# data[].attributes.body
The 3 real life objects chosen by the writer is quite relevant to the IA prompt. The writer managed to unpack the history of these 3 objects and also explain why such objects are powerful and unethically used. But, The writer lacks more in depth clarity on why and how the 3 objects answers the IA prompt
7/10

# data[].attributes.body
Score : 6/10
The student does provide context regarding his objects, he provides a good description and shows understanding about his objects. The object chosen connects to the prompt and it makes sense to the context and understanding as a whole. However, there were assumptions that were made by the students as he/she went through each of the objects, through these assumptions it excluded every other possibility that could happen. Some of the points that were said were not connected properly with the object and so the arguments made could have been stronger and justifiable.  The conclusion also contains opinions which suggest that the prompt has not been given a conclusive answer.

# data[].attributes.body
Score 5.5/10
Goal of Exhibition: some knowledge
should not be sought if they create and give birth to more ethical problems.
Object 1 satisfies how the knowledge violates ethics but does not discuss why it should not be sought for. Pressures the reader's ethics and does not answer the question. Argues with questions without answers.
Object 2 satisfies why it is not ethical as the murder is not based on human judgement or morality but a non-living killing machine. Though the reader understands it is unethical the writer doesn't really answer why it is unethical and just concludes with more questions that pressures the reader's ethics.
Object 3 does not satisfy criteria as it is a recently new invention that has not been tested globally. The writer just assumes its dangers while also claiming that the device is able to "take over the world".
Conclusion is concluded with more questions that could stir readers from ethics to pathos. Writer wants to write an essay based on logic but the writer slowly strays from the path and instead seeks pathos or emotion.

# data[].attributes.body
Characteristics: The arguments provided were weak and weren't intriguing, the evidence provided was also shallow.

Some of the arguments that were provided in the exhibition were a long stretch and the lack of convincing evidence made them even all the more weaker. The arguments provided were also boring, it wasn't intriguing, and they weren't anything that we hadn't thought of. Though the evidence barely met the standards provided in the rubric, it was still good enough to justify the arguments. The arguments were also connected to the TOK concepts and is still closely related with the IA prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
7/10
- the author gives good explanation about the prompt and clearly discusses about the real world context of the prompt
- the author gives three real life objects that are linked to the context of the prompt. the argument in each object exhibited are explained well
- however, the author didn't really delve into the argument of the prompt and the interconnection between the prompt and the evidences. the author only gives hanging questions relating to the object and the prompt without clearly giving any answers to it

# data[].attributes.body
Rate 7/10
The exhibition showed the two pictures and also included some more information about the two objects. It gives the history behind the object. For the IA prompt, this object behind history has the context that matches the IA prompt  really well. However at the end there is some questions being stated but the answers are short and not understandable

# data[].attributes.body
The objects that are mentioned are relevant and are real life objects. Although they should justify their objects deeper so that we as readers can get a complete detailed explanation. In conclusion they should focus on connecting the objects to the IA prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
score: 8/10

The 3 objects used within the commentary is relevant to the IA prompt, however it does not give a specific explanation to convince the readers why the objects used are not ethical. The commentary also mentions real-life objects that have an impact within our world but does not give enough historical background to back up the claim.

# data[].attributes.body
Rating: 6/10
Reasoning:
The candidate describes and unpacks the IA prompt well, showing understanding of the topic and prompt he/she has chosen. The items chosen by this specific candidate seem interesting and fun to learn about, the items also seem to stand out when looked at. The candidate also shows great description and understanding of all the three objects. This candidate connects well to the ethical link of the world, however, it does not seem to connect to the IA prompt or answer the prompt either. This candidate also did not elaborate enough on the IA prompt in the conclusion paragraph. The candidate also did not clarify enough why he/she does not think that some knowledge should be sought on ethical grounds. In this candidate's commentary, not all points that were made are supported by strong evidence and viewers could still question the points that were being made. The candidate did not include much of the TOK concepts, the TOK concepts he/she did put were not explained well and not so relevant to the topic. The core theme was explained and connected to the prompt quite decently. Just decently enough that the viewers would not think of many questions when viewing the commentary.

# data[].attributes.body
7/10
- the three objects chosen are related to the IA prompt
- contains specific real world contexts
- contains arguments and justification that strongly support the main idea and explanation that is quite understandable as to why they might think that way
- ends with a conclusion that connects to the main argument
- there are a lot of rhetorical questions which instead should be answered by the writer to reduce more curiosity and confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
The exhibition was able to clearly emphasize the real world contexts regarding the three objects. There is a strong justification towards each individual object, and all of the points made were well-supported by appropriate evidence. Besides that, the exhibition also uses clear and explicit references towards the selected IA prompt. However, some objects still lack a clear connection towards the given IA prompt, since most of the explanations given towards some objects were related with assumptions and or opinions rather than concrete reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
The writer gave three strong evidence that were connected to the TOK prompt and addressed on how it was connected to the prompt. The writer used real world evidences that were relevant to justify and explain the prompt and had all the requirements, but it did not answer the IA prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
This student achieved everything that is needed in the rubrics for TOK exhibition. Student can also justify and explain his or her object. Links between the objects and the IA prompts are connected. Student also have enough evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Score: 9/10
The exhibition was clear and straightforward. They made good use of the objects as it supports their claims very well. The explanation for each object and its reasoning was understandable and it connects with the prompt well. The questions that are present in the exhibition also coaxes the readers to question and consider underlying possibilities, which helps in delivering challenging ideas to the readers. Even though the exhibition could be more in-depth, especially for the third and final object, and they should explicitly mention the prompt after the end, it is a solid exhibition overall.

