hij

Teacher Resource Bank

GCE Philosophy (2170) Guidance for Unit PHIL1

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX. Dr Michael Cresswell, Director General.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

Guidance for PHIL1

The following guidance reflect experiences of examining PHIL1 in January and June 2009 essentially the aim is to clarify where there seem to be gaps in candidates understanding of the issues specified in different themes. The themes are: Reason and experience Why should I be governed Why should I be moral The idea of God Persons.

Reason and experience

Broadly, most candidates appear to have a good understanding of the view of mind as a tabula rasa and the view that all ideas derive from and are determined by sense experience. The vast majority are able to give an account based on Locke and/or Hume of the role that sense experience plays in furnishing the mind with ideas, and of the view that sense experience also sets a limit to what can be imagined. However, the specification also identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the view that claims to know about what exists or occurs must be justified by sense experience as an area of study and it is less clear that candidates are able to focus on: knowledge claims about what exists or occurs the extent to which experience justifies a knowledge claim. For example, whereas the view that, a blind man can form no notion of colours or a deaf man of sounds is a knowledge claim about who cant have certain ideas, possessing the idea of, for example, redness is not a knowledge claim. Those without a defect of the organ, those whove gained the idea of redness, are able to make knowledge claims such as my neighbours front door is painted red which, like other knowledge claims, may be true or false. One definition of knowledge, the tripartite definition, is that knowledge is justified true belief. The belief that my neighbours front door is painted red might be justified by going next door and looking or through listening to the testimony of others such as my neighbour who informs me that he has just painted his front door red. Clearly, there are very many knowledge claims, such as the planet Mercury is heavily cratered; of all the Roman gods Mercury was the most popular amongst the inhabitants of Romes conquered territories; the boiling point of mercury is 357 degrees centigrade; Katie Price is mercurial, etc. Whether these claims are true or false is determined by experience in some way, through experiment, observation or research. Why is this important? One question from the summer 2009 examination series was: Critically discuss the view that all knowledge comes from, and is justified by, sense experience. Accounts of the role of experience in how we acquire the ideas of whiteness, unicorns or golden mountains, etc, are not answers to this question. Similarly, references to certain innate capacities such as the ability to acquire language do

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

not show that we have some innate knowledge and do not, therefore, constitute a relevant critical discussion of the view in question. In short, centres need to ensure that candidates are able to distinguish between, and focus on when required, questions concerning the acquisition of ideas and concepts and questions concerning the source and justification of knowledge claims.

Why should I be governed?

Again, most candidates appear to be familiar with and quite knowledgeable about some sections of the specification, particularly: different views of the condition of mankind in a state of nature the benefits of political organisation consent as the basis of political obligation the concepts of power and authority.

However, the final section of the specified content concerns disobedience and dissent, particularly: grounds for dissent the aims, methods and targets of civil disobedience and direct action how either might be justified. Evidence from the 2009 examination series suggests that a large number of candidates are only able to describe grounds for dissent in terms of Hobbesian and/or Lockean contract theories so that sovereign bodies may be overthrown and replaced if they fail to protect us or secure our rights. There are two issues here: grounds for dissent may be wider (eg moral grounds may be linked to widely held moral standards rather than rights); the activity of dissenting may not be aimed at replacing a sovereign body. One question from the summer 2009 examination series was: Why, if at all, might civil disobedience be justified? A large number of answers located a response in social contract theories, providing alternative accounts of life in a state of nature, the basis of political obligation and the grounds we might have for overthrowing the sovereign. Many didnt mention civil disobedience at all. It is possible, therefore, that this area of the specification is not receiving sufficient attention. Following Rawls, we might define civil disobedience as a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. (Analytical discussions of civil disobedience might challenge certain aspects of this definition.) Thus, the suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi, the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and others might all be seen as morally justifiable attempts to influence the social, moral and political climate and bring about change. A minority of candidates referred to these, and other, examples and a useful exercise might be to get students to research other, more recent, campaigns that might accord with definitions of civil disobedience.

