How to Answer the 12-Mark Religious Studies Evaluation Question
The 12-mark question is the centrepiece of AQA GCSE Religious Studies. It asks you to evaluate a statement from multiple religious and non-religious perspectives, use sources of wisdom and authority, and reach a justified personal conclusion. This guide shows you exactly how to hit Level 4.
What This Question Asks
The 12-mark question always begins with a statement — for example, "There is no reason to believe in life after death" or "Religious teachings about the environment are not relevant today" — followed by the instruction: "Evaluate this statement. In your answer you should: refer to religious and non-religious arguments; reach a justified conclusion." This format is consistent across all AQA RS papers. The question is testing three things simultaneously. First, your ability to argue from multiple perspectives — at least two religious viewpoints (e.g. Christian and Muslim, or two denominations within one religion) and at least one non-religious viewpoint (e.g. secular humanist, scientific, philosophical). Second, your use of sources of wisdom and authority — scripture (e.g. the Bible, Qur'an, Torah), religious teachings, scholar arguments, or philosophical positions. Third, your ability to evaluate — to weigh these perspectives against one another and arrive at a justified conclusion that explains why you find one line of argument more convincing. Simply presenting viewpoints without evaluating them will not reach Level 4.
Mark Scheme Breakdown
- One or more simple points made with little development or supporting reasoning.
- Little or no use of religious or non-religious perspectives.
- No sources of wisdom or authority referenced.
- No attempt at evaluation or a conclusion — the answer describes what people believe without analysing why.
- Example: "Some people believe in life after death because they are religious. Others do not believe because they think science explains everything."
- More than one viewpoint presented with some explanation of reasoning.
- Some relevant religious or non-religious content used, but may be general rather than specific.
- A source of wisdom may be referenced but not developed or used analytically.
- Some evidence of evaluation but the conclusion is superficial or undeveloped.
- Example: mentions Christian belief in resurrection and non-religious doubts about the afterlife, but does not use scripture or compare the strength of arguments.
- Multiple perspectives developed with clear reasoning and supporting evidence.
- Sources of wisdom and authority used accurately and analytically — not just quoted but explained in context.
- Evaluation is present: viewpoints are weighed against one another rather than simply listed.
- A conclusion is reached but may not be fully justified or may not clearly explain why one argument is more convincing.
- Both religious and non-religious viewpoints addressed with some depth.
- Well-argued, multi-perspective response demonstrating thorough understanding of religious and non-religious viewpoints.
- Sources of wisdom and authority used precisely and integrated into the argument — scripture, teachings, or scholarly positions do analytical work rather than merely appearing.
- Sustained evaluation throughout: the student assesses the strength of different arguments, not just their content.
- A fully justified conclusion that explains clearly, with reference to the arguments made, why the student finds one position more persuasive than the others.
- Answers at this level read as genuine philosophical engagement, not a list of "Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y."
How to Structure Your Answer
Identify what perspectives you will cover before you write
Spend one to two minutes planning which viewpoints you will include. You need: at least two religious perspectives (these can be two different religions, e.g. Christianity and Islam, or two different traditions within one religion, e.g. Catholic and Protestant Christianity), and at least one non-religious perspective (secular humanism, atheism, scientific naturalism, or a philosophical tradition). Check that you have at least one source of wisdom for each religious perspective — a scriptural reference, a named teaching, or a key thinker.
For a question on life after death: Christian — resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), belief in heaven and hell; Islam — Akhirah, Qur'an 2:28; secular humanist — no evidence of consciousness surviving death; philosophical — Descartes' dualism or materialist arguments.
Opening argument — Present and develop your first perspective
Begin with the perspective you feel most confident writing about. Do not just state what people believe — explain the reasoning behind the belief, reference a source of wisdom accurately, and evaluate its strengths as an argument. Show why this viewpoint is compelling, not merely that it exists.
"From a Christian perspective, the statement that there is no reason to believe in life after death is rejected by the doctrine of resurrection. Christians believe that Jesus's own resurrection, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:20 — 'Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep' — is both historical evidence for life after death and a guarantee of resurrection for believers. This gives the belief a concrete evidential basis within the Christian tradition, rather than mere wishful thinking."
Second religious perspective — Develop a contrasting or complementary view
Introduce your second religious perspective with the same depth: explain the belief, use a source of wisdom, and evaluate its reasoning. Where possible, note similarities or differences with your first perspective — this shows the examiner you are thinking analytically about religion rather than treating it as a catalogue of separate beliefs.
"Islam similarly affirms life after death through the concept of Akhirah — the belief that all souls will face judgement on the Day of Resurrection (Yawm al-Qiyamah). The Qur'an states: 'How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life?' (2:28). Like Christianity, Islam grounds this belief in divine revelation, but Islam emphasises the justice of divine judgement more explicitly, with actions recorded by angels determining one's destination in Jannah or Jahannam."
Non-religious perspective — Engage with the strongest secular argument
Present the non-religious viewpoint with genuine intellectual engagement. Do not dismiss it — understand why it is compelling, use relevant thinkers or philosophical positions if you know them, and explain what it would take to accept or reject this argument. This is where many students lose marks by treating secular viewpoints as simply "the opposite of religion."
"A secular humanist perspective would support the statement. Humanists argue that consciousness is a product of brain activity, and that when the brain ceases to function at death, consciousness ends permanently. There is no empirical evidence, they contend, for a soul or for any survival of personal identity beyond death. The philosopher Bertrand Russell captured this view: 'I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.' For humanists, belief in an afterlife reflects wishful thinking rather than evidence."
Evaluation — Weigh the arguments against one another
This is the step most students skip, and it is the step that separates Level 3 from Level 4. Do not just present more viewpoints — actively compare and assess them. Which arguments do you find most philosophically compelling and why? What are the limits of each position? Evaluation language is key here: "However," "A stronger objection is...," "This argument is weakened by...," "On balance..."
"The religious perspectives share a common reliance on revelation and faith rather than empirical evidence, which the secular humanist critique identifies as a genuine weakness. However, religious thinkers would argue that the humanist position commits the error of assuming that only empirically verifiable things can be real — a philosophical claim that itself cannot be empirically verified. Near-death experience research, while contested, suggests the relationship between consciousness and the brain may be more complex than a simple materialist account allows."
Justified conclusion — State your position and explain why
End with a conclusion that does not sit on the fence. State whether you agree or disagree with the statement and explain — with reference to the arguments you have made — why you find one position more convincing. You do not have to agree with any religious view; your personal conclusion can be secular. What matters is that your conclusion is justified by your argument.
"Overall, I find the statement partially convincing but ultimately too absolute. While the humanist argument from neuroscience is compelling in its demand for evidence, it does not disprove the possibility of an afterlife — it only shows we cannot verify one empirically. The religious traditions offer something the secular account does not: a coherent framework of meaning around death that has given comfort and direction to billions of people across millennia. For a believer operating within a framework of revelation, the reasons to believe in life after death are substantial. The statement would be better phrased as 'there is no scientific reason' — which is true — rather than no reason at all."
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Top Tips
Practise This Question Type
"There is no reason to believe in life after death." Evaluate this statement. In your answer you should: refer to religious and non-religious arguments; reach a justified conclusion. [12 marks]
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Resources
Ready to Practise?
Write your answer and get instant, AQA-aligned feedback.