🟨 TEXTO 1.
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study
The study divided 54 subjects — 18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area — into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's search engine, and nothing at all, respectively.
Researchers used an electroencephalogram (EEG) to record the writers' brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.”
Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study.
The paper suggests that the usage of large language models (LLMs) could actually harm learning, especially for younger users. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and its sample size is relatively small.
But its paper's main author, Nataliya Kosmyna, felt it was important to release the findings to elevate concerns that as society increasingly relies upon LLMs for immediate convenience, long-term brain development may be sacrificed in the process.
The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas.
Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely “soulless.”
The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work.
“It was more like, ‘just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I’m done,’” Kosmyna says.
The brain-only group, conversely, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in alpha, theta and delta bands, which are associated with creativity ideation, memory load, and semantic processing.
Researchers found this group was more engaged and curious, and claimed ownership and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays.
The third group, which used Google Search, also expressed high satisfaction and active brain function.
The difference here is notable because many people now search for information within AI chatbots as opposed to Google Search.
After writing the three essays, the subjects were then asked to re-write one of their previous efforts — but the ChatGPT group had to do so without the tool, while the brain-only group could now use ChatGPT.
The first group remembered little of their own essays, and showed weaker alpha and theta brain waves, which likely reflected a bypassing of deep memory processes.
The second group, in contrast, performed well, exhibiting a significant increase in brain connectivity across all EEG frequency bands.
This gives rise to the hope that AI, if used properly, could enhance learning as opposed to diminishing it.
🔗 Adapted from: TIME — https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/
🟨 QUESTÃO 30.
Why did the researchers mention the small sample size?
🄰 Highlighting that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted cautiously.
🄱 Showing that the study's conclusions are already universally accepted.
🄲 Emphasizing that ChatGPT always decreases brain activity.
🄳 Explaining why the brain-only group had better results.
🄴 Proving that LLMs cannot be studied scientifically.
Gabarito: 🄰
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada
A menção ao tamanho reduzido da amostra aparece junto da informação de que o estudo ainda não foi revisado por pares. Isso indica cautela científica, não invalidação dos resultados.
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica das alternativas
(A) ✅ Correta.
A referência ao tamanho da amostra indica que os resultados são
preliminares e devem ser interpretados com cautela científica.
🚩 Pegadinha evitada: leitura metodológica correta.
(B) ❌ Incorreta.
O texto faz exatamente o oposto de afirmar aceitação universal.
🚩 Pegadinha: contradição direta com o texto.
(C) ❌ Incorreta.
O estudo aponta tendências, não afirmações absolutas (“always”).
🚩 Pegadinha IME: uso de advérbios absolutos.
(D) ❌ Incorreta.
O tamanho da amostra não explica o desempenho dos grupos,
apenas limita a generalização dos resultados.
🚩 Pegadinha: confundir método com conclusão.
(E) ❌ Incorreta.
O estudo mostra justamente que LLMs podem ser estudados
cientificamente, ainda que com limitações.
🚩 Pegadinha: extrapolação sem base textual.
⚠️ 3️⃣ Armadilhas clássicas do IME
• Confundir limitação metodológica com invalidação do estudo
• Cair em alternativas absolutas (“always”, “cannot”)
• Ignorar a linguagem cautelosa típica de textos científicos
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✔ Amostra pequena = cautela científica
✔ Resultados relevantes, mas preliminares
✔ Linguagem acadêmica ≠ negação dos achados
🔎 Gabarito confirmado: (A)