I. Applying Critical Thinking and Critical Reading (Max.

35 Points)
Measurements:
(1) SUB-CPMK: 2.2, 2.5, 2.6.
(2) LO: 3.1.

Tips & Warnings Read the article below. Then answer the following questions. For each question,
provide one piece of evidence taken from the article to support your answer.

WHEN ANTI-ASIAN PARODI TARGETS BTS, ARMY BOY BAND FAN IS MOBILIZED

A Chilean television parody of Korean boy band BTS sparked an international reaction over the weekend,
depicting the strength of the group's many fans and the growing sensitivity around the world towards
racists. , particularly anti-Asian speeches.

In a brief sketch of the show "Mi Barrio," which aired Saturday on Mega Channel in Chile, the comedians
satirized the South Korean supergroup, mocked the Korean language and linked band members to North
Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

Asked to introduce themselves, the actors playing the band members gave their names as “Kim
Jong-Uno,” “Kim Jong-Dos,” “Kim Jong-Tres,” “Kim Jong-Cuatro” and “Juan Carlos.” Asked to say
something in Korean, a comedian spoke with a gibberish accent.

BTS fans are many and very loyal. They were quick to defend the band and linked the joke to broader
issues of anti-Asian racism and xenophobia that have flared since the coronavirus first emerged in China.

Driven by these passionate supporters, who call themselves the Army, the group has broken records at
the top of the Billboard charts, released platinum-selling singles, and won numerous awards worldwide.
This group boasts the most engagement on Twitter and the most video views in 24 hours on YouTube.

While using their strength and numbers to promote and defend the group, BTS fans have also shown
themselves to be a strong block in other matters. Last year, Korean pop music fans coordinated to
embarrass President Donald J. Trump by inflating ticket requests at the campaign.

At a time of increasing anti-Asian rhetoric and violence on the internet and around the world, the “Mi
Barrio” quickly became the target of a larger anti-racism campaign. Trading card company Topps faced a
similar backlash last week after releasing a Garbage Pail Kids card that was meant to mock the band but
was widely deemed racist and tone-deaf.

Not limited to Spanish-language social media and BTS fan accounts, outrage about the "Mi Barrio"
episode quickly spread across the web, with the hashtag #RacismIsNotComedy becoming the No. 1 on
Twitter in the United States on Sunday night. It was an indication that thousands of people were
discussing the term at the same time.

“There is nothing funny about racism, especially at a time when Asian hate crimes are rampant around
the world. This is disgusting," wrote one Twitter user.

A BTS Chile fan account with 150,000 followers prompted people to register a formal complaint against
"Mi Barrio" with the country's National Television Council, asking regulators to "ensure that racist and
stereotypical attitudes are removed from Chilean television."

In a statement posted to his Instagram account on Sunday, "Mi Barrio" struck a conciliatory, if not
completely regretful tone: "We will continue to improve, learn, listen and strengthen our intention: bring
entertainment to families."
BTS has not officially commented on the Chile episode, but in a statement released in March about the
increase in attacks against Asians, the group said, "We remember the times when we faced
discrimination as Asians. We have endured swearing for no reason and teased for our appearance. We
were even asked why Asians speak English."

"We are against racial discrimination. We condemn violence. You, I and we all have the right to be
respected," the message concluded. "We will stand together."

The statement, released on Twitter, has been liked more than two million times.https:
//www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/world/asia/chile-bts-racism-comedy.html

1. What is the topic of the article? (2 points)

The topic of discussion in the reading is Racism against Asians which is considered a comedy by
television shows in Chile through the episode "Mi Barrio"

Evidence: In a brief sketch of the show "Mi Barrio," which aired Saturday on Mega Channel in
Chile, comedians satirized the South Korean supergroup, mocked the Korean language and
linked band members to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

2. What Issues were discussed? Explain your answer. (2

points)

The main problem in the reading is when the comedians in the show "Mi Barrio" parody the
members of the boyband BTS by using arbitrary or inappropriate names and speaking as if
using Korean but with an accent that speaks loudly. empty.

Evidence: The actors playing the band members gave their names as “Kim Jong-Uno,” “Kim
Jong-Dos,” “Kim Jong-Tres,” “Kim Jong-Cuatro” and “Juan Carlos.” Asked to say something in
Korean, a comedian spoke with a gibberish accent.

3. What isauthor's theattitude on this issue? Is the author in favor, against, or neutral? Explain and
provide evidence. (4 points)

The author's stance on this issue is against. Here it can be seen how the author wants to
convey through his writings in the reading that the actions taken by the actors in the comedy
show cannot be justified by showing how the comments of social media users are related to
these problems.

Evidence: Not limited to Spanish-language social media and BTS fan accounts, outrage about the
"Mi Barrio" episode quickly spread across the web, with the hashtag #RacismIsNotComedy
becoming the No. 1 on Twitter in the United States on Sunday night. It was an indication that
thousands of people were discussing the term at the same time.

