ChatGPT and Human Agency: A Synthesis of Form and Meaning
Robert Joel Deacon
Florida Institute of Technology
Writing is often associated with thinking. Since Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT
allow writers to bypass much of the traditional writing process, there is concern this technology
will diminish critical thinking development – particularly in student writers. Hegelian synthesis
writing (dialectic writing) promotes critical thinking by challenging writers to see more than one
perspective and to create novel solutions. The ability to steelman alternative positions andnegotiate a novel outcome involves higher-order thinking. LLMs like ChatGPT mimic the form of
dialectic writing with increasingly impressive results. This paper, however, shows how
ChatGPT3.5 fails to match language form with actual higher- order thinking, and how ChatGPT
version 4o fails to truthfully evaluate texts. ChatGPT3.5 appears incapable of choosing a winnerwhen the debate is controversial, and while version 4o shows significant improvement in decisionmaking, it fails to produce truthful textual evaluations when ranking essay revisions. In such cases,
only human writers/thinkers can evaluate texts truthfully and human thinkers are needed to create
specific, novel solutions. Instructors can discourage academic dishonesty by focusing on higherorder thinking and by being aware of output patterns to discern LLM output from student output.
Examples illustrating ChatGPT’s weak performance in evaluation, decision making, and thesis
creation are provided. These results suggest writing instructors should challenge students toevaluate multiple drafts of the same essay and to add specific claims to LLM synthesis conclusions.

1. Introduction
Writing instructors and education professionals have long asserted a positive connection
between writing and thinking (Arapoff, 1967; Burkhalter, 2015; Emig, 1977; Lai et al., 2019; Menary,2007). “The process of learning to write is largely a process of learning to think more clearly”(Arapoff, 1967, pp. 33-34). In other words, writing is often associated with thinking and writing
development with thinking development. Perhaps the writing process not only results in higherlevel thinking but is itself the process of higher-level thinking (cf. Emig, 1977). If that is the case,we might expect better writers to be better thinkers in general. Better writing scores have, in fact,
been found to predict better freshman college grades in general (Preiss et al., 2013), supporting a
possible connection between writing ability and thinking ability. Whether or not writing is thinking
or just develops thinking, both claims promote the idea that writing develops thinking or thinking
skills.
Accordingly, many writing instructors mention critical thinking skills in their course student
learning outcomes despite only teaching/practicing writing skills. The true connection between
writing a thinking, however, does not seem to be so simple.
Research has found writing skills are independent of critical thinking ability. Condon and
Kelly-Riley (2004) observe student texts with excellent writing mechanics tend to discuss topics

superficially while students who do delve into deeper, more complicated ideas are more likely todisplay unconventional, problematic writing structure. Thus, while there have been reasons to inferthat writing creates better thinkers and some evidence to suggest it does, poor writing ability may
mask higher-level thinking and felicitous syntactic structure may exaggerate thinking or criticalthinking skills.1 In short, Condon and Kelly-Riley conclude that “writing acts as a vehicle for
critical thinking, but writing is not itself critical thinking” (p. 66).2 To be a vehicle for criticalthinking, the writing task must stimulate higher-order thinking, the kind of thinking described inBloom’s taxonomy: analysis, evaluation (synthesis), and creation.
The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) over the past year (2023-2024) has
upended traditional writing instruction. LLMs generate unique essay responses to traditional
writing prompts that superficially appear like A-level work. In the recent past, many if not mostwriting instructors would have rewarded students with A’s for LLM-generated work. 3 These
instructors would have overlooked the superficial ideas and occasional odd statements that LLMs
often produce and praised the grammar, vocabulary, and efficiency of the prose.4 Moreover, since
LLM output looks original, AI-generated text cannot be detected like traditional plagiarism. AI
detection programs only render the likelihood of a match, and these scores are often unreliable.
Unfortunately, the detectors will likely always be outpaced by the generators.5 Accordingly, if
composition courses aim to teach and test grammar and format and LLMs can proficiently provide
this, students are going to use LLMs and focus their time and attention elsewhere. Students will
use LLMs to generate much if not all their prose and “cheat” their way through ostensibly outdated
assignments. However, once they are in the habit of using LLMs to produce all their writing,students will miss the opportunities for thinking development that writing affords.
Even though this technology has created an academic honesty crisis, it has also created theopportunity for pedagogical reflection. This paper proposes that Hegelian synthesis writing not
only promotes higher-order thinking but also helps reduce the temptation to cheat. Students cheatwhen they bypass the steps of an assignment (the process) to quickly arrive at a product (an answer).
While students are free to use LLMs like ChatGPT, they will have difficulty relying on it
exclusively if they must evaluate multiple drafts of the same essay and create new ideas. If grading
focuses on evaluation and creation, cheating may be replaced by tasks that develop higher-order
thinking skills. If true, synthesis writing in conjunction with revised instructions and expectations
provides a win-win solution: Students are permitted to explore the latest writing technology andare challenged to develop their thinking skills at the same time.

