- Generally good introductions. Setting out agendas, objectives and methods.
- Good team work and collaboration. All presentations are very well planned and structured.
- Descriptive rather than analytical. Didn’t explore the different moral and philosophical standpoints. E.g: Libertarianism vs Utilitarianism vs deontology or moral universalism.
- Need to abstract out the issues to universal ones that can be applied to different moral dilemmas.
- Avoid reading
Group 1 – Nick, Alex, Jeff and Ryan
Started by showing the level of relevance to Hong Kong and defining the term ‘price gouging’. A very well structured presentation that was driven by a clearly stated set of questions. You possibly spent a little too much time on defining your terms. Largely descriptive. Didn’t explore the differetn moral and philosophical standpoints. E.g: Libertarianism vs Utilitarianism vs deontology or moral universalism.
Group 2 – Louise, Tre and Brian
Started with a definition of the term. Still a dependence on reading. Very good discussion of the ways of knowing and clear emphasis on reason.
At times knowledge claims are not justified or unpicked. EG: You said it was unacceptable to have an economics perspective when there is a natural disaster – but you did not justify or explain this viewpoint. Having said that as the presentation went on – the level of analysis increased.
A very good understanding of the economic ideas and arguments. Tre demonstrates clear understanding and processing skills by confidently delivering without reading.
Try to develop a more animated and engaging way of presenting. Also less dependence on reading.
Good level of research.
Group 3 – Suman, Praveen, Tamaki and Hei Yin
Good introduction – very clear. Praveen demonstrates clear understanding and processing skills by confidently delivering without reading. There is real pace to this presentation – this helps with engagement levels. A better level of analysis, but still not abstracting issues out into TOK land sufficiently. High level of team work. Good use of WOK terminology, but reasoning a little weak as you assume you can describe price gouging as evil. Not convincing in arguing that price gouging is wrong.
Having said that references to ‘situation ethics’ and the ‘golden rule’ at the end is very good.
Group 4 – Chin Wah, Anson and Francis
Opened with a good introduction. Anson said that price gouging consists of prices being raised to an “unacceptable” level. Biased statement. Francis said that price gouging is ‘natural’, a good argument to support this argument and discussion of state intervention.
Confident delivery and a good level of research. Chin Wah used a series of challenging questions to drive his conclusion.