See the corrected Enem essay written by ChatGPT – 05/04/2023 – Educação

In 2021, the average of the Enem essay was 634 points. If it were a candidate, ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) tool developed by OpenAI, would be above that score, according to the evaluation of two specialists in the writing of the exam consulted by Sheet.

This Wednesday’s report (5) shows that the technology would not pass in competitive courses at some of the main federal universities in Brazil due to the performance in mathematics, much lower than that presented in human and natural sciences. Writing, which has different weights depending on the course, is also a hindrance, even surpassing the average.

A Sheet submitted the motivating texts and the statement of the 2021 writing test to the tool, without any suggestion or previous example, to analyze the response.

Professors Adriano Chan, from the Writing Laboratory, and Jéssica Dorta, from Oficina do Estudante, evaluated the performance of the AI ​​following the Enem criteria, which consider, mainly, five competences: 1) use of the cultured norm of the Portuguese language; 2) adequacy to the theme, text structure and use of repertoire; 3) consistency; 4) cohesion; and 5) intervention proposal.

The scores of the two teachers were 120 points apart – Chan gave 760 points and Dorta 640.

Check out what artificial intelligence wrote below, and then what the teachers said:

Enem statement after presentation of three motivating texts: “Based on the reading of the motivating texts and based on the knowledge built throughout your training, write an argumentative-dissertation text in formal written form in Portuguese on the theme ‘Invisibility and civil registration: guaranteeing access to citizenship in Brazil’, presenting an intervention proposal that respects human rights. Select, organize and list, in a coherent and cohesive way, arguments and facts to defend your point of view”.

ChatGPT response in full after being presented with the motivating texts and the statement: “The lack of civil registration is a problem that affects millions of Brazilians and represents a serious violation of human rights. The birth certificate is the first document that confers identity and citizenship, being fundamental for the withdrawal of other documents and for access to basic public services.However, many people are deprived of this right, especially those in a situation of socioeconomic vulnerability.

According to Law 9,534/97, birth registration is free in Brazil, yet millions of Brazilians remain without this document. According to the “Map of invisibility in Brazil”, an estimate of the number of people without birth registration, about 2.9 million Brazilians do not have this document, with the Southeast region being the most affected. This reality is even more cruel for people who, due to lack of registration, are considered “invisible” by the State, as if their existence was not recognized.

This situation of invisibility has serious consequences, such as social exclusion and difficulty in accessing basic health, education and social assistance services. In addition, the lack of civil registration makes it difficult to enter the formal labor market and protect against violations of rights, such as child labor and human trafficking.

To face this problem, a set of public policies is needed to guarantee universal access to civil registration. It is necessary to promote awareness campaigns about the importance of birth registration and to develop actions that allow access to this document, especially for people in vulnerable situations. It is also important for the State to be more efficient in identifying unregistered people, facilitating access to the civil registry service.

Furthermore, it is necessary to develop measures that respect human rights and guarantee social inclusion and the full exercise of citizenship. It is proposed the creation of itinerant spaces that take the civil registry to the most remote communities, the availability of financial resources for those who cannot afford the costs of the registration process and the extension of the hours of operation of the civil registry units .

Ultimately, the fight for the right to personal documentation is a fight for human rights. It is the role of the State to ensure that all citizens have access to this right, contributing to social inclusion and the full exercise of citizenship. It is necessary to make society aware of the importance of civil registration and promote effective actions to guarantee this right, always respecting human dignity and the ethical and moral principles that govern our society.”

Expert analysis

Both evaluated well the use of the cultural norm of the Portuguese language, giving a score of 160 for competence 1. For Adriano Chan, the text starts well, with no mistakes in Portuguese, with the general lines of the topic addressed and without inconsistency or cohesion problems.

As a negative point, it highlights comma and syntactic construction errors.

For Jéssica Dorta, the syntactic structure is good, in general, and without absence of deviations. The grade does not reach 200, in her assessment, because “the syntactic structure does not present elaborated periods with the complexity expected in an excellent syntactic structure, with interspersed clauses and subordinations”.

In competence 2, adequacy, text structure and repertoire, both scored 120 points.

For Chan, there is “an absence of sociocultural productive repertoire”. Dorta says that “the essay presents the three parts of the text (none of them embryonic) and approaches the theme in a complete way, from a repertoire based on the motivating texts and a non-legitimized repertoire”.

The two gave the same score of 120 for competence 3, coherence. Chan highlighted, as a negative point, the “gaps that compromise the coherence of the text, which fails to argue with more concrete data”.

Dorta also highlights gaps in the development of information, facts and opinions. “It is observed that the project has some flaws, mainly in the selection and relationship between the information. It is also possible to highlight the circularity of the last three paragraphs.”

The point of greatest divergence between the two specialists is in competence 4. Chan gave 200 points for the cohesion of the text. The teacher gave 120. She says that, “although there are no repetitions or inadequacies and there are two interparagraph argumentative operators, the composition does not present a constant presence of cohesive resources”.

Finally, both criticize the “lack of means”, a way, a way to solve the problem, in the intervention proposal, which is competence 5. Chan gave 160 points and Dorta, 120.

“It is important to emphasize that, although the last three paragraphs list several intervention proposals, none of them presents the five elements required by the Enem: agent, action, mode/means, effect and detail”, says Dorta.

Rating 1 (Adriano Chan):
Competence 1: 160
Competence 2: 120
Competence 3: 120
Competence 4: 200
Competence 5: 160
Total: 760/1,000

Rating 2 (Jessica Dorta):
Competence 1: 160
Competence 2: 120
Competence 3: 120
Competence 4: 120
Competence 5: 120
Total: 640/1,000