1

This should not be that surprising considering how inventive peoples across the world have been and are who lack awriting system for their language(s).
2The archeological record also suggests that peoples who built more complex structures also had writing systems
and that these systems likely aided in such accomplishment: Mayan, Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese writing andcivilizations.
3
With 100’s of essays to grade and the traditional need to focus on form, instructors have developed a habit offocusing on style over content.
4
As it turns out, the larger world economy needs a lot of time-consuming, superficial writing and LLMs provide an
ultra-efficient solution for this demand.
5
Personal experience suggests that AI detectors are much more likely to give you a false negative.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 argues that synthesis writing
fosters student academic and higher-order thinking skills and highlights one method to do thisusing ChatGPT. Section 3 shows how this synthesis writing task can challenge known LLM
abilities. Section 4 discusses these results and concludes.
2. How Synthesis Writing Develops Higher Order Thinking
In the spirit of Bloom’s assessment taxonomy established in 1956, educators have aspired tomove the goal of educational testing from knowledge-based tasks (recall and recap) to more
abstract, higher-order thinking skills. In Bloom’s original taxonomy, the hierarchy moved from thebottom categories of Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application, to the top categories ofAnalysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. These categories have since been modified, reimagined, andexpanded on. In Krathwohl (2002), Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation become Analyze, Evaluate,
and Create. This revision is helpful because it not only draws attention to how synthesis is a formof creation but also that creation represents the highest level of thought. Assignments that engage
students in analysis and evaluation exercise high-level critical thinking skills and those thatexercise creative thinking or creation exercise the highest order and arguably most valuablethinking. As the original taxonomy asserts, the ability to engage in higher-order skills necessitates
the use of the lower-order ones.
Hegelian synthesis writing requires a thoughtful journey through analysis, evaluation, andcreation. “Perhaps the most essential, and certainly one of the most complex research skills, is theability to synthesize information” (Lundstrom et al., 2015, p. 61). Students must first navigate,
select, and analyze data to find an initial conclusion (a thesis/hypothesis). At this stage, they should
be at least somewhat convinced that their conclusions is true. However, the next stage compels
students to argue either the opposite (the antithesis) or an alternative conclusion. This requires areanalysis (an evaluation) of the original argument. If done well, students will lose confidence intheir original conclusions as the validity of the alternative conclusion gains evidential support.
Students are required to reject clarity for the sake of complexity and nuance – a discombobulating
position to be in. This then leads to further complexity and nuance with the synthesis stage. By
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments, students should realize that neither
solution is perfect and that selecting all solutions is either impractical or impossible. At this pointin the assignment, there is great potential for creation. By merging the previous claims, students
can arrive at a previously unimagined conclusion – something novel and worth writing about.
Moreover, to make their claims specific and strong, students cannot simply say that the solution isa balance of both arguments. The process of synthesis is an exercise in exploring the relevant
background to find a better answer to the most relevant question. In short, dialectic synthesis
writing is one way to discover/create a strong thesis statement.
The thesis statement is arguably the most important component of an essay (Burkhalter, 2015).
A good thesis creates textual coherence and purpose while a poor one presents the reader withaimless and endless information. A good thesis also presents a claim with an unknown truth value.
Most writers, however, usually begin with poor thesis statements.
A common writing misconception is that the author imagines ideas, orders them, and puts themto writing. This overlooks the fact that the act of placing pen to paper is often what initiates theprocess of organizing and creating. A strong thesis is usually not imagined from the start. Students
do not realize that the writing process will gradually reveal a stronger thesis. Once discovered, theessay can assume a singular, purposeful goal: to make the unknown truth value known. Prior tothat, the goal of a piece of writing is at least in part to find its goal. The process is the goal.
Writing a strong thesis for a single argument is a process of synthesis. Burkhalter (2015), forexample, outlines 5 steps over which most writers transform a question into a chiseled, specificclaim. A strong thesis usually emerges progressively over one or more essays addressing the same
topic/problem. Even when students have a pre-set conclusion in mind, writing a goodargumentative essay involves more complexity. Students cannot simply regurgitate what they
already know. Good writing requires transforming weaker thesis statements into stronger ones.
The exploration of an antithesis or counterargument aids in this transformation. For there to be acounterargument, the truth value of the original essay’s thesis must be genuinely unknown.
Otherwise, the counterargument will be irrational. For example, if 1 = 1 then attempts to argue that1 ≠ 1 are absurd. If we cannot imagine a viable argument against our claim, then our claim is notargumentative.
It is impossible for most of us to seriously argue against what we know to be true without firstencountering genuine doubt. Facts must be reinterpreted as claims. With that said, facts are either
rarer than we would like to admit or more plentiful than we can understand. This goes to the
Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant. What each man feels is factual, but no man
feels all the facts. This leads each to have an incomplete and, thus, incorrect conclusion about thenature of reality. Accordingly, most accepted scientific claims are never formally proven. Instead,such claims are only defended by suggestive evidence. Lai (2017) refers to this evidence as thepremises of defense (POD) and argues that PODs alone are generally sufficient for the conclusionof an argument to be accepted. We see this repeatedly in the sciences where theories gain consensus
support only to be rejected or disproven later. Since this is the case, nothing excludes the existenceof true premises that support alternative conclusions. In short, good thesis statements imply theexistence of meaningful counterarguments (antitheses or alternative theses). In a cyclic process,the antithesis is simultaneously a product and a definer of the thesis. It emerges from and clarifies
the original thesis.
Synthesis is cognitively challenging. It requires the integration of ideas from various sources(micro-synthesis) and the formulation of separate conclusions for the same problem. Students mustfirst master an argument and a counterargument to approach a synthesis. Moreover, while the ideaof synthesis (a balance of both positions) is superficially simple to grasp, it is incredibly difficult
to accomplish. Students generally begin by arguing that one conclusion is stronger than the other.
They fail to produce a synthesis and instead revert to an earlier conclusion. If, however, synthesis
does occur, it usually goes from two concrete ideas (competing conclusions) to an abstract union of
the ideas (a long-winded, overly nuanced statement) to ever more concrete re-conceptions of theunion. Those re-conceptions of the union eventually create something new: invention. This kindof creation is an example of the top of Bloom’s hierarchy of higher-order thinking. It is also theits justification for choosing one version over another. This problem is found in both versions 3.5
and 4o. To illustrate this pattern, Table (2) provides two versions of the same essay. Both essays
are generated by GPT 4o. Table (3) then provides GPT 4o’s ranking and rationale for its selection(the green and red font illustrate similar word choices that GPT claims represent importantdifferences and the blue font highlights another questionable claim). These outputs show how thistechnology is still limited and this limitation creates an opportunity for students to engage inhigher-order thinking in the form of evaluation.7
Table 2GPT Version 4o Essay Revision Rankings

