# data[].attributes.body
- I don't really get the link
- For the first perspective (Oppenheimer), maybe shorten it or give a brief description of quote, not read it all.
- "thus"

# data[].attributes.body
- I don't really get the link
- For the first perspective (Oppenheimer), maybe shorten it or give a brief description of quote, not read it all.

# data[].attributes.body
- I don't really get the link

# data[].attributes.body
- Interesting RLS
- For the first perspective (Oppenheimer), maybe shorten it or give a brief description of quote, not read it all.
- Where is the implicit and explicit claims
- I like the pictures, but not all of them relate to the topic/subject being spoken
- Overall, I found your presentation quite interesting. Both of you seemed to understand and communicate the topic very well.

# data[].attributes.body
RLS is interesting but I think you're missing the implicit and explicit claims?
Long quote
Do you need 2 RLSs?

# data[].attributes.body
- Good RLS and clear connection to your KQ
- Explicit and Implicit claims?
- I think you should have picked out the most relevant parts of the quote and read that instead of going through the whole thing
- One group member looked a bit more prepared than the other - maybe equally distribute roles?
- I like how you discussed the positives and setbacks of the first perspective - you quoted the individual which helped with the understanding
- Good second perspective as well - clear connection
- I think you have too many RLSs - try to connect it more to the KQ rather than the original RLS
- Good job with the conclusion, you picked a side and made the conclusion quite clear cut

# data[].attributes.body
- Clear explanation of RLS and connection to knowledge question
- Missing claims
- Clear and relevant perspective but unneeded full quote (summary would work better)
- More relevant visuals would be helpful (graphs, key points)
- Very clearly understood and articulate but sometimes points on the slide would be helpful as you are discussing a large amount of information
- Maybe switch between roles of speaking to keep the audience attentive
- Instead of simply stating whether it is or is not limited, discuss when it is appropriate

# data[].attributes.body
- Implicit and Explicit claim?
- Good connection w/ the RLS and the knowledge question
- Visuals could be a bit more relevant to the slides and topics
- The analysis for the perspectives could be more in depth

# data[].attributes.body
A good, strong choice in RLS.
As others have said, Where are your knowledge claims?
Did you really have to read all of the Oppenheimer quote? You could have cut it out, but it is a good quote nonetheless.
Nice first perspective! Directly relates to the RLS, with a strong conclusion.
Perspective 2 is also very relevant. The ending was weak though. Remember, your KQ is WHEN should it be limited, not IF.
You need to practice more, you sound very unconfident. Not only that, but you should include notes or bullet points on the screen, so the audience can follow along.
Why do you have so many RLS? You should stick to one or two and have more perspectives that address that apply to the situation.
You're missing a bit of content and your presentation doesn't enough text. More analysis of the perspectives are needed, rather than a description of it.

# data[].attributes.body
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

- Implicit & Explicit Claims?
- Your KQ is a little too focused in the sciences so I feel like this need to be broadened.
- This quote isn't necessary, at least the whole thing isn't, paraphrase the important parts otherwise it is just a waste of your time
- You don't do the implicit claims of a perspective, perspectives are explicit, thats why they are a perspective
- Equal distribution of roles?
- Some of the slides don't suit what you are talking about and some of the images are irrelevant. It takes away from what you are meant to be proving.
- I feel like you are spending too much time describing the perspective rather than actually showing the connection to your KQ, which is what you are meant to be doing.
- But are 3 year olds being kicked out of their houses or is this just an assumption? Don't assume something if it is not really happening as of present, but if it is make sure you have a clear link to a source that says this.
- You have some good RSL's but there are too many, try and limit this as it will give you more room to go in depth into the more important ones.
- How do you know the consequences before you actually test the trial? Consequences only happen when you actually do something, not before you do it. It's pretty difficult to predict consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
- Your connection between the KQ and the RLS was well done
- Implicit and explicit claims were missing
- Good job on the first perspective, it has a clear link to the KQ
- I like that you didn't read off the presentation, but maybe include a couple of simplified points so the audience could follow better with the large amount of information
-  I like the visuals, but maybe you could link the images more to the topic so that the presentation has more depth
- You might need to elaborate more when talking about the perspectives, instead of adding two more RLS
- Great job!!

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting RLS and connects well to KQ. Missing the knowledge claims as well. Seems like a lot of RLS discussed, more time spent analysis would be relevant

# data[].attributes.body
I like RLS and an interesting connection to the KQ - be careful with how you phrase some of your points. I think your KQ could even go beyond science to the pursuit of knowledge in all areas of knowledge.

Where are your implicit and explicit claims?