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

klm

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

As noted, good discussions of civil disobedience might well take issue with certain aspects of Rawls influential account of the characteristics of civil disobedience. Such an approach might also be useful as a means of comparing and contrasting civil disobedience with other forms of dissent such as conscientious objection or direct action. It is difficult to formulate a precise distinction between different forms of dissent: if conscientious objection takes place on a large scale it can begin to look like civil disobedience; non-violent forms of direct action can also be compared to civil disobedience. Consequently, candidates may find it easier to concentrate on examples of direct action which can be contrasted with the alleged characteristics of civil disobedience. It has been noted, for example, that the nation state is too large to bother with some small problems in life such as a local councils decision to close a village school, or permitting local development that threatens a natural habitat or a way of life and too small to tackle global problems such as global warming, world poverty, the activities of transnational companies, etc. Some of these, and other, issues have attracted direct action campaigns from groups who are opposed to the state, or to a core feature of the state; some groups, or networks, do contain dissenters who are militant, who will use violence and who seek rapid change through methods that are unlikely to appeal to the moral sentiments of the majority. A useful exercise may be to study a particular example of direct action in depth or to ask groups of students to research the aims and activities of different social movements.

Why should I be Moral?

There have been two noticeable tendencies in this theme so far: A tendency to arrange and juxtapose Aristotle, Hobbes and Kant according to the requirements of the question. Such answers are frequently quite good but tend to lack an internal critical analysis: given the question of whether or not it pays to be moral, for example, candidates may describe Aristotles position and say that for Aristotle the answer is yes and then describe Kants position and say that for Kant moral action is divorced from such considerations. No critical analysis of either position is advanced. A tendency to define morality as altruism and contrast this with self-interest or egoism which, by definition, is seen as non-moral. Typically, candidates who refer to egoism are unable to differentiate between ethical egoism and psychological egoism and, consequently, critical discussions are often very limited. More frequently, approaches of this type are devoid of any philosophical content whatsoever so that, for example, actions like theft are invariably seen as self-interested and not stealing, which is seen as moral, is invariably seen as being of no benefit at all. Answers like this do not score highly. As stated in the specification, the purpose of this theme is to examine the nature of moral motivation and introduce students to contrasting accounts of the relationship between self-interest, practical reason and morality. These accounts are rooted in social contract theory, virtue ethics and deontological ethics. At present it would seem that a substantial number of candidates are unaware of these traditions in moral thought. The essential focus of the theme is on moral motivation and not on what actions are morally right: that is, assuming for the moment that all of us are able to identify some actions that we regard as morally right, the issue concerns the connection between

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

the rightness of such actions and the reasons or obligations we might have for performing them. Some reasons that have been proposed are: 1. Because it pays to perform right acts; it is in our interest to perform right acts. This view sometimes finds expression in everyday sayings such as honesty is the best policy. 2. Because performing right actions contributes to a healthy, well-balanced, personality and, as such, moral actions allow us to flourish as individuals and contribute to our happiness. 3. Because a society in which people follow certain moral rules is a better, and safer, society than one in which there are no such rules or in which rules are not observed. Collectively we make an arrangement that allows us to live together harmoniously and enables us to pursue our interests without preventing others from pursuing their interests. 4. Because as humans we have certain sympathies and sentiments. Many of our strongest desires are not self-centred: most of us would not find it easy to abuse, hurt or torture another person; at the same time most of us do naturally respond to the needs of others and are sympathetic when the occasion occurs. 5. Because performing moral actions is simply the right thing to do. We tell the truth because its the right thing to do: we avoid lying to, or stealing from, others because these are wrong actions. The rightness of an action is a good enough reason for performing the action. This list incorporates egoism, virtue ethics, a contractual approach, an approach based on natural sympathies and deontology. Outlines and critical discussions of these approaches can be found in most texts aimed at students. In general, a large number of candidates would benefit from being more informed about these positions and some candidates, who are quite well-informed, might focus more on relevant criticisms (ie criticisms pertinent to the issue of moral motivation).

