How do I avoid sounding vague when analysing inequality in IB Digital Society?

Vagueness usually comes from writing about “people” instead of specific groups and writing about “technology” instead of a specific system feature. In IB Digital Society, choose a tight unit of analysis: a recommendation feed, a verification step, a pricing tier, a ranking model, a moderation workflow. Then name who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged using real stakeholder labels (for example, rural students, low-income households, migrant workers, disabled users). After that, explain the mechanism in one clear chain of cause and effect, not a list of claims. Finish by stating what changes could reduce the inequality and who has the power to make those changes. That combination of specificity and evaluation is what makes the paragraph feel like analysis rather than commentary.

What’s the difference between the digital divide and inequality in IB Digital Society?

The digital divide is often about access conditions: connectivity, devices, affordability, and skills. Inequality in IB Digital Society is broader: it includes access, but also who gets benefits, who bears harms, and who holds decision-making power inside digital systems. A student with internet access can still experience inequality if they are misclassified by an algorithm, excluded by language design, or unable to appeal an automated decision. The divide is a gateway concept, but inequality is the full map. In exam answers, you can start with access, but you should then move into system features like data collection, ranking, default settings, and governance. That is how you move into higher bands.

How can I show evaluation (not just analysis) when writing about inequality?

Evaluation in IB Digital Society is where you make a reasoned judgement about whether an unequal outcome is justified, avoidable, or acceptable. To do that, compare benefits and harms across groups and explain why the trade-off is or is not fair. Then discuss responsibility: whether the platform, the state, institutions, or users have the strongest ability to reduce the inequality. You should also acknowledge limitations, like incomplete data or competing goals (security vs inclusion, efficiency vs transparency). Finally, suggest a realistic improvement, such as alternative design, better accessibility, clearer appeals, or regulation, and explain why it would reduce inequality. Evaluation is not a stronger opinion; it’s a clearer argument.