This helps with outreach and can give younger generations a global audience (*must go on to show that this leads to tangible changes/ impact made: this is applicable for all the arguments presented) 

A2:
Networking and connections
With the advent of social media, younger generations have easier means of connecting with others online
With connections they can find more people to startup meaningful initiatives

A3:
Awareness
Social media and access to information online has made younger people far more aware of global issues. 
Concerns such as:

This allows the youth of today to tackle issues worldwide

CA:
Lack of experience
Depending on how young, some may struggle to fully grasp or comprehend an issue
This can hinder their ability to really deal with societal or more complex issues

Malala spoke up for the rights of education for young girls that were banned due to conflict with the Taliban in her country. However, most people probably are not aware of the progress she and the Malala Foundation have made globally to ensure young kids can attend school

Above example to show the argument that....?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two possibly valid examples but note that your approach/thinking (based on what is presented here) is an example-driven one. This would only be relevant for the Example/EG. portion of each argument. 

For each Example/EG. that comes to your point, ask yourself: 
- What is the argument and significance of this example? 
- What is the relevant underlying reason/argument of this example that answers the given contention? 
- How would I elaborate and explain it? 
- What aspects of the example do I want to highlight to show and prove my argument at hand? 
- How shall I further evaluate the example and by extension, the argument that I am making? 

Essentially, each argument/body paragraph in your essay has its own distinct PEEEL. 

However, diversity will not be beneficial when it can cause tensions between the majority and the minorities.
[Valid balancing approach]

1. Promote mutual understanding between different groups. (Racial Harmony, Globalised society) (GOOD)

Example: Singapore multicultural society

2. Ensure the well being of minorities (inclusivity) (GOOD)

Example: Malaysia bumiputera policy, Indonesian Chinese under Suharto

[Valid Pts 1 and 2: to be clear on what each PEEEL would look like (visualise) as they can be easily lead to overlapping/similar arguments; Pt 1 to focus on appreciation of diverse cultures etc. and how that fits in with our globalised world today while Pt 2 is focusing on greater attempts, initiatives/policies etc. to promote inclusivity in a diverse society.] 

3. Cause tensions and unrest in a country (BAD)

Example: Iran persecuting Baha’i community

4. Greater productivity in businesses (GOOD)

Example: Study by Harvard Business Study show that employees of firms with 2D diversity are 45% likelier to report a growth in market share over the previous year.

Other possible essay approaches: 
A) swop the order of (3) and (4) above as (4) is not a direct rebuttal of (3) here: so essentially, you do not have a CA and R. 

Put (4) first: Next benefit of diversity (economic aspect) 

Then (3) will be introduced as a Balancing Paragraph: 
While there are indeed many benefits to diversity, one should be careful of the potential tensions and unrest that it has caused. This could be due to deep-seated clashes of ideologies and beliefs.... (bring in the example of Iran persecuting Baha'i community.) Acknowledge the conflict inherent in this diversity and argues for continued attempts to address the tensions. 

B) Put (3) first as a CA and 
then (4) as the rebuttal: acknowledging that such deep-seated conflicts rooted in history presents ongoing struggles at unity, but at the same time, push for the argument that when diversity is present, there is also greater attempts to promote greater inclusivity. 

In conclusion, diversity is largely beneficial in economic and political aspects. However, it is dependent on the government and companies interpretation of their existing situation to decide if diversity is truly beneficial.
(can also add in it: dependent on individual societies' history and cultural backgrounds and beliefs.)  OR rephrase: The notion of diversity and diverse cultures is essentially a welcomed one but when this is viewed negatively as a competition of resources, a clash in ideologies and beliefs, this is when diversity can bring potential detriments. 

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”. This quote by Jim Morrisson shows how news agencies, the government, or large corporations who have control over the media are able to influence people’s thoughts and opinions on certain topics. The mass media is inescapable, an all-pervasive presence in modern living….

(Valid quote as hook but stand/thesis statement is not fully presented here.) 

CA: Check your signposting here? Typically, the CA is presented in an opposing viewpoint.

I disagree that people today believe everything the media presents. Government now invests largely on media literacy to educate people how to recognise media bias which helps them make informed choices…

R:  however, the reality is that not everyone is able to question its facts. Most fake news are designed to look real and legitimate to deceive readers into accepting the content. Companies make it look like the news was produced from legitimate media outlet  (Recraft TS of R to include the CA to show explicit alignment and match: Despite the additional efforts to educate the populace on the presence of fake news and to improve digital literacy (which are to be applauded and to continue), the degree of  "authenticity" (fake authenticity) presented today is one that is challenging, especially for the lay person to detect.) 

A1: 

I agree that people today believe everything the media presents. The profit-driven nature of media makes it unreliable in upholding social responsibility and providing truthful information as they tend to sensationalize headlines and news stories. In a bid to generate hype, news outlets tend to practice sensationalism which attract readers attention and make people believe the exaggerated stories

A2: 

I agree that people today believe everything the media presents. In this fast paced technology world, we are fed with plenty of information online and people often think that we do not need to fact check as there is too much information. (Valid context here but sieve out the WHY and include that in your TS.) 

Evaluation: furthermore, not everyone knows how to fact check. This is especially so for the elderly. Elderlies are naturally not very good with technology hence, if they received such fake news or false information they are unable to quickly check if it's true or false due to the barrier with technology. (Valid extension/evaluation but this point of observation seems quite similar to your R earlier.) 

argument 2: People nowadays are more educated and will think more rationally to develop their own opinions. Hence, they will not entirely trust what the media presents.

CA: Some people choose to receive information from sources they are familiar with and fully believe in them, but that does not mean that those sources are reliable. (Interesting point here: what do you mean by "this does not mean that those sources are reliable?" Are you talking about the speed and ease in which people tend to forward pieces of information that they have recieved from their family and friends, thinking they are reliable but they are actually not? Or that even sources from credible news agencies may not always be fully accurate and can also be sensationalised. Or that the media, especially social media often presents information in short click-bait style, sensationalised headlines where the full story is not revealed? Or the use of algorithm in social media that leads to echo-chambers and exposure and perpetuation of similar views that one has?

R: This only applies to a small group of people. Additionally, with more emphasis placed on validating the accuracy of information such as POFMA, people have adopted the practice of hearing from more credible sources.

(Why does it "only applies to a minority"? Did not really draw the link to CA and also explain on your reasoning here. This then extends to the next valid point on increased regulations and measures to safeguard and deter such information, which leads to people also being more discerning in what they post and what they believe in as presented by and in the media. 
--------------------------------------------------------------
You do have valid observations that typically focus on people's behaviour (How do people show that they do not believe in everything that is presented on the media?) 

*More importantly, you need to focus on the underlying reasons WHY people believe or do not believe in everything the media presents?) 

*Contexts and characteristics of the media and social media: connectivity, speed and ease of access, anonymity on the internet, "keyboard warriors", how algorithm works on the internet, "echo chambers", influencers, journalism and how it works (objective reporting, ethics of journalism etc.), the media as the fourth estate, censorship of the government and/or media agencies, regulations by the government and media agencies, roles and responsibilities of individual consumers (whether they are more educated, more informed or not).