# data[].attributes.body
- RLS + Claims - parts of the RLS seem redundant and parts of claims still seem to explicit to the real life situation
- TOK Radar --> The link between your TOK radar and KQ makes sense but rather than saying the right over knowledge more the restriction of knowledge as the debate in the RLS is the restriction of knowledge rather than who owns it
- KQ - explain significance a bit more
- Perspectives - your perspectives seems a bit sparse and on the slides there are many visual aids to help understanding --> your perspectives are about should you do something or not rather than the right of knowledge
- Conclusion --> it feels like you don't really come down on one side and it feels a bit too relative to the RLS rather than knowledge in general

# data[].attributes.body
- RLS is interesting
- Claims are redundant and not really implicit
- TOK radar = link makes sense but should be further explained
- RQ need to be explained better
- Perspectives need to be linked to KQ more
- not very engaging
- conclusion comes down to ones side but is more relative to the RLS then the RQ

# data[].attributes.body
- Interesting RLS
- I like how you directly related your perspectives to your RLS and KQ
- I think you could delve deeper into your conclusion
- I think that your perspectives were good but could have been explained further

# data[].attributes.body
- Interesting RLS, the explicit and implicit claims are well connected and well explained
- maybe less reading off script and presentation

# data[].attributes.body
- Interesting KQ
- Feels more about property
- Implicit claims is slightly too detailed
- "right over knowledge" - key point

# data[].attributes.body
- Your implicit claims seem a little too narrow
- You didn't really mention the significance of your KQ and how it relates back
- Relied a bit too much on your script
- Focus on the 'right of knowledge' part, you didn't really expand on your explanation

# data[].attributes.body
Application to other RLS is good but try not to read, but instead talk to us. Perspectives are linked directly to the RLS. So who do you ask to determine who has the right if both sides are bias?

# data[].attributes.body
- Interesting RLS
- Implicit and Explicit claims link well
- Good discussion about opposing sides when talking about TOK radar
- Maybe you can expand upon the significance as you only discussed it briefly
- Good first perspective - I like how you included count-arguments within each perspective to show opposing sides
- I also like how you related it back to the RLS - in the perspective of the people that wrote the perspectives (which side they would side with)
-  Maybe both presenters could divide the slides equally

# data[].attributes.body
- A bit too much reading off your script/the presentation
-Maybe you could possibly go into further detail about how you came to the question, and its significance
- I like how you added how your perspective would answer the knowledge question + counterclaims
- I think next time you can divide the perspectives equally between each other

# data[].attributes.body
- Good link between the RLS and the real life example.
- Also good link between the two RLS and perspectives
-Reading off too much... try to be more familiar with your sc

# data[].attributes.body
-Try not to read off the script/slide too much
-KQ relates
-Claim + Counterclaim is there for every perspective
-Contrasting perspectives
-Explicit statements

# data[].attributes.body
- I like your RLS, it has a few interesting viewpoints
- Good KQ but it would be a good idea to define "knowledge" and elaborate
- Try not to go back and forth between two slides
- Good that you have the perspectives "answering" the knowledge question
- Good perspectives, extremely and clearly related

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/24/american-indian-artifacts-paved-over-california/8086609/