The idea of God

Candidates appear to be broadly conversant with the requirements of this theme. The only noteworthy issue arising from responses to questions set in the 2009 examination series relates to the section of the specification concerning the view that the idea of God is merely a human construction. The majority of candidates were able to reference Hume, Marx, Feuerbach, Freud, Nietzsche, Dawkins and others in providing a very full account of the view itself and the vast majority were content to conclude their responses by concurring with the view. Analysis, where present, was typically one-sided. Few were inclined to examine critically any of the views they outlined. Is it really the case that religiosity represents an infantile desire, amongst common people, to be assured and protected by an enormously exalted father or that it is the sigh of the oppressed? Clearly, one cannot expect Philosophy AS students to engage in sustained psychological or sociological discussions of such views but one might reasonably expect such views to be questioned.

Persons
Again, candidates appear to be broadly conversant with the requirements of this theme, although many seem to find some issues challenging.

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

klm

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

The main issue arising from responses to questions set in the 2009 examination series relates to the section of the specification concerning the view that the concept of a person is primitive. Very few students knew what this referred to and struggled to address the question. Primitive, in this context, means that the concept is logically prior to other concepts: that is, we have to have the concept of a person first before we begin to individuate ourselves as persons (and use the term I), differentiate ourselves from others and differentiate between others. One way of demonstrating why this is so is challenging and making students familiar with the view is to select a concept such as grief, love, anger, pain etc and ask students to: Identify both the physical or behavioural characteristics associated with the concept and the psychological or mental characteristics associated with it. Explain which characteristics they use when deciding (not necessarily correctly) to ascribe the concept to others and which characteristics they use when deciding (incorrigibly?) to ascribe the concept to themselves. Think about when and how they learned the concept. The idea is that when they applied the concept for the first time possibly learning it from the behaviour of others they applied it to a person, a being with both physical and mental characteristics. So, against the idea that I think therefore I am is the first certainty which may lead to doubt about whether there are any other thinkers and to solipsism we have the view that the concepts we ascribe to ourselves are ascribed to persons, beings like us who possess both mental and physical characteristics. The concept of a person is, therefore, basic or primitive. Beyond this, evidence from the 2009 examination series suggests that on top of certain gaps in understanding there are issues concerning how to construct a good, analytical, critical discussion. The following section deals with this.

Answering 30 mark questions at AS level

It is important that students understand the assessment objectives against which their work will be assessed and the style of response appropriate to these objectives. The assessment objectives are: AO1: Knowledge and Understanding AO2: Interpretation, Analysis and Application AO3: Assessment and Evaluation. Knowledge and Understanding This assessment objective is not heavily weighted in the essay questions. Out of the 30 marks possible, a maximum of 3 marks is awarded for Knowledge and Understanding. Mark schemes indicate that 3 marks will be rewarded to responses that demonstrate a sound understanding of some issues raised by the question, identifying relevant ideas/evidence. Interpretation, Analysis and Application This assessment objective is heavily weighted in the essay questions. Out of the 30 marks possible, a maximum of 18 marks may be awarded for Interpretation, Analysis and Application. Mark schemes indicate that top band responses will be