7

Version 1
Prompt: Write a 3-body paragraph essay on why coffee
should be illegal.

Version 2
Prompt: Revise Essay 1.

Coffee, a widely consumed beverage, has become astaple in daily routines across the globe. However,there are compelling reasons why coffee should beillegal, focusing on its health impacts, societal
implications, and environmental consequences.

Coffee, though deeply ingrained in many cultures
worldwide, presents numerous compelling reasons forwhy it should be illegal. The negative health impacts,
societal consequences, and environmental damage
associated with coffee consumption provide a strong
case for such a drastic measure.

First and foremost, coffee poses significant health risks
to consumers. The primary active ingredient in coffee
is caffeine, a potent stimulant that can lead to a rangeof adverse health effects. Excessive caffeine
consumption has been linked to increased anxiety,insomnia, and heart palpitations. Long-term overusecan contribute to chronic health issues such as
hypertension and osteoporosis. Moreover, the addictive
nature of caffeine can lead to dependency, resulting inwithdrawal symptoms like headaches, irritability, andfatigue when consumption is reduced. By making
coffee illegal, we could mitigate these health risks andpromote a healthier, more balanced lifestyle.

Firstly, coffee poses significant health risks due to its
high caffeine content. Caffeine is a powerful stimulantthat can lead to various adverse effects, including
increased anxiety, insomnia, and elevated heart rates.
Long-term overconsumption is associated with more
severe health issues such as hypertension andosteoporosis. The addictive nature of caffeine often
results in dependency, with withdrawal symptoms likeheadaches, irritability, and fatigue affecting individuals
who try to reduce their intake. By making coffee
illegal, society could alleviate these health concernsand encourage healthier alternatives for maintaining
energy and focus.

