Most of these mistakes are easy to catch once you know the pattern. If you would rather have an expert handle it, our philosophy paper writing service can draft or edit your paper to these standards. Either way, the fixes below will make your reasoning stronger.
This guide walks through each mistake in plain terms. You will see why it lowers your grade and how to correct it. The weak and strong examples come from ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and political philosophy.
Mistake 1 — No Clear, Arguable Thesis
What it looks like: The paper explains a topic but never takes a position. Or it commits to something so sweeping, like "Free will is important," that nobody could disagree.
Why it costs you marks: A philosophy paper is an argument for a claim. Without an arguable central claim, there is nothing to defend. Graders look for a thesis they could reasonably reject.
How to fix it: State one specific, contestable position. Then narrow it until it fits the space you have. A strong philosophy thesis statement is arguable, specific, and defensible. Thesis development often means shrinking your point, not expanding it.
Before and after:
| Weak thesis | Strong thesis |
|---|---|
| Ethics: "Lying is wrong." | "Kant's ban on lying fails when truth-telling directly enables serious harm, so the duty must allow exceptions." |
| Epistemology: "Knowledge is hard to define." | "Gettier cases show that justified true belief is not enough for knowledge, because justification can be met by accident." |
| Metaphysics: "Personal identity is complicated." | "Psychological-continuity theories cannot handle gradual replacement cases without admitting that identity comes in degrees." |
| Political philosophy: "Rawls has good ideas about justice." | "Rawls's difference principle fits meritocracy only if we drop his own claim that talents are morally arbitrary." |
Each strong version names a theory, states a precise claim, and hints at the reasoning. That is an argumentative thesis you can actually defend.
Mistake 2 — Summarizing Instead of Arguing
What it looks like: Long stretches that recount what a philosopher said. There is little or no evaluation. The paper reads like a book report on Descartes.
Why it costs you marks: Explaining a view is necessary, but it is not the point. The marks live in analysis. You need to show whether the argument works and where it is weak.
How to fix it: Explain a view only as far as you need to engage with it. Then start analyzing. For every sentence describing a position, add one that does something to it. Question a premise, test it against a counterexample, or draw out a consequence.
Before and after:
Summary: "Descartes argues that he can doubt everything except that he is thinking, so he concludes that he exists."
Analysis: "Descartes moves from 'I am thinking' to 'I exist,' but that only gives a thinking thing at the moment of thought. It does not establish the lasting self his later theory relies on."
Mistake 3 — Trying to Cover Too Much
What it looks like: A short paper races through three arguments, two objections, and a grand conclusion. None of them gets developed enough to convince anyone.
Why it costs you marks: Breadth forces shallow reasoning. Recognized guidance from philosophers like Shelly Kagan and James Pryor makes the same point. A short paper barely has room to develop one argument well.
How to fix it: Pick the single best argument for your thesis. Two at most. Then spend the paper developing it. Depth beats coverage every time. If you write "there are many other arguments," treat that as a signal to cut.
Before and after:
Too broad: "The ethics of artificial intelligence."
Scoped: "Whether a self-driving car's crash algorithm can be morally responsible for its choices, and why responsibility stays with the designers."
Mistake 4 — Confusing a Valid Argument With a True One
What it looks like: Using "valid" to mean "good" or "true." Or treating a conclusion as proven because the reasoning simply feels logical.
Why it costs you marks: These terms are technical, and misusing them signals a shaky grasp of how arguments work. Validity is about form. If the premises were true, the conclusion would have to follow. Soundness adds that the premises are actually true.
How to fix it: Separate the two questions every time. First, does the conclusion follow from the premises? Second, are the premises true? Attack the premise you think is false, or show that the conclusion does not follow. Those are different objections.
Example: "All actions that maximize happiness are right. Lying to a murderer maximizes happiness. So lying to a murderer is right." The argument is valid, because the conclusion follows. You can still reject it by challenging the first premise. Saying "that is not valid" when you mean "the premise is false" is the error professors penalize.