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

characterised by clear and closely argued discussions of the issue in question and which incorporate a well-developed appreciation focused on some relevant philosophical issues by applying and analysing a range of points in some detail and with precision. Thus, responses should demonstrate: a grasp of some issues raised by the question (Interpretation) an account of what has been said, or of what might be said, about these issues (Application) a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of various points or positions (Analysis). Assessment and Evaluation Again, this is important because 9 of the 30 marks are available for this assessment objective. Good answers will provide a well thought out appreciation of some problematic issues raised by the specific demands of the question and which employ reasoning to support the conclusion advanced. Thus, following a focused critical discussion, a position should be advanced in relation to the question asked. One way of stressing the significance of the assessment criteria and familiarising students with the style of response required is to ask for their employment in a non-philosophical essay of the students choice an essay on anything. Students can write about whatever they like but must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of some relevant issues; an analysis of some relevant points and a reasoned conclusion. The following essay was written by an AS Philosophy student during the first few weeks of the course. Which is the better colour, orange or blue? Colour. Defined in the dictionary as A visual attribute of things that results from the light they emit or transmit or reflect, but the issue here is more than just what colour is, it is what colour does. Orange vs Blue. Which is better? Which is most pleasing and desirable with the most pleasurable psychological and physical effects? When faced with this question, most people would side with what they personally prefer without actually thinking about why they chose that colour. Here, I am going to delve into the characteristics of each colour to try to reach a solution to this problem of superiority. Let us begin with blue. Blue is mainly associated with feelings of calmness, which is always beneficial when we live in such a stressful world. Blue can cause feelings of tranquillity and peace, and can stimulate restfulness so is used in meditation and many bedrooms. As there are many different shades of blue, the effects are varied. Rich and strong blues stimulate clarity, and soft blues calm the mind and increase concentration. This is advantageous in the work place, which is why most offices and classrooms are painted blue. However, too much blue can be perceived as unemotional, cold and uncaring. This can produce feelings of uneasiness, melancholy and depression. Blue is the least appetising of all the colours, so is often used by some weight loss schemes who tell dieters to eat off of a blue plate, so can potentially improve health. However, blue does not occur often in natural foods, mainly in artificial foods. Also, human instinct causes the individual to avoid blue foods because it often means the food is poisoned or spoiled.

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

klm

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

Blue can be associated with two main miraculous things in the world, the sky and the ocean. Although most of the world we see is blue, it can also be connected with ice, winter and mourning. The worlds favourite colour seems to be blue, but it is mainly preferred by men, meaning that it is not a gender-neutral colour. Also, blue is often associated with negative things when used in language, such as the blues, blue moon, and sacr bleu! Now orange. Orange is mainly associated with feelings of excitement and enthusiasm, which would surely add some life to our seemingly dull and monotonous lives. Orange raises the pulse rate and energy levels, giving a sense of vitality to an individual; this is why orange is used in gyms to raise energy levels. Orange is also connected to warmth, and is a fun, flamboyant colour. The colour orange is a combination of red and yellow, so has the intensity of red but is calmed by yellow, making it a fairly balanced colour. However, this energetic vibe given off by orange, it may cause restlessness and frivolity. Orange is a fairly immature colour because of its fun characteristic, and may cause irritation if there is too much of it. Orange is connected with many positive things in the world such as oranges, sunrises/sunsets and autumn. However, orange can be mainly connected with fire, which can be beneficial in warming and cooking, but more often than not causes serious damage and pain. Even though orange is one of the least favourite colours in the world, this may be because it is not a common, simple colour like blue. It is however more gender-neutral because it is associated with neither male nor female. Clearly there are fewer negatives to the colour orange compared to blue. Oranges overall feel is happy and warm, compared to blues general feel of sadness and coldness. The main argument against orange is that it can be immature and lacks intelligence, but surely everyone needs a bit of fun in their lives. The argument against blue is that it can cause depression and a sense of loneliness. This is exactly what the world does not need! Also, in a world of increasing cases of obesity and couch potatoes, why would we want a colour that causes feelings of calmness, relaxation and sedation? Surely these effects would promote laziness and therefore add to the growing number of obese and unfit individuals. Orange, however, has been shown to stimulate a person, and actually increases the pulse rate and energy levels. If we glorify this colour like we should, we could eventually end up with a world full of fit, energetic and healthy people. Within the seasons, blue is connected with winter, and orange autumn. Here I see no contest between the two: freezing hands, runny noses and colds or cosy jumpers and easy walks in the woods when the leaves are turning orange, red and yellow. Since orange has very weak negative points, and generally causes happiness, it is clearly the best colour. Orange is fun and happy, causes enthusiasm and excitement, and actually increases body resistance against infections and strengthens the lungs, pancreas and spleen. In my eyes, there is no doubt that orange is by far the superior. Comment One benefit of doing this early in the course is that given there are no complex philosophical concepts and arguments to deal with most students are able to comfortably write a reasonably lengthy response. This response is just over 800 words and would be 3-4 sides long if hand-written. (Many students are capable of

