
• Paragraphs x3–4 (PEEL/PEACE): Point → Evidence (scholar/source) → Analysis/Application → Counter → Evaluate/Conclude.
• Final conclusion (3–4 sentences): weigh the strongest reasons on each side and restate your judgement clearly.

Marking focus: AO1 vs AO2 explained.

2) 4-minute planning routine

• Underline the command (e.g., “Evaluate”, “To what extent”).
• Write a one-line thesis that answers the question.
• List 3–4 paragraph points with a named scholar/source next to each.
• Note one counter for each point and a mini-conclusion angle.

3) Sentence frames that boost AO2

• “While X explains…, it underestimates…; by contrast Y better accounts for…; therefore…”
• “This matters because it changes the conclusion by…”
• “Even if we grant…, the view remains weak/strong since…”

4) Micro-example (Philosophy of Religion)

Q: “To what extent does the teleological argument succeed?” (example focus)

Intro (sample): The argument from design appears persuasive due to apparent order and fine-tuning; however, objections about chance, multiverse and flawed design significantly limit its force. Overall, it carries some weight as a cumulative pointer rather than a demonstrative proof.

Paragraph 1 (sketch): Point: Regularity/order suggests purpose. Evidence: Aquinas’ Fifth Way; Paley’s watch. Counter: Hume’s analogy—world ≠ machine; multiple designers; flawed world. Evaluate: Hume weakens certainty but not modest inference; therefore limited support.

Paragraph 2 (sketch): Point: Fine-tuning strengthens design inference. Evidence: Anthropic considerations. Counter: Multiverse/hypothesis of chance; Dawkins’ cumulative selection. Evaluate: If multiverse is speculative, design retains explanatory edge; conclusion: moderate support.

Conclusion (sketch): Works best as part of a cumulative case (with moral/experience), not as proof; success is limited but non-trivial.

5) Using scholars & sources of wisdom well

• Prefer short paraphrases or keyword snippets over long quotes.
• Tie every scholar/source to a judgement: “therefore this strengthens/weakens the claim that…”.
• Keep a scholar bank: 8–12 anchors per strand with a one-line thesis.

6) Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• AO1-only essays: Fix by adding a mini-conclusion to each paragraph.
• Name-dropping: Link the scholar to how your conclusion changes.
• Vague ethics application: Use concrete scenarios and theory-specific reasoning.
• Weak conclusions: Weigh both sides explicitly, then decide.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should my introduction be?

2–3 sentences: define the scope and state your thesis. Save detail for body paragraphs.

How many scholars should I include?

Quality over quantity: one precise scholar/source per paragraph is enough if used to drive evaluation.

What if I forget quotations?

Use brief paraphrases or keyword snippets and focus on how they change your conclusion—this still earns AO1/AO2.

How many paragraphs should I write?

Typically 3–4 substantial PEEL/PEACE paragraphs plus a decisive conclusion.

Related guides