Foundations

Essay
Foundations

The John Locke Competition prizes clear argument, original thinking, and evidence of genuine curiosity. Read each concept carefully before attempting the quiz.

01 What is an Argument? +

An argument is not a fight — it is a claim supported by reasons and evidence. Every essay you write for the John Locke Competition must have one clear central argument, called a thesis.

A thesis answers the question directly, in one or two sentences, and tells the reader exactly what you believe and why. Everything else in your essay should support or deepen this central claim.

Judges read hundreds of essays. State your thesis clearly in the opening paragraph — do not make them search for it.
02 Essay Structure +

A strong essay follows a logical shape: Introduction → Body Paragraphs → Conclusion.

Introduction: Hook the reader with a striking observation or question, then state your thesis. Body: Each paragraph makes one supporting point, backed by evidence or reasoning. Use signpost phrases ("Furthermore," "However," "This demonstrates that…") to guide the reader. Conclusion: Do not just repeat — reflect on the broader meaning of your argument.

The John Locke essay is 800–1,000 words for your age group. Every sentence must earn its place.
03 Evidence & Examples +

Claims without evidence are opinions. Strong Locke essays use: real-world examples (historical events, news, science), logical reasoning (if X, then Y…), and counterargument & rebuttal (acknowledging the opposing view then dismantling it).

You do not need a bibliography, but you should be able to explain where your facts come from if asked.

One well-developed example is stronger than five superficial ones. Go deep, not wide.
04 Philosophical Thinking +

The John Locke Competition is different from school essays because it rewards philosophical depth. This means: questioning assumptions, defining your key terms, and exploring edge cases.

For example, if the question is "Is freedom more important than safety?", a philosophical thinker would first ask: What do we mean by freedom? What kind of safety? before answering.

Show the judges you have thought about the question from multiple angles before reaching your conclusion.
05 John Locke — Who Was He? +

John Locke (1632–1704) was an English philosopher who believed in natural rights: life, liberty, and property. He argued that the purpose of government is to protect these rights, and if it fails, citizens have the right to resist.

His ideas influenced the American Declaration of Independence and modern democracy. The competition named after him rewards exactly the kind of independent, evidence-based thinking he championed.

You do not need to write about Locke unless the question asks — but understanding his values helps you align your tone with the competition's spirit.
06 Scoring Criteria +

Judges award marks for: Clarity of argument, Quality of reasoning, Use of evidence, Originality, and Written expression.

They deduct marks for: padding or repetition, unsupported assertions, unclear or missing thesis, and off-topic tangents.

Read your essay aloud before submitting. If a sentence confuses you, it will confuse the judge.

Knowledge
Check

Eight multiple-choice questions covering the foundations. Select an answer to see immediate feedback and an explanation.

Mock
Examination

This is a realistic John Locke–style essay question. Write your response below. Aim for 600–800 words. A timer runs for your practice — there is no automatic cutoff.

Philosophy — Age 11–14 Track 45:00
"Should individuals always follow the rules of their society, even if they believe those rules are unjust?"
Write a well-argued essay responding to this question. You may draw on philosophy, history, politics, science, or everyday life. There is no single correct answer — judges value clarity of argument and quality of reasoning above all else. Define any terms you use carefully.
Clarity Reasoning Evidence Originality Expression
Tip: Start with a clear thesis. Use at least two real examples. Acknowledge a counterargument and respond to it.
Target: 600–800 words 0 words

Answer Key &
Model Essay

Review the model essay and required concepts. These keywords and ideas should appear in a strong response — you can see how your essay compares in the next step.

civil disobedience natural rights social contract unjust law moral duty MLK / Gandhi consequences counterargument thesis legitimacy
Model Response — Grade 7 Standard
When we are born, we enter a world already full of rules. Governments set laws, schools have codes of conduct, and communities share norms. The question is: must we always obey them? I argue that individuals are not always obliged to follow unjust rules, provided they act openly, accept the consequences, and exhaust peaceful means first. To understand this, we must first define what makes a rule "unjust." A rule is unjust when it violates a person's natural rights — those basic entitlements (to life, liberty, and fair treatment) that belong to every human being regardless of the laws a government writes down. John Locke himself argued that governments exist to protect these rights, not to override them. When they fail, citizens have grounds to resist. History provides powerful evidence. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi both engaged in civil disobedience — deliberately breaking unjust laws while remaining non-violent and willing to face arrest. King argued, drawing on the philosopher Aquinas, that "one has a moral duty to disobey unjust laws." Both men accepted imprisonment, demonstrating that principled rule-breaking is different from self-serving law-breaking. A counterargument holds that if everyone decides which laws to obey, society will collapse into chaos. The social contract, as Rousseau described it, depends on mutual compliance. This is a serious point. However, the concern about chaos applies to arbitrary or self-interested disobedience, not to principled, public, non-violent resistance aimed at changing an unjust rule. The distinction is crucial. Furthermore, blind obedience can itself cause harm. The defence of "I was only following orders" was rightly rejected at the Nuremberg Trials. Legitimacy cannot simply be conferred by authority — it must be earned through just conduct. In conclusion, individuals retain a moral right — and sometimes a duty — to disobey rules that violate fundamental rights, provided they do so openly, peacefully, and with willingness to bear the legal consequences. A society in which every law is obeyed without question is not a just society; it is merely an obedient one.

Your Essay
Feedback

You haven't submitted an essay yet. Go to Step 3 and write your response first.