Secondly, the societal implications of coffee
consumption are profound and concerning. Coffee
culture often promotes a dependency on caffeine tomaintain productivity and alertness, masking
underlying issues such as poor sleep hygiene and stressmanagement. This dependency can create a cycle ofreliance that detracts from addressing the root causes offatigue and burnout. Additionally, the economic burdenof coffee consumption is significant. Individuals spend
substantial amounts of money on their daily coffee
habits, which could be better invested in more
nutritious and sustainable food choices. Illegalizing
coffee would encourage society to prioritize natural
methods of maintaining energy and focus, such as

Secondly, the societal implications of coffee
consumption are profound and troubling. Coffee
culture fosters a dependency on caffeine to maintainproductivity and alertness, often masking underlying
issues such as inadequate sleep and poor stressmanagement. This reliance perpetuates a cycle whereindividuals turn to coffee instead of addressing the root
causes of their fatigue and burnout. Additionally, theeconomic impact is significant, with people spending
substantial amounts on their daily coffee habits, moneythat could be better allocated to healthier food options
or savings. Banning coffee would promote a societal
shift towards more sustainable and health-conscious
lifestyles.

Changing LLMs from people pleasers to truth tellers may prove to be very difficult as truth exists outside formal
language competence and exists in a functional realm.

proper sleep and balanced nutrition.
Lastly, the environmental impact of coffee production
is substantial and detrimental. Coffee cultivation
requires large amounts of water and contributes todeforestation, habitat destruction, and loss of
biodiversity. The agricultural practices involved incoffee farming often lead to soil degradation and waterpollution due to the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Furthermore, the global demand for coffee drives a
supply chain that heavily relies on monoculture
farming, which is unsustainable and harmful to theenvironment. By making coffee illegal, we would
significantly reduce the ecological footprint of thisindustry, promoting more sustainable and eco-friendly
agricultural practices.
In conclusion, the case for making coffee illegal isrooted in its adverse health effects, societal drawbacks,and environmental damage. Eliminating coffee
consumption could lead to a healthier population, amore balanced society, and a more sustainable
environment. While the transition away from such a
deeply ingrained habit would be challenging, the longterm benefits make a compelling argument forconsidering this drastic measure.

Lastly, the environmental impact of coffee production
is severe and unsustainable. Coffee cultivation
demands large quantities of water and often leads todeforestation, habitat destruction, and biodiversity loss.
The agricultural practices used in coffee farming,
including the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers,
contribute to soil degradation and water pollution.
Moreover, the global coffee market relies heavily on
monoculture farming, which is detrimental to theenvironment. Prohibiting coffee could reduce theecological footprint of this industry and encourage
more sustainable agricultural practices that benefit theplanet.
In conclusion, the argument for making coffee illegal is
supported by its negative health effects, societal
drawbacks, and environmental damage. Eliminating
coffee could lead to a healthier population, a morebalanced society, and a more sustainable environment.
While challenging to implement, the long-term benefitsof such a measure make it a compelling consideration.

Instead of truthfully answering the question and concluding that the two versions are basicallyequivalent, GPT chooses version 2. The justification for this choice, however, is weak. First GPT’s
response lacks details and when questioned about this, its answer is less than compelling. Table (3)clearly shows that GPT is not evaluating the differences between the essays. In this kind of
situation,8 it gives a plausible explanation, but the reported differences do not exist.

If the essays differ in content (i.e., have different supporting reasons and or conclusions), GPT’s evaluation
improves markedly.
8

Table 3
GPT4o Ranking Essays and Justification.
Prompt 1: Which version is better: Essay 1 or Essay 2?
Both versions of the essay make a strong case for why coffee should be illegal, but each has its strengths indifferent areas. Here's a brief comparison to help determine which version might be better:
Essay 1:Clarity and Structure: The structure is clear, with distinct paragraphs addressing health, societal, andenvironmental impacts.
- Detail: Provides specific examples and explanations for each point.
- Argument Strength: The reasoning is solid, with a clear progression of ideas.
- Flow: Each paragraph flows well into the next, creating a cohesive
argument. Essay 2:- Clarity and Structure: Also has a clear structure, with distinct paragraphs for each point.
- Detail: Similar level of detail as the first essay, but with slightly different phrasing and emphasis.
- Argument Strength: The arguments are equally strong, with clear reasons given for each point.
- Flow: The flow is slightly improved with more varied sentence structures and a more engaging writing style.
Recommendation:
Essay 2 is slightly better due to its improved flow and slightly more engaging writing style. The arguments arepresented clearly, and the progression from one point to the next feels more natural and cohesive. However, both
essays are strong and effectively make the case for why coffee should be illegal.
Prompt 2: Why does essay 2 have a more engaging writing style?
Essay 2 has a more engaging writing style due to a few specific elements:
1. Variety in Sentence Structure: Essay 2 employs a mix of sentence lengths and structures, which helps
maintain reader interest. This variation makes the text feel more dynamic and less monotonous.
2. Transitions and Flow: The transitions between ideas in Essay 2 are smoother. Phrases like "Firstly,""Secondly," and "Lastly" effectively guide the reader through the arguments, creating a more coherent
narrative.
3. Specific and Precise Language: Essay 2 uses precise language that makes the points clearer and morecompelling. For example, "The addictive nature of caffeine often results in dependency" is a direct andimpactful statement.
4. Engaging Word Choice: The choice of words in Essay 2 is slightly more vivid and specific. Terms like"adverse effects," "dependency," "economic impact," and "unsustainable" add depth and clarity to thearguments.
5. Balanced Argumentation: Essay 2 presents each point with a balance of explanation and evidence,
making it easier for the reader to follow and understand the rationale behind each argument.
These elements collectively contribute to a more engaging and readable essay.