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

producing responses of a similar length, in timed conditions, in response to philosophical questions by the end of the course). Knowledge and Understanding The response demonstrates a reasonably sound understanding of some issues raised by the question and does identify some relevant ideas/employ some evidence. Colour is defined as a visual attribute of things that results from the light they emit or transmit or reflect. (Later in the course it might be defined as a secondary quality of an object.) Relevant issues for consideration are identified not in terms of what colour is but in terms of what colour does. The response is focused on orange and blue (there arent irrelevant references to red and green) and on which of the two colours is better. This is to be decided in terms of which has the most pleasurable psychological and physical effects? Interpretation, Analysis and Application Both colours are subjected to some critical scrutiny: Advantages of Blue Blue is associated with feelings of calmness, reducing stress by inducing feelings of tranquillity; it can stimulate restfulness this is why it is often used in meditation and in many bedrooms. Positive effects are varied according to shade: rich and strong blues stimulate clarity, and soft blues calm the mind and increase concentration; this is deemed to be advantageous in the work place and this is evidenced by the number of offices and classrooms painted blue. It has positive associations with marvels like the sky and the ocean. It is the favoured colour of many. Disadvantages of Blue Blue may be perceived as unemotional, cold and uncaring too much of it may producemelancholy and depression. It is the least appetizing of all the colours this is evidenced by its use in some weight loss schemes but while this may have some advantages (in terms of health) it is suggested that our human instinct is to avoid naturally blue foods (poison, mould). It has negative associations with ice, winter, death and mourning. It is mainly preferred by men and is not gender neutral. In language it is often associated with negative things we speak of having the blues. Disadvantages of Orange Some characteristics have negative connotations: restlessness, frivolity, a lack of maturity. Too much of it may be irritating. The association with fire may be connected to warmth but also to damage and pain.

Advantages of Orange Orange is linked to excitement and enthusiasm and life: it raises the pulse rate and provides a sense of vitality which is why it is often used in gyms. It is also associated with warmth, fun and flamboyance. Due to its position between red and yellow it has both intensity and calmness: it is a balanced colour. It has positive associations with eg sunrises/sunsets. It is gender-neutral.

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

klm

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

Assessment and Evaluation Following the points selected for discussion, a reasoned argument is employed to reach a conclusion. The argument is: There are fewer disadvantages to orange compared to blue. Some of the disadvantages of orange are trivial and can be discounted surely everyone needs a bit of fun in their lives. The disadvantages of blue are serious: we dont want more depression. We can do without the alleged advantages of blue we need to guard against feelings of calmness, relaxation and sedation. We cant do without the advantages of orange: stimulation and energy. The position argued, therefore, is: There is no doubt that orange is the superior colour.

The content here is trivial, and deliberately so. The structure of the essay, however, is important: it qualifies as a top band response to all three of the assessment objectives employed in Philosophy. The important point to stress is that good Philosophy essays when actual questions are eventually set should possess a similar structure. For example, consider a question on the June 2009 PHIL1 examination paper: Why, if at all, might civil disobedience be justified? How might answers to this question be constructed? Knowledge and Understanding What is required is a response that demonstrates a reasonably sound understanding of some issues raised by the question and which identifies some relevant ideas/ employs some evidence. The relevant issues are: civil disobedience justification. Thus, it would seem to be useful to start with a brief outline of both: Civil disobedience involves the deliberate violation of a law and is intended to draw attention to an injustice, or perceived injustice, with the intention of righting that injustice. If it can be justified attempts to justify it may draw upon political, socio-economic, legal or moral grounds. If the rest of the essay is appropriately focused on these issues this should ensure that all 3 marks for Knowledge and Understanding are awarded. While there are only 3 marks available for Knowledge and Understanding, clearly if a student does not understand the issue in question there is little chance that the ensuing discussion will be relevant.

