SUS1501 Assignment 4 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2026 - DUE 27 August 2026

SUS1501 Assignment 4 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2026 - DUE 27 August 2026; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. For assistance, Whats-App 0.8.1..2.7.8..3.3.7.2... Ensure your success with us...... So, in assessment 2, we reflected on a particular case involving great wealth - Patrice Motsepe being worth US$ 4.2 billion. In assessment 3, we reflected on very severe poverty in South Africa where Motsepe comes from. In this assessment we are going to think about the possibility that these two issues - great wealth and great poverty - might be linked. Or as we said in one of the assignment 1 questions: “The wealth of a few depends on the poverty of many.” To make this possibility really come alive though, we want you to consider the two scenarios we looked at in assignment 2 and 3 together this time. Why together? Well because Motsepe made his wealth in South Africa, and specifically in the mining industry in South Africa. And the mining industry in South Africa has been associated with the grave exploitation of South African people since the days of the likes of Cecil John Rhodes. Furthermore, if the Marikana Massacre of 10 August 2012 is any indication, this exploitation didn't miraculously end when apartheid ended. To me this poses an obvious question: IS THIS OK? - Motsepe's wealth and high levels of poverty. And this is what we are going to discuss in this assessment! INSTRUCTIONS: Step 0: Do assessment 1 If you haven't already done it, please go to the AT A CROSSROAD section and do Assessment 1 now. YOU MAY GET 0 (ZERO) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT IF YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED YOUR ASSESSMENT 1. Step 1: Answer the question "Is this ok?" - COUNTS 60% OF MARKS In the discussion forum below, write an answer to the question posed above: "Is this ok?". Your answer must contain the following sections: An analysis of the inequalities described above (Motsepe and poverty that arises out of mining in South Africa) using ALL of John Rawls' three principles in their correct order (remember that the order is very important); A thorough analysis of the inequality described using John Rawls' veil of ignorance; Your opinion on the inequality described (minimum 100 words) integrate the word "custard" into your answer; and Your explanation of why you hold this opinion (minimum 200 words) From your answers to 1 and 2, we must be left in no doubt that you have actually understood the concepts. This means that you will need to apply the concepts to the scenario. Just defining them won't cut it! If we cannot see this understanding you will not pass this assessment. Step 2: Engage with other students' submissions - COUNTS 40% OF MARKS In the previous assignment we suggested that you to read and engage with what other students' wrote in their assignments so that we could get some dialogue going and really learn from each other. In this assignment we take this up a notch and insist that you now engage with other students based on the views that they presented in their assignments. Your participation now counts a full 40%. So, we want you to post: AT LEAST 3 separate responses to any postings of any other student(s) in this forum Each of these must be AT LEAST 100 words in length. These must be in SEPARATE POSTINGS In these responses we are looking for evidence that you have considered other people's arguments, responded to these arguments in a constructive way, added to the conversation. Since the emphasis here is on having a discussion, your responses really should focus on postings where your fellow students present opinions or arguments that you do not agree with. Just remember the rules of engagement explained in the START HERE GROUND RULES section of this study guide.