Careful with too little text on slides, maybe some visuals or some jot points may help. On the contrary, careful with the long quote.  Some visuals seem a bit random? Be careful with the distribution of different slides and reading off the script (jot points on the slide may help) as it is less engaging and feels slightly superficial rather than a deeper genuine exploration and evaluation.

You have a few too many RLSs but I like the idea of the application.

# data[].attributes.body
Relevant issue and intriguing RLS. Reading some of the quote would have been better. Both perspectives are from the US government, similar views. There is not much reading off of slides, but also there aren't any key words, points, or visuals on the slides, which helps keep the audience engaged and able to keep up with the presentation. What if these scientific investigations can help save millions? but we would never know if we never tried. Can you always know the results of an experiment (positive or negative)?

# data[].attributes.body
-  KQ relates to RLS: interesting and clear explanation of the  connection
-  Explicit & Implicit claims?
- You could cut down the quote, paraphrasing the important parts
- It would help us process the information better if there were a few points summarizing what you are talking about in each slide
- You could have more explanation about the connection to the KQ and why it is significant

# data[].attributes.body
- Really interesting RLS and I could see a clear connection between your KQ and RLS
- Knowledge claims?
- I like that you have included the perspective of Oppenheimer because although it focuses on another branch within the sciences from your RLS, there is a clear connection between it and your KQ.
- However, I think you should have included a summary of Oppenheimer's quote rather than the entire quote.
- I like the way the clear connection that you are making between Oppenheimer's perspective to your RLS.
- Good connection between the perspective about the American government to the RLS and KQ.
- Instead of including so many different perspectives / RLS, I think it could be better to have a deeper analysis of each one and what these perspectives mean to the KQ.
- , I think it would be easier for the audience to follow through the presentation with more helpful visual aids (i.e. bullet points) rather than just mainly images.

# data[].attributes.body
When is knowledge worth having?   This is a great RLS and KQ that clearly connect.

Oppenheimer -  Atomic Bomb - Scientist metaphorical oath - Interesting problem between the oath and the human ethical oath - I'm not sure oppenheimer would agree with your conclusion of his perspective.
Gould - master genes - human chimp hybrid - worthwhile pursuing to learn

American Government - manipulated disease - scientific american censored sharing knowledge - utilitarianism (Bentham and Mills) - it should be limited - clearly connects to RLS - interesting asking the question of what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people for homosexuals?  Who decides?
CRISPR - can change the gene pool - don't understand consequences
Cruelty Free -

Conclusion - need to understand all consequences therefore knowledge should be limited. - this is problematic - good point of who should answer this question.

A few too many RLS.  More analysis of what your perspective means to the KQ is needed then RLS.  I'm glad you came firmly down on one side however it might mean that we can't do any scientific research.

16:05

Final Comment - There is a clear connection between your RLS and KQ. Elements of your perspectives are underdeveloped but a clear strand of the KQ exists throughout your presentation. You have commented on some of the outcomes of the analysis but more is

# data[].attributes.body
- Very relevant and controversial RLS
- Oppenheimer perspective connects to finding evidence that suggests one is born homosexual

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting RLS, very relevant. Your KQ is a little bit too related to the sciences I think, even though your link between RLS and KQ is clear.  I liked your two perspectives and how you connected them with your RLS.  I liked how you related your KQ to different situations, especially in the realms of science.  I liked your conclusion, but maybe you went a little bit off topic.

# data[].attributes.body
- Very direct, thorough explanation of the RLS
- Good RLS choice
- Knowledge Claims?
- Justified connection of original RLS and KQ
- Adequate justification of significance of KQ
- Barely any reading off of the screen except for Oppenheimer's quote (maybe focus on the more relevant areas of the quote next time)
- Connection between Oppenheimer's quote and the RLS shown but its a bit of a stretch as Oppenheimer has no direct relation towards the RLS excluding the quote
- One group member seems to be more confident/prepared than the other...
- Limit the number of RLSs (too many)
- Try to limit the use of conversational/informal language
- Overall good presentation due to adequate amount of justification but try and cut down on the number of RLSs next time

# data[].attributes.body
-Good and interesting RLS, with TOK questions
-Missing Knowledge Claims?
-KQ is a bit difficult to connect to the RLS...
-Atom Bomb Perspective is far out, but explanation and link justifies KQ, making it a good and strong connection, although maybe misquoted
- 2nd perspective focusing more on implications
-Strong conclusion connecting implications, significance to the KQ and the main RLS
Overall a good presentation with a good RLS which although difficult to connect with KQ at first, was relatable. Good perspective connections

# data[].attributes.body
How gay people become gay

# data[].attributes.body
OUR ARTICLE
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it