Mistake 5 — Straw-Manning the Opposing View
What it looks like: Presenting the weakest version of a position you disagree with. Then knocking it over with ease.
Why it costs you marks: Defeating a weak version proves nothing about the real one. Graders read it as a shortcut. It often backfires, because you skipped the strongest objection to your own view.
How to fix it: Apply the principle of charity. State the opposing argument in its strongest, most reasonable form before you criticize it. Describe it so fairly that its defender would agree. Then attack that version. If your criticism still lands, it means something.
Before and after:
Straw man: "Utilitarians think we should do whatever feels good, so their theory obviously collapses."
Charitable: "Utilitarians hold that an action is right if it produces the greatest well-being across everyone affected. That is a demanding standard, not a license for pleasure. The real question is whether it can protect individual rights."
Mistake 6 — Ignoring Objections and Counterarguments
What it looks like: The paper defends a thesis and stops. It reads as if no intelligent person could push back.
Why it costs you marks: Anticipating objections is central to philosophical writing. Leaving the obvious objection unanswered tells the grader you missed it or could not handle it.
How to fix it: Build the paper on a simple skeleton: thesis, argument, objection, then reply. Imagine an intelligent reader who is not convinced. Raise their strongest complaint, present it fairly, and answer it. Focus on the one or two objections that genuinely threaten your view.
Example: Suppose your thesis is that psychological continuity constitutes personal identity. The objection to raise is not a weak one. It is the teleporter or fission case that splits continuity into two equally continuous people. Naming the hardest case and answering it is what earns the marks.
Mistake 7 — Committing Logical Fallacies
What it looks like: Reasoning that seems persuasive but breaks a rule of valid inference. These slip in easily, because they often sound fine.
Why it costs you marks: One clear fallacy can sink an otherwise good paper. It shows the argument does not support the conclusion. Spotting these in your own draft is a core skill.
Begging the Question
This means assuming what you are trying to prove. For example, "Abortion is wrong because taking an innocent human life is impermissible" already presupposes the disputed point. Note that "begging the question" means circular reasoning, not "raising the question."
False Dichotomy
This presents two options as the only ones when others exist. For example, "Either morality is objective, or anything goes." Positions sit between those poles, and ignoring them weakens your case.
Ad Hominem
This attacks the person instead of the argument. For example, "Nietzsche's views can be dismissed because of how he lived." A view stands or falls on its reasons, not its author's life.
Appeal to Authority or Popularity
This treats a claim as true because an expert or a majority holds it. Citing a philosopher can inform your argument, but "Aristotle said so" is not itself a reason. Neither is "most people believe it."
Equivocation
This shifts the meaning of a key word mid-argument. For example, using "free" to mean "uncaused" in one premise and "unconstrained" in another. Define your central terms and hold them steady.
Mistake 8 — Weak Openings and Empty Conclusions
What it looks like: Introductions that begin "Since the dawn of time, philosophers have wondered." Or conclusions that trail off into "In the end, everyone must decide for themselves."
Why it costs you marks: Historical openers and dictionary definitions say nothing about your argument. The relativist sign-off quietly abandons the thesis you spent pages defending. Both waste the parts of the paper graders weight most.
How to fix it: Open by stating your thesis and mapping the paper. Something like, "In this paper I argue that X. First I explain Y, then I raise the strongest objection, and finally I reply." Close by restating what you established and what follows. Skip the dictionary, since philosophical terms rarely mean what a general dictionary says.
Mistake 9 — Unclear Writing and Imprecise Terminology
What it looks like: Dense, jargon-heavy sentences. Misused technical words. Sentences that sound impressive but resist paraphrase.
Why it costs you marks: In philosophy, unclear writing usually reflects unclear thinking, and graders read it that way. Precision is part of the content, not decoration on top.
