A question about tok presentations

[the shiz]

Hey guys,

I have kindove hit a block in writing up my presentation and was wondering if you guys could help me out.

The way we have been shown to do a tok presentation is to come up with a topic, take a side in regards to that topic, then analyse it and see if your stance was the right one. My friend and I took a stance and started to analyse our topic with the history area of knowledge. After doing this we realised that adding a parameter to our argument ie our stance is right IF......, would help us greatly in terms of proving it was the right side to take and also make it easier for us to do our presentation. I was wondering if we would be allowed to take this improved argument and use it in the rest of the analysis or if we would have to keep using our original argument/stance.

This may be a little hard to understand (some people have told me so ), so if you need any clarifications please let me know.

Thanks,

Shiva

[Sonneteer_Trombonist]

Hey, I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean, and we did ours a tad differently, but what my ToK teacher said to do was when you take your topic (what I suppose would be your stance), do not set parameters on it because you are limiting what you can do in the analysis. What you might want to do is take a stance without the parameter, analyse, and then in the conclusion, where you determine whether your stance was correct, you can discuss the parameters, because then it tells the marker that you were able to gain perspective from your analysis and come to a conclusion in which the analysis played a definitive role, as opposed to a "yes or no" stance with a few key points restated.

I hope that makes sense. Wow, look at those run-on sentences...

Good luck

[the shiz]

Hey, I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean, and we did ours a tad differently, but what my ToK teacher said to do was when you take your topic (what I suppose would be your stance), do not set parameters on it because you are limiting what you can do in the analysis. What you might want to do is take a stance without the parameter, analyse, and then in the conclusion, where you determine whether your stance was correct, you can discuss the parameters, because then it tells the marker that you were able to gain perspective from your analysis and come to a conclusion in which the analysis played a definitive role, as opposed to a "yes or no" stance with a few key points restated.

I hope that makes sense. Wow, look at those run-on sentences...

Good luck

Hey,

Thanks for the reply. I think you basically understood what I meant, and your suggestion seems like a good idea.

Many thanks

[ameatypie]

I would suggest that improving your argument based on new information so you could use this modified argument in the rest of your presentation or whatever would be okay, provided you do not modify your argument too much from the orgional. Not totally sure about this, however - just an educated guess. Cheers