# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
- Some valid arguments but some of them seem to have overlapping/similar ideas.
For example: A1 does not specify how exactly are youths today embolded to take actions (is it beacuse they have more opportunities and avenues to do so? Is it beacuse they are more vocal? Is because they are more socially, politically conscious etc. and are personally invested in certain causes and make their voices heard? - Without explictly bringing the distinct quality of young people here to the forefront, there is a possibility that this point/argument may overlap with your A2 or/and R.

- The context of young people being cooped up at home due to Covid-19 pandemic, while valid, should not be used as an argument since that situation is not the norm. The argument that because you are cooped up at home, hence you become more emboldened to take action or you become more vocal is not very convincing to me. I would think the opposite is actually more possible.

- A2 has the same argument as A1, just that now it is enhanced via social media. Okie, still valid as this argument/paragraph would focus more on the features of the Internet and social media ( in modern society) that makes it very possible for young people to truly make a difference in the world today.

- CA is valid; on limited effectiveness of performative activism (quality of young people only wanting to be 'trendy')

- R: relevant match to CA and highlights the benefits of performative activism (though still recognising that it may be superficial, done simply for so-called activists to "feel good" etc.)  Would have prefered your impact here to move towards something more tangible to show that young people do truly make a difference in the world- beyond disseminating information and raising awareness but actually facilitating the popularisation of important movements that led to actions and promoted change.

# data[].attributes.body
Qn: Is diversity always beneficial?

While diversity may lead to racial integration and harmony, it is largely problematic and hence is not always beneficial. The argument on diversity leading to integration and harmony is not in any of your arguments below- if this statement is your thesis statement, it should have been your CA.

A1: Diversity has resulted in many racial conflicts around the world, leading to the occurrence of racial riots and racial tensions. (1964 racial riot in Singapore, )   Valid argument here but some food for thought here: (1) race itself is actually just one particular domain (in what areas has diversity caused conflict?). So, a more focused Topic Sentence in terms of argumentation/reasoning is to put forth a particular/distinct reason for why this conflict in diversity exists- Is it due to historical contexts that have continued till today OR due to existing prejudice and discrimination when it comes to how we view and treat others outside of our race or ethnicitytreatment of others, and then use apply that to the relevant domain of race, for example and support with specific case studies/incidents. (2) The specific incident that you have highlighted is valid but it is in our history (in 1964)- What about NOW? What is the situation now? Is there still diversity in SG? and Does it still lead to conflict and tension?

A2: Diversity has also resulted in an inequitable distribution of resources due to the imbalance ratio of the various races. (eg. a HDB block must have 70% of Chinese, 20% of Muslims and 10% of other races).

(1) Possibly valid argument here but WHY? What is about diversity in a society that has led to this inequitable distribution? Is it about less redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in diverse societies? Is it about certain groups maintaining their privileged positions in a diverse society? Is it about unequal access to resources and opportunities in a diverse society?

(2) Based on your example above: the example itself does not show that diversity results in inequitable distribution of resources. It is the policy (the Ethnic Integration Policy (commonly referred to as the HDB ethnic quota meant to discourage the forming of racial enclaves in Singapore) that the SG government has implemented that has unfortunately, led to criticisms in the fair distribution of our flast, for example, unfilled Chinese quota leftover flats in cheaper, non-mature estates such as Tengah and unfilled Malay quota leftover flats in more expensive, mature estates such as Geylang. So, it is not diversity per se that is the issue here, it is the measures that the government has brought in to manage and minimise potential conflict in diversity that ironically leads to criticism here for example, not being able to get your hands on a particular property due to your ethnicity or how the EIP leads to possible price differences in the same property.)

CA: It could be argued that despite the frequent occurrences of racial riots/conflicts due to diversity, diversity is still beneficial as diverse cultural perspectives can drive innovations among society.  (almost 1.5 million foreign talent in Singapore, making the country highly profitable and competitive)

Possibly Valid CA (though not the CA that was given earlier in your thesis statement). Your example here only shows the influx of foreign talent- exactly how diversity is represented here in this particular group and how they drive innovations in Singapore, and hence, improving our economy and competitiveness is something that would have to be further substantiated and illustrated here.

R: While there could be a gain of truth in this, it is overly optimistic to assume that diverse cultural perspectives will always lead to positive outcomes as they can result in over-competition among the various races and hence lead to racial tensions arising.

1) The R above does not match with the CA. If CA is about driving innovation, then the TS of R should not be a generic  "diverse cultural perspectives will always lead to positive outcomes", then your R is just a mere argument on the other side of the fence (it is not a rebuttal.)

2) Make sure you have the CA in the Topic Sentence (TS) of your rebutttal. and establish a clear match. Something along the lines of: While it is true that diversity, in this case, from foreign talents, can drive innovation and create a more productive and competitive economy for a society, this has to be managed carefully. This is due to the sensitivities that may arise from the tension and competition that the locals themselves may feel from the influx of these foreigners.

