# data[].attributes.body
No
-racism, discrimination, bullying, social outcast arise from diversity in people
- when diversity arises, stigma follows, the stigma that a vast majority of people need to look/ a certain way in order to fit in/ be normal
(How are the above two points distinct from one another ?)
-diversity-> social divide

Yes
-diversity provides individualism (Need to explain/elaborate on how diversity provides for individualism. Am not too sure on the relevance/link that you are postulating here.) And how is individualism good? (Do note that individualism has several disadvantages as well.)

Others: Stand/thesis statement is absent. Essay approach/structure is uncertain, based on what is presented above.

# data[].attributes.body
intro;

rise of globalisation > many turn to study abroad in hopes of experiencing new positive core memories or to get access to better education at top schools

however, while this may sound beneficial for all, during the covid-19 pandemic, many asians around the world experienced racism.

a Singapore student, Jonathan Mok who was studying in london was met with an unfortunate incident where he was met with a Coronavirus-related racist attack.

The (hook) incident above highlights more on the trends of globalisation (studying overseas) or prejudice and discrimination i.e. racism, rather than on diversity itself. To craft the above context to highlight the possible merits or/and disadvantages of diversity (for example, how diversity leads to potential conflicts, especially when there is underlying prejudice and discrimination.)

this begs the question if diversity is always beneficial? despite the benefits that diversity can bring about, i take the stand that diversity is not always beneficial. (Valid stand here)

-diversity leads to loss of original culture (hybridisation & homogenisation of culture)
- example; kpop halluyu wave & starbucks both lead to loss of culture (Valid Point 1)
- diversity ~ discrimination (This is a separate Point 2?)

france assimilation policy

all french citizens are to identify w the principle of secularism (everyone seen as the same, no showcase of religion)

education; no discussion abt religion except during history and philosophy classes. adaptation classes carried out to help ppl improve french lang

muslims not allowed to wear hijabs as it is a religious symbol

- this shows that there is no diversity in france as they do not believe in it, anyone who tries to show that they are diverse / diff face charges as it is against the law.
(While valid, this is a rather example-driven point based on France's context: be sure to generalise it to a core argument that applies for other societies that while pushing for secularism to ensure that diversity does not become an issue, actually leads to greater tensions.
Also consider about other secular societies that have been more successful in promoting multiculturalism such as Canada?)

Check: be sure that you have sufficient core arguments (that includes a range of arguments, your counterargument and rebuttal or balancing paragraph).

# data[].attributes.body
Overall comments:
Detailed essay outline :)

- Valid CA
- Valid R: while conceding to the CA, perhaps rephrase your TS of the R such that it is not just about the detriments outweighing the benefits as
(i) this presents a rather limited number game
(ii) this is meant to be a CA- R so your rebuttal should directly tackle your CA- so perhaps the TS could be along the lines of: "While I concede to the above argument that diversity in corporations can bring about economic benefits, this is only possible if corporations are able to manage the potential tensions inherent in a diverse working environment effectively so as as to harness its benefits. While this is ideal and present in some corporations, this is hardly the reality for many others in our increasingly globalised working world today."

# data[].attributes.body
Overall comments:
- I like that you have identified certain traits of your society (Singapore) as this is required by the question/contention.

- Do note that while there are examples that show racism and unkindness, the contention/statement is: "it pays to be kind" so the examples must highlight that there were actually intentions to be kind/gracious/compassionate/empathetic/
sympathetic etc. to another, but it didn't pay off.

- Separately, I am not entirely convinced by the argument/area of discussion that it pays to be kind to the environment... I don't think this is a direct and explicit relatable aspect that the phrase 'it pays to be kind' applies to.

- Based on current planning and mindmap presented, I'm not sure what your overall stand/thesis statement is. Hence I am also not able to identify if there is a CA and R or a balancing argument. So something for you to think about in your own planning. You do need to have these elements before you start writing your actual essay.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall Comments:
- Valid A1, A2 and A3.
- Each of them has the potential for you to explore possible limitations/mini-CAs for evaluation/balance opportunities so can think about that to improve the depth of your evaluation.

CA is valid but the R would be the same as your A1.
- Perhaps consider a R that would directly tackle your CA: something along the lines that:
"While I concede that there is some truth that eco-tourism can lead to more environmental problems with an excessive influx of tourists that bring about more pollution and waste to the environment, this is often because the intentions of such eco-tourism projects are for mere profit-seeking motives alone, and not for the greater good of the environment. As such, these projects are bound to fail and indeed, can be the worst solutions to environmental problems as they are mere greenwashing attempts. While there will always be these black sheep in the industry, the increase in environmental consciousness of the various stakeholders (the corporations, the consumers and the governments alike) have led to the success of other eco-tourism projects that are genuine in their intentions to protect the environment and promote sustainability. ..."

# data[].attributes.body
P3 and P4 seem similar: same idea of diversity leading to conflicts? Just that one is more serious (homocides and assults) than the other. Also, you may not want to use the word "misunderstanding" at least not in the context of homocides which is very serious.

How do you distinguish between the two? Do they have different/distinct arguments? Meaning that each shows and proves a distinct argument (why?)

If you look at what you have, you are focusing on the outcome (how so?) so both arguments tend to highlight the observable actions/behaviours of why diversity is good but the behaviour is the same (conflicts/tensions) - so unless the argumentation (underlying reason for each argument) is different in each argument/body paragraph, you essentially have only one argument.

So how to possibly remedy this?

Either (a) explore distinct underlying reasons for the cause of conflict brought about by diversity:
for example: P3 could be due to deep-seated historical context of white supremacy over the blacks, context of continued prejudice and discrimination till today

while P4 could focus on the context of increased migration in today's globalised world, which means diversity seen in varied cultures and leading to potential tensions as there is a lack of understanding and appreciation of other cultures and their lifestyles etc.

(See how/visualise during your planning on how each PEEEL would turn out differently from one another to ATQ.)

OR (b) come with a different detriment that diversity has led to i.e. that is NOT on conflicts -
so this could be:
Diversity also creates resentment (context of migration: locals vs foreigners; or unfair treatment given to majority over the minority or ironically, the disadvantages of affirmative action that is actually aimed to tackle biasness and discrimination to minorities in the society etc. )

Hope the above makes some sense to you. Do clarify with me if it is confusing or if you have queries ;)