How to fix it: Write so a smart reader unfamiliar with the material can follow you. Prefer plain language. Use the first person freely to guide the reader, as in "I will now argue." Watch the terms students misuse most: "imply" versus "infer," "argument" versus "claim," and "valid" as a synonym for "true." A good test is to read the draft aloud. Anything you cannot say plainly, you probably have not worked out.
Mistake 10 — Using Rhetorical or Unanswered Questions
What it looks like: Making points by asking questions, such as "But do we really know anything at all?" Then leaving them hanging.
Why it costs you marks: A rhetorical question gestures at a claim without defending one. It pushes the reasoning onto the reader, which is your job. Strings of unanswered questions read as padding.
How to fix it: Turn the question into a claim and give the reason behind it. Instead of "Can we ever really trust our senses?" write "Our senses mislead us in cases like the bent-stick illusion, which gives us reason to doubt that perception alone yields knowledge."
Mistake 11 — Sloppy Sources, Citations, and Proofreading
What it looks like: Over-quoting, citing random web pages, and inconsistent references. Small mechanical errors also pile up, like apostrophe mistakes and misspelled names.
Why it costs you marks: Surface sloppiness masks content problems and erodes trust in your reasoning. Weak sourcing suggests you read summaries rather than the arguments themselves.
How to fix it: Engage with the argument, not a pile of quotations. Quote only when the exact wording matters, and explain any quote in your own words. When you cite, prefer primary texts and stable sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or JSTOR. Then proofread properly, and double-check names and technical terms.
The Pre-Submission Philosophy Paper Checklist
Run your draft against this list before you hand it in.
- Does the paper have one clear, arguable, narrow thesis?
- Could a reasonable person disagree with it?
- Have I argued for it, not just summarized other views?
- Is my best argument fully developed, rather than several done shallowly?
- Have I kept "valid," "sound," and "true" distinct?
- Did I present the opposing view charitably, in its strongest form?
- Did I raise the strongest objection to my thesis and reply to it?
- Is the paper free of circular reasoning, false dichotomies, and equivocation?
- Does the introduction state the thesis and map the paper?
- Is every technical term used precisely and consistently?
- Have I replaced rhetorical questions with defended claims?
- Are sources credible, citations consistent, and mechanics clean?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the most common mistake in philosophy papers?
It is summarizing what philosophers said instead of defending your own argument. Philosophy is graded on reasoning. A paper that explains a view without evaluating it leaves most of the available marks unclaimed.
What makes a good thesis for a philosophy paper?
A strong philosophy paper thesis is arguable, specific, and defensible. A reasonable person could disagree with it. It names the exact claim you defend, and you can support it in the assigned length.
Is it okay to use "I" in a philosophy paper?
Yes. First person is standard and encouraged. Phrases like "I will argue that" guide the reader through your reasoning. The old rule against "I" comes from other subjects and does not apply here.
What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
Validity is about form. If the premises were true, the conclusion would have to follow. Soundness adds that the premises are actually true. So a valid argument can still reach a false conclusion.
How do I address counterarguments in a philosophy paper?
Raise the strongest objection to your thesis. State it fairly and forcefully, then reply to it. Focus on the one or two objections that genuinely threaten your view rather than listing many weak ones.
What is the principle of charity?
It means reading an opposing argument in its strongest, most reasonable form before you criticize it. Charity makes your criticism worth something. It is the direct answer to straw-manning.
How long should a philosophy paper be?
Focus matters more than length. A short paper often has room to develop only one argument well, so scope your thesis to fit. A tight three-page paper beats a sprawling six-page one.
Strong philosophy papers do not come from big topics or impressive vocabulary. They come from disciplined thinking shown clearly on the page. Almost every mistake above is the same problem in disguise, letting description or breadth stand in for a clear, defended argument.
Use the checklist as a final revision pass, and fix the argument-level errors first, since they carry the most weight. Spot these mistakes early, and your next paper will read like a real argument rather than a summary.