3) Probably don't focus on racial tension again cos that is your A1. Here, we are looking at tensions between locals and the migrants.

4) An aside note: One can also consider other categories of migrants beyond foreign talents if your argument is not about driving innovation- it could be refugees and other foreign workers (not necessarily "talents".)

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
- CA is valid, however R does not engage with the CA (i.e. does not match.) If CA is about people should have the freedom to manage their wealth, lest it disincentivises them from working hard to achieve success; then R should be challenging or examining the limitations of such an argument/view.

Maybe something along the lines of:
"Indeed, there is some truth in the power of giving people the freedom and autonomy to manage their wealth, if not, they may feel less inclined to work hard and this would have implications on the wider society. However, this only holds true if everyone is capable of earning a decent salary and that they have the capability to manage their wealth. In other words, there is no so-called freedom to manage one's wealth if there is no "wealth" nor capability to manage it to begin with. Unfortunately, such is the case for many who are in dire poverty. With that, it becomes even more important that the rich are obliged to help the poor, especially if the poor are unable to help themselves and need a helping hand."

- Your R is a valid argument (A), just not a rebuttal to your CA.

- Both your A1 and A2 are valid arguments, though I feel that A2 seems very similar to that of A1 (social stability).

# data[].attributes.body
not always beneficial
a1: diversity is present in the world — different races and ethnic groups around the world, via tourism/globalisation -> get to meet new people from other ethnic groups and learn more about their culture
-> in SG during racial harmony day, as a multiracial country, we appreciate one another’s culture and come to embrace our differences

So? What is the argument here? Bring that to the forefront of the TS: Diversity leads to greater appreciation and understanding of diverse cultures, leading to a more emphathetic society at large(?)

a2: diversity in SG in terms of education, social class
(Similar to a1 above: this seems to be either domain or/and example driven- Singapore). Bring another argument to the forefront in the TS here: one that is not the same as what I have suggested above.

bp1: by and large, diversity has positive impacts on the society, but stereotypes and prejudice are always present in the society. these mindsets can be hard to change due to them being largely ingrained in society. thus, the presence of diversity can act as a catalyst for conflict — diff races and ethnicity can lead to discrimination and prejudice
Valid BP argument here.

bp2: diff socio-economic class and different levels of education can cause those of higher classes to look down in those who are of lower socio economic status.
(This seems similar to bp1 i.e. same argument, just in a different domain: SES, rather than race.)

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
There are some valid ideas addressing the context in the notes written under 'Introduction'. Would be good if you had crafted a thesis statement that provides a more balanced stand (that includes either your CA or Balancing argument), rather than just a simple stand: yes or no.

Paragraph 1:  While this seems theoretically a possible claim to make, it would imply that this cycle of exploitation of the rich on the poor is one that you wouldn't mind continuing since the rich is compensating the poor by helping them. From my perspective, I personally feel that it is not an ethical nor politically correct argument to make.

Any other arguments/points?

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
Valid and interesting range of domains explored (social; political; economic) with each having a clear and distinct argument/reason as to why the rich is obliged to help the poor :)

Interesting argument/point about the media but I wasn't too convinced based on what you have written on it changing societal norms and values. The media domain here seems more to do with it being just a platform/tool in which the rich could employed to help the poor, rather than it being a distinct reason/argument.

Overall, strong arguments for your stand but what about balance? I don't see a CA - R nor a Balancing Argument/Paragraph (BP) here. Do think about that.

# data[].attributes.body
Stand: agree

P1: Fiction serves as a means through which readers can learn more about people of different cultures and in different circumstances, thus being a window to the lives of others. Through this, a culture of empathy is inculcated in people in today's society.

P2: Fiction builds on one's imagination, providing a relief from the mundanity of today's world.

CA: Fiction presents a false reality which deludes readers, and serves only to distract rather than inform. Contrastingly, non fiction supplies factual information which can prove to be more useful in today's world.

R: While non fiction books do provide factual and useful information that readers can gain insight from, fiction books like historical books, for instance, have the power to do so as well, but all the more movingly, thus proving more effective than the likes of fiction books.

Comments:
- Valid arguments on why people should read fiction.
- However, that is not the question/contention. Your planning notes here lack the required content as to why people, IN YOUR SOCIETY should read MORE fiction so two components are missing in the planning: (a) the context of your society (b) the degree/ level / extent in which the people in your society is reading fiction (or not) and whether that level is an adequate one; whether it should be more or ironically, it should actually be less.

# data[].attributes.body
The moral obligation of the rich to help the poor can be viewed from multiple ethical perspectives and varies depending on one's beliefs and values.

Topic Sentence 1: Ethical Duty

One perspective suggests that the rich have an ethical duty to help the poor because of their privileged position in society. For example, prominent philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates have recognized this duty and have used their wealth to support initiatives like global health and education through the Gates Foundation.

Topic Sentence 2: Social Responsibility

Another viewpoint argues that the rich have a social responsibility to help the poor because a thriving society benefits everyone. For instance, higher taxes on the wealthy can fund social programs, such as affordable healthcare and education, which contribute to overall societal well-being and reduce inequality.