4. What is the author's reason for his statement/belief? Explain and provide evidence. (4 points)

The reason the author is against is that if you look at the reading above, the writer tries to collect
evidence all of which lead to opposing the actions of the comedic actors. For example, through
 the comments of twitter users who are all against the actions of comedy actors, and the author
also includes BTS' comments last March on attacks against Asian people.

Evidence: BTS has yet to officially comment on the Chile episode, but in a statement released in
March about the increase in attacks against Asians, the group said, “We remember times when
we faced discrimination as Asians. We have endured swearing for no reason and were ridiculed
for our appearance. We were even asked why Asians speak English.”

5. Do you think the author is showing bias? Explain your answer. (4

points)

In my view, here the author does not show any bias because in my opinion the author does not
show himself to be on the side of the comedy actors and social media users, but the writer here
only lists what actually happened as what has been done by the actors comedy and what
people think about it.

Evidence:

(Action of comedic actors )

The actors playing the band members gave their names as “Kim Jong-Uno,” “Kim Jong-Dos,”
“Kim Jong-Tres,” “Kim Jong-Cuatro” and “Juan Carlos.” Asked to say something in Korean, a
comedian spoke with a gibberish accent.

(Community comments )
“There is nothing funny about racism, especially at a time when Asian hate crimes are rampant
around the world. This is disgusting," wrote one Twitter user.

6. Does the author primarily provide facts or opinions? Explain and provide evidence.
(4 points)

In my opinion, the author wrote the text above based on the facts. It can be seen from the fact
that the comedic actor did a parody of BTS, the fact that the public was against the parody
through his comments on Twitter, and the fact when BTS did say that they were against attacks
on Asians last March.
Evidence:

- On "Mi Barrio," which aired Saturday on Mega Channel in Chile, comedians satirized South
Korean supergroups, mocked the Korean language, and linked band members to North Korean
dictator Kim Jong-un.
- Outrage about the "Mi Barrio" episode quickly spread across the web, with the hashtag
#RacismIsNotComedy becoming the No. 1 on Twitter in the United States on Sunday night.
- “We are against racial discrimination. We condemn violence. You, me, and we all have the right to
be respected," the message concluded. "We will stand together." -BTS

7. What is thewriter tone? Explain your answer. (2 points)

 I think the tone used by the author is reasonable. It can be seen how the author respects both
parties from the standpoint of comedy actors and public opinion by not bringing down one
particular party. The author also writes with words that do not assaulting either party.

8. Did you find any language barriers or errors in the text? Provide evidence and explain.
(4 points)

I don't think there are any fallacy barriers in the reading above because I think the author shows
that his disapproval of the actions of these actors is not based on or does not follow what many
people feel. The proof is that there is no sentence in the reading that shows that the writer
opposes the treatment of the actors because they follow what most people feel

. What conclusion does the author reach on this issue? Explain your answer. (2
points)

The conclusion is that the comedic actors from the episode "Mi Barrio" have parodied members
of the Korean boyband BTS, where the parody is discriminatory and racist towards Asians, as
evidenced by how most people react to this problem and comments from Mi Barrio commented
that they would continue to learn in the future so as not to repeat the same mistakes.

10. Overall, what is the author's goal in writing the article? Explain your answer. (2 points)

The author's purpose in writing the text above is to provide information to all readers about what
happened, from the actions of the comedy actors to what the public's reaction to these actions
was.

11. Do you agree/disagree with the author's opinion? Explain and support your answer.
(5 points)

I agree with the writer's opinion that acts like those done by comedy actors should not be
repeated again, because basically all human beings are the same and should not be
differentiated from the side of ethnicity, ethnicity, and religion. The actions taken by these actors
not only saddened BTS fans but also saddened everyone, especially Asian people like me.

II. Analyzing the Dilemma of Business Ethics (Max. 25 Points)

Measurements:
(1) SUB-CPMK: 1.5.
(2) LO: 2.1, 3.1.

Directions: Study the following situations regarding the labor market regarding the use of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) that businesses are facing. As a business practitioner, would you
choose automation over human labor? Why or why not? Give 2 arguments. Support your
argument with solid evidence from outside sources or references. Make sure the original
source of the evidence is noted.

People have been concerned about the movement of workers by technology for centuries.
Automation, and then mechanization, computing, and more recently AI and robotics have been
predicted to destroy jobs and create permanent damage to the labor market. Leontief (1983),
observing a dramatic increase in the processing power of computer chips, feared that people would be
replaced by machines, like horses made obsolete by the invention of the internal combustion engine.
However, in the past, automation has often replaced human labor in the short term but has led to job
creation in the long term (Autor, 2015).

Nevertheless, there is widespread concern that artificial intelligence and related technologies could
create mass unemployment over the next two decades. One recent paper concluded that new
information technologies will put “the vast majority of jobs, across a wide range of occupations, at risk
in the near future” (Frey and Osborne, 2013).

AI is already widespread in finance, space exploration, advanced manufacturing, transportation,

energy development, and healthcare. Unmanned vehicles and autonomous drones also perform
functions that previously required human intervention. We've seen the impact of automation on 'blue
collar' jobs; however, as computers become more sophisticated, creative, and versatile, more jobs will
be affected by technology, and more positions will become obsolete.