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

Interpretation, Analysis and Application Relevant points may draw from: Some elaboration of civil disobedience possibly linked to what some political philosophers have argued. For example: Civil disobedience is political action; the activities involved are public rather than private. The rule of law itself is not rejected; unlawful conduct is typically non-violent, non-revolutionary, and the group or groups involved are willing to accept punishment for infringements of the law. Given that the purpose is to draw attention to an injustice, dissent should be proportionate to the injustice and the actions of dissenters should not offend/outrage public opinion. Lawful attempts to redress the injustice have already been made. Action should be prudent if there is no possible chance of success it may be more prudent not to engage in civil disobedience. These points or some of these points should be linked to justification. The grounds of justification might be: Legal/moral: a law does not uphold individual rights; a law discriminates eg rights are not extended to certain groups; a law operates in sectional interests and fails to treat individuals or groups equally; a law does not comply with widely held moral standards; a law does not coincide with natural law. Political/social: a law intrudes into an area of private life such that the state is exceeding its rightful role; lawful attempts at redress have been made; actions are not outrageous, they comply with a right of dissent and are successful in drawing public attention to an issue. Examples of civil disobedience may be provided eg civil rights campaigns. Some analysis of these points should be provided. For example: Is it necessary that lawful attempts to redress an injustice should be tried first eg the use of normal political channels like writing to an MP? The proportion of people voting in certain sections of the community is low this might suggest a lack of faith in the political system. Violence is typically defined as the unlawful use of force could it be the case that some targeted violence is likely to be more successful than non-violent disobedience? Linked to both of the above points, direct action campaigns avoid mainstream political organisation and at least some of those involved are willing to use violence, eg against property, to make authorities take notice. While normally referred to as new social movements, their aims of protecting the environment, protecting ways of life, protecting and extending rights etc are political. Arguably, these movements might enjoy greater success because some issues seem to be too small to be adequately dealt with through normal political channels eg the use of a particular field to trial genetically modified crops or too large for a nation state to deal with eg global warming, the war on terror, poverty and famine in parts of the world, etc. How can we know whether an action is likely to be successful or not is this an invitation to do nothing?
10
Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

klm

Teacher Resource Bank / GCE Philosophy 2170 / Guidance for PHIL1 / Version 1.0

Might the moral standards of society be such that the majority are not really bothered by infringements of minority rights? Are majorities really necessary to attempts to force political change? It isnt being suggested that all of these points should be made remember that the top band of the mark scheme refers to discussions which show a well-developed appreciation focused on some relevant philosophical issues. Assessment and Evaluation There isnt a right answer rather, following on from their analysis of points selected for discussion, students should construct a reasoned argument to support their conclusion. Thus, any of the following might be argued: Civil disobedience is never justified: illegal actions undermine the rule of law generally (and this isnt in our interests) or on the grounds that it is hypocritical to enjoy the benefits afforded by political organisation and object to aspects of that organisation. Civil disobedience must occasionally be justified: a right of dissent would mean nothing if it were never exercised; if it were denied in principle then consent would mean nothing either. When? Perhaps not if due to certain factors it might lead to serious disorder or a crisis of legitimacy or to a worsening political situation for certain groups. However, in principle, it is justified when a law infringes the liberty and rights of citizens, oppresses certain groups, offends against moral standards or, perhaps, against a higher moral law. Clearly, in terms of content, this is all more complex than blue and orange but in terms of structure it is similar: What issues are raised? What positions might be taken and what might be said for or against them? What conclusion does my discussion lead me to?

klm

Copyright 2009 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

11