# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
SAJC 2020 Q1) Is diversity always beneficial?

# data[].attributes.body
Comments:
Language: to present the arguments in present tense for this question. for example, A1: might lead to a more unfair treatment present--- the use of the word "might" only suggests the possibility and presents a predicted outcome that is not currently the case. Change to: "Diversity is hardly beneficial to a society as it leads to increased unfair treatment of....  "
~ The above applies to the remaining TS of the other arguments.

Check relevance and underlying arguments/reasons (WHY so) are not highlighted in your various points so see how you can construct relevant and distinct reasons for each of them.
for example:
A1: WHY does diversity in the workforce lead to unfair treatment of some?
A2: Diversity will cause local cultures to die out. (WHY so? Isn't there seemingly an irony here since diversity, by the term alone, is meant to celebrite diverse cultures- so why are certain cultures being threatened and slowly eroding from a society? Is it intentional or a by-process that happens as societies evolve?)
CA: is alright. I can see the WHY in your TS :)
But elaboration/examples should not just focus on diversity from different countries but what does not mean in terms of/ corporation and the economy i.e how they can contribute in diverse ways to the workforce diversity in terms of skills-sets, cultures, backgrounds and experiences etc.
R: is valid. Do ensure that TS of R in actual essay includes CA first (recognising/conceding to some extent on the potential benefits of this context, before you mention the rebuttal.)

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting list of various characteristics and items. While valid, be sure to spend more time on brainstorming of arguments, counter-argument(s) and rebuttal(s); consider essay approach and relevant issues at hand.

Points are generally valid. You seem to have quite a number of points which I feel can be combined so that you have more content/elaboration and evaluation in one body argument/point.

Points tend to focus on people and the examples of what is presented on the media and does not really highlight the nature/context and characteristics of the media or the media as a stakeholder. Consider what we discussed in class today.

Examples need to go beyond the local context. This is a globall question; not confined to "in your society".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eco-tourism is the worst solution to environmental problems. Discuss.

# data[].attributes.body
While arguments (A1 and A2) are valid and highlight different stakeholders/parties, both strategies are about education: so the main thrust of the argument is similar that young people are more educated today (by the government and the media). Can consider other reasons, perhaps looking at the traits/qualities of people and society today as well. For the media, don't have to present it as educating the people but more on the roles and responsibilities of the media to present an objective picture/objective reporting, people today also hold the media accountable for their reporting etc.

Insufficient points. Do you struggle with coming up with sufficient arguments?

# data[].attributes.body
Comments in Google Doc :)

# data[].attributes.body
Overall Comments:
- Interesting examples highlighted.
- Both A1 and A2 are valid but they seem similar: both focusing on learning mistakes/experiences from the past, just that A2 is about changing rules and regulations. Both are also on the area of safety (to some extent).

- Suggestion: perhaps come up with arguments that are more distinct in terms of the lessons drawn and its context:
for example: yes, you could have on safety and then another could be on lessons drawn from the past so that we can be better human beings or to improve humanity in terms of qualities/values: kindness or could be on perseverance/resilient as individuals and even nations (nation-building from one's national history).

- CA is valid
- R is valid in terms of possible reasoning/logic but your elaboration seems too brief and hypothetical claims/generalisations on what society/people think with no substantial reasoning or examples proven are made (which I do note is acceptable for a planning). But at present, am not entirely convinced that you have a solid rebuttal/case there.