Answer:

As a business person, I would agree more if there is a balance between human labor and machine
automation. I don't think it's a good ethic if I only benefit myself by using machine automation in all
aspects of my field of work without thinking about the fate of the workers when they have to be
replaced by machines how their welfare and survival will be. So I would agree more if the two are
balanced. There are some fields that make use of machine automation, and there are also certain
areas of work that I would prefer if done by humans because I think there are things that only humans
can do and machines can't.

Evidence of argument:

However, in the past, automation has often replaced human labor in the short term but has led to job
creation in the long term (Autor, 2015). (evidence to suggest that machine automation is necessary)

One recent paper concluded that new information technologies will put “the vast majority of jobs,
across multiple occupations, at risk in the near future” (Frey and Osborne, 2013). (evidence showing
that if all rely on machine automation it will have an impact on the fate of many people because their
jobs will all be replaced by machines)

I, I, I. Analyzing Team Communication Video (Max. 40 Points)

Measurement:
(1) SUB-CPMK: 3.1.
(2) LO: 2.1, 4.1.

Hint: Analyze this team communication video https://youtu.be/h5kJYbWTBXs. The video is 3.14
minutes long. Watch the entire video carefully, then answer the following questions using the
principles of effective team communication. For each question, provide one piece of evidence
taken from the video to support your answer.

1. What do you think about theteam preparation? Explain and provide evidence. (2
points)

In my opinion, the preparation of the meeting participants and leaders is still very lacking. It
can be seen how from the beginning each participant did not show a sense of seriousness in
attending the meeting, some were late for the meeting, and all of them seemed not to show
good and correct ethics in attending a meeting.

2. How do leaders professionalinitiate, moderate, and close discussions? Explain and provide
evidence. (4 points)

I think the leader is not professional in starting, moderating, and closing the discussion well, it
can be seen how the meeting that took place in the video did not go well and was not
structured properly, starting from the flow of everyone's speech as if they wanted to fight
each other to talk .

3. What is theparticipants' level ofinvolvement in sharing opinions? Explain and provide

evidence. (4
points)

I think that each member of the meeting is still not good at expressing their own opinions.
It can be seen how every time someone gives an opinion as to if everyone is doubtful and
confused so that someone immediately wants to give an opinion. The opinion is given
also does not use a good language of points, for example when opening a conversation
using the sentence, First of all, I'd like to say or when giving a personal opinion using the
sentence I have the feeling that etc.

4. What is the participant's level of involvement in raising objections? Explain and provide
evidence.
(4 points)

In my opinion, the meeting members also expressed their objections in a hasty and
undirected manner so that through the video the meeting took place as if it were a debate
between members.

5. Do they apply critical thinking processes in discussions? Explain and provide evidence. (4
points)

In my opinion, they still lack critical thinking in the discussion process because in the video
they can be seen that every time they give an argument or opinion, it is not based on existing
facts but as if everything they say is based on personal opinion.

6. Do they use effectiveexpressions/languages discussionthat: (phrase ask, answer

questions, interrupt, ask for clarification, invite others to contribute, agree, disagree, etc.)?
Explain and provide evidence. (4 points)
As I mentioned in number 3, I found that there was no use of the language of points that should
be in a meeting. From the video I saw that each of them started the conversation directly, it was
also seen that the language they used was also not formal language but everyday language. For
example, I did not find when the leader opened the meeting using an opening sentence such as
As you know, the company would like to. The leader also does not act as a good moderator, for
example from the beginning he did not clearly state what topics would be discussed or what the
current condition of the company was, it was also found that the leader did not close the meeting
properly, it could be seen how confused he was when the meeting suddenly ended. From the side
of the meeting members, they also did not give and use good and correct expressions and
language so that the meeting could not go well.

7. Do they show team assertiveness and enthusiasm? Explain and provide evidence.
(4 points)

I think they are still lacking in showing firmness and enthusiasm, it can be seen how they are
not enthusiastic in attending meetings and also not firm in giving arguments or opinions when
speaking.

8. Do they show professional team etiquette? Explain and provide evidence. (4

points)
I don't think the meeting members can show proper etiquette like a meeting member. It
can be seen how at the opening of the meeting when the leader wanted to open the
meeting, there were members who were cool to talk to fellow members and even had
time to tell the leader to wait for a while. The etiquette of the members in expressing
opinions also seems to be lacking. It's as if they feel that the meeting is not a formal
activity

9. Do they show non-verbal team movements? Explain and provide evidence.

(4 points)

I don't see any obvious non-verbal gestures in the video to show confidence when speaking.
On the other hand, I found non-verbal gestures that showed that members seemed less
confident and confident in expressing their opinions

10. Do they demonstrate effective time management, role sharing, and appropriate
participation? Explain and provide evidence.
(6 points)

I think they are still lacking in implementing time management and division of roles
because from the video it can be seen how the duration of the meeting that took place
was still not good, seen from the leader who was confused about why everyone had
wanted to leave. The division of roles was also not visible in the meeting because each
member who expressed his opinion did not clearly introduce himself and tell himself
which division or division he represented in the company.