# data[].attributes.body
The author did give real-life objects that are related to the prompt. But they did not really connect and elaborate the relationship between these objects and the prompt. There were also a lot of "What if" questions which he did not answer and further elaborated on.  The explanations as well as the about the objects were good; but the focus to the prompt is not really there. There are also no topic sentences that "hooks" or relate to the IA prompt as well as the objects.

# data[].attributes.body
Daniel
score : 6.5/10

Yes the exhibition focuses on three main things and it somewhat focuses and gives satisfaction to a good extent because the objects are relevant with one another. It also corresponds with the requirements from the rubric to focus on three points. But it do not answers the IA prompt questions.

# data[].attributes.body
They found really good objects that connect well to the prompt. I think they just need to connect the object to the prompt in a more in-depth way, and give more evidences.

# data[].attributes.body
6/10. The IA prompt was clearly stated and defined, and the objects do in some way connect with the prompt. However, the person did not elaborate much on why their objects connect with the IA prompt, and I could still question their objects. Moreover, their explanation is still a bit shallow and does not relate to TOK.

# data[].attributes.body
All 3 objects were connected to the TOK prompt. The evidence from the object was good and it was applied well towards their claim

# data[].attributes.body
It is acceptable and competent

the objects somewhat relate to the IA prompt, however it is not really relevant, the examination of the objects however is very good but due to the objects not being very good in the first place it is put here.

tubnel

# data[].attributes.body
The exhibition effectively utilizes specific objects to illustrate the IA prompt. These objects are directly related to the prompt and are also captivating since it is a good example for the IA prompt

# data[].attributes.body
Score: 5/10

Comments:
- The individual presents several definitions that have been briefly expounded on such as the Divine Command, which builds off of another definition. To an extent people are able to grasp the general idea of their perspective upon the topic, there is still uncertainty to what ethics and values are due to the fact that their definition mentions "a higher power, namely a spiritual, transcendental being," which different people perceive in various ways. Therefore there is a lack of precision.
- Their first example exhibits a relevant examples, however there are several questions introduced. Instead of providing a straightforward answer, there is more uncertainty upon the suggested object of evidence.
- The second prompt is able to expound on the possibilities of the object of evidence and effectively sums up everything with one answer. It is lucid, but there should be more elaboration on the cohesive answer.  In addition the fact that the second item of evidence is so closely related to the first one in terms of destruction does not exhibit the IA prompt in a wide scare, but rather builds upon an existing stance.
-  The third prompt explores the modernization of society and how technology be utilized to possibly benefit people. However the individual should capitalize on the benefits this time to acknowledge the latter opinion. Yes it supports their stance, but a rebuttal would be more powerful as it presents the other claim as less substantial.
- Overall the TOK Exhibition has specific examples that are proven to be relative to the prompt, however there should be more reasoning upon the choice of evidence. Additionally the TOK world was barely addressed such as the Memory, Testimony and Imperialism

# data[].attributes.body
Characteristics: Relevent, convincing, and reasonable

The exhibition clearly explains the 3 artifacts shown and its ethical link to the world. The way the writer links the objects to the prompt is relevent while convincing the reader that these 3 objetcs can be abused. By asking questions towards the reads and reasonable explanations to back up the claim

# data[].attributes.body
8/10
The three objects are relevant to the topic and the paragraphs discuss the objects clearly and to the point
The objects could dive deeper and elaborate more to the idea

# data[].attributes.body
Characteristics: Little convincing and evidence is shallow

The evidence used within the exhibition is relevant to the IA prompt, however it is quite shallow and is non-debatable evidence. Evidence such as nuclear bombs, dangerous war machines, and brain chips are evidences that are automatically considered as unethical. Justification for each evidence is exemplary and clear.

# data[].attributes.body
The exhibition was done quite well as it is quite clear. The links between the objects and the selected IA prompts was also quite ok. There was quite a good justification of the particular contribution that each individual object makes to the exhibition.

# data[].attributes.body
- the object is relevant to the prompt and is supported by clear explanation, however there is no clear discussion related to TOK/ to knowledge
- informal and not structured well

# data[].attributes.body
The student achieved all the rubrics needed for the TOK exhibition. Use evidence for the topic that is chosen by the student, justify and explain his/her object. Also the student explains the real world context related to the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
8/10
-Is related to the IA prompted
-Evidence is based on what if and not factual proof that has been tried and tested.
-Has justification but not as strong
-Has specified and stated the threat of the objects.

# data[].attributes.body
Example 1 : 7.1
There grammar is bad and its in a way informal, I really like his objects but it could use more research and explanation
Example 2 : 8
Decently written but give more its so plain

# data[].attributes.body
7/10
The exhibition clearly describe each objects that are being used. The writer relates the prompt to the real world, or even history. I like the way the writer connects it to ethical actions, and how they convinced that those objects are unethical due to some reasons. Those reasons are described clearly and to the point.

# data[].attributes.body
7 or 8, the objects used are related to the prompt and the prompt is addressed. Overall focus is a bit lacking though. Justification is adequate, but not strong.

# data[].attributes.body
- The objects are mostly relevant with the prompt and provide cohesive arguments supporting their claims.
- There is enough evidence for their claims.

Olga

# data[].attributes.body
I give it a 8/10 because the writer connects it to the real world and if it is ethical to make or use such things on the first place. The writer writes a clear explanation on why each of the  items are not ethical to be used or even made in the first place which answers the IA prompt that the writer choses, but the writer did not clarify about some parts on how it could be ethical. For example, the writer did not state about another way the war could ended if it was not for the nuclear bombs.

# data[].attributes.body
Characteristics: Relevant and Coherent

The exhibition is clear and coherent in what  objects it uses to explain the IA prompt. the objects are relevant to the prompt and also is very interesting and important in discussions of current usage of technology.

pipe.