Topic Sentence 3: Economic Benefits

Some argue that the rich are also motivated by self-interest in helping the poor, as a more equitable society can lead to economic stability and growth. For instance, reducing poverty can create a larger consumer base, increase workforce productivity, and foster a more stable business environment.
(Is this going to be your CA or BP here? Just wondering as you present the argument as "Some argue that..." which gives the impression that you are going to challenge/rebut it.)

In summary, the obligation of the rich to help the poor is a nuanced issue encompassing ethical duty, social responsibility, and potential economic benefits. While opinions on this matter may vary, understanding these different perspectives can inform discussions on wealth redistribution and social justice.

Comments:
- Overall, logical and sound arguments that reflect varied domains in society (i.e. varied areas of discussion with distinct arguments).
- However, there is limited consideration of the other side of the fence as to why the rich is not obliged to help the poor (i.e. limited balance).

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
I appreciate the global/macro perspective (international level: comparing rich vs poor countries; developed vs developing countries.) Do also consider within a society/a country: the implications of the rich being obliged to help the poor (or not) in this context- national level.

Arguments presented are distinct and sound. The next crucial step obviously is the quality of your examples to substantiate and illustrate these arguments.  Am excited to see how this essay could possibly turn out, ;) (that is if you do decide to write it out.)

Just a check on the match between CA and R: What is the clear link/relevance? Are you arguing that the help provided by the rich to the poorer countries (CA) is siphoned by the corrupted governments of the poorer countries (R) (?)

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
Hmm....  am slightly confused here. There is a mix of ideas and arguments/points here? Based on your notes above, I do not know exactly what your specific arguments, counter-argument and rebuttal (or balancing paragraph/argument) are. Neither do I know what your stand or thesis statement is.

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
- While I appreciate your honesty in your personal statement before your planning/brainstorming, it doesn't and shouldn't make me feel that I should be lenient in commenting upon your work, right? Of course, if you do face genuine difficulties in your planning and brainstorming (in GP), please feel free to approach me/ PM me pls! :)
- All work (not just GP, haha) should be taken seriously.

- There is a suggested idea that Singaporeans (IN YOUR SOCIETY) should read MORE fiction meaning the current level of consumption of fiction is too little/inadequate. So yes, some hint and awareness of these question requirements here.

- However, be careful when making sweeping generalisations/claims about Singaporeans/Singapore society. For example, the statement "Singaporeans are oftentimes too protected by the government and are not exposed to the underbelly of society" is a sweeping claim. You need to substantiate and illustrate this with relevant and valid observations and reasons as to how and why Singaporeans are as you have claimed BEFORE you suggest and prove that reading MORE fiction is the solution.  You would also need to show that reading MORE fiction is indeed the solution as the reader/examiner could simply be thinking... "why can't the solution be through Singaporeans experiencing tougher times for themselves or to have more interactions and contact with the less privileged in the society etc.?

- Insufficient points/arguments: only 1 A

- While you do have a CA, it seems like a plausible argument  though you need to say explictly how these would impact negatively for the individual reader and/or the Singapore society.
- Do note: spelling for "ideologies"

- There is no accompanying Rebuttal that should follow from any CA.

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
Some valid core ideas/arguments here.
A1: would be good to give the tangible outcomes/benefits for society beyond simply stating that they are legally obliged to do so. Even laws have a purpose/objective/intention right?

A2: There could actually be 3 possible distinct arguments here (a) moral/ethical obligation for the rich to help the poor even if one does not gain any tangible benefits
(b) for social cohesion (social responsibility)
(c) for the economy (economics)

CA: seemingly valid: that one works hard for one's wealth/ obtains resources/wealth based on one's own efforts etc. and is not obliged to provide these resources/wealth to help another.

R: While your R above does address your CA, the R itself may not be apt to address the given contention.

To explain further:  The following ideas seem to be your CA-R match. Consider if these arguments are politically correct...
(i) "They make the poor work for them.":
While some may argue that the rich are not obliged to give away their wealth and resources to help the poor as they have rightly earn these by their own efforts (CA),  the reality is that this is beacuse they have exploited the poor in doing so.
Hence, it is only right that they help the poor in return. (R)
(Hmm... I personally wouldn't argue for the rebuttal here as wouldn't this suggest that you are suggesting that it is acceptable for this cycle of exploitation of the poor by the rich to continue since the poor are being compensated by the rich?)

(ii) "Some are born into wealth":
While it is true that some of the rich have rightly earn their wealth as a result of their own efforts (CA), this is not the case for all as some are born into wealth. Thus, the implied rebuttal / implication here is that because the rich here do not earn this wealth on their own efforts, they are obliged to give it away to the poor? (R). Hmm... personally, I am not fully convinced by the logic of this.)

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Phoebe, I commented on your physical copy :) I may attach a photo of it here. Your photo here is rather blurry. Cheers.