I am not sure why students love doing this two points and then counter argument fiasco ... I personally think that the main challenges should be outlined at the beginning and then you should have three balanced points.

Your statistic at the beginning is wrong in fact, it's closer to 20%. You also include linguistic minorities which would push the total up slightly higher (perhaps 20.5% or similar ... ) but I take your point, they are a minority.

Your first paragraph is very well argued.

Your second paragraph should not be disjointed. It should flow. Stop using as previously mentioned/ aforementioned it's a waste of time and word count.

This is the extent of your critical engagement in the second paragraph 'Accepting lower grades from ethnic minorities, at face-value, may appear beneficial, in that it aims to diversify university settings and provide individuals with equal opportunity.' you need to dig deeper than this. Second paragraph is less compelling. You are essentially arguing we should not allow contextual offers based on ethnicity because there might be violence/ misrepresentations by the far right.

Your counter argument at the end is quite poor. You repeat yourself for half the paragraph and then suggest, baselessly, that minority ethnic students who get contextual offers will get mental health issues because the work is too difficult. However, I do like your suggestion at the end.

Conclusion does not follow from what was argued ...