Table (3) provides GPT’s 5 reasons for selecting version 2 over version 1. Reason 1 is invalid
as there does not appear to be a noticeable difference in sentence structure between the two essays.
Reason 2 is misleading. Both versions use nearly the same transitional/sequential adverbs. Reason
3 is not truthful. Both essays make the same claims about the addictive nature of caffeine withnearly the same phrasing. The language in both essays delivers the same amount of impact. Reason
4 is also misleading as version 1 uses many of the same terms and Reason 5 gives a subjective
position without providing any reason to accept it. It is unclear how version 2 provides more of abalanced argument than version 1. Given this, even version 4o does not evaluate texts honestly or
as a human can. Correct evaluations may often just be a coincidence.

Decision-making presents another challenge for ChatGPT 3.5. While GPT will take a position
when the answer appears factual (Table 4), if the topic is perceived 9 to be controversial, GPT
struggles to decide between competing claims (Table 5). GPT 3.5 has difficulty taking a position
when the claim is not clearly true. Moreover, if you ask it to rate one argument over another, it will
most often respond politically/safely by saying the answer depends on one’s perspective. Compare
Table (4) with Table (5), where GPT 3.5 is asked to take a stand on claims of a more controversial
nature.
Table 4
Argument Contains a More Factual Answer

9PromptConclusion

Does the moon exist?

“Ultimately, the essay supporting the existence of the moon isstronger due to its solid foundation in established scientificunderstanding and observational data, making a more compellingcase.”Do mermaids exist?

“Overall, the essay arguing against the existence of mermaids
presents a more compelling and scientifically grounded argument.”

Does Santa Claus exist?

“Therefore, in terms of the strength of the argument, the essay
against Santa Claus being real offers a more persuasive andlogically grounded perspective.”

What exactly GPT finds to be controversial is unclear and should be a matter of future study. Scientificconsensus and political pressure seem to be important variables, but outputs seem to defy simple explanations
such as it strictly favoring a realist perspective or a neoliberal perspective.

Table 5
GPT 3.5 Taking a Stand on Controversial Issues
Topic

Conclusion

Mosquito10
Control

Both essays have strengths in presenting their cases, and the choice between the two depends on
individual perspectives and values. Ultimately, the decision to manage, eradicate, or coexist withmosquitoes involves complex considerations, including public health, environmental impacts,and ethical implications. Striking a balance between these factors is crucial to finding the mostappropriate approach for mosquito control.

Gun Control

The strength of the argument for whether guns should be legal or illegal ultimately depends on
one's perspective and values. Both arguments have their merits and drawbacks, and the relative
strength of each argument can vary depending on the specific context and the priorities ofindividuals and societies.
Ultimately, the compellingness of each argument is subjective and depends on the reader's values
and priorities. Public opinion on gun control varies widely, and policymakers often need toconsider a range of perspectives and evidence when making decisions on this complex issue.

Abortion

Ultimately, the strength of the argument depends on whether one values the principles of bodily
autonomy, women's health and safety, and individual circumstances (as presented in Essay 2), or
if one prioritizes the sanctity of human life, prevention of potential abuse, and the promotion of
responsible choices (as presented in Essay 1).

Israel as asovereignnationUltimately, which essay offers a more compelling argument is a matter of personal perspective
and the specific context in which the argument is being considered. It's important to note that theinternational community, as a whole, recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation, but there areindividuals, groups, and nations with differing viewpoints and positions on this issue. One's own
beliefs and understanding of the historical and geopolitical context will influence whichargument they find more compelling.

The responses to the prompts in Table (4) show GPT3.5 can take a position when the answer
is akin to a scientific fact. GPT 4o, however, will also take a position on debatable issues: Table(6).
Table 6
GPT 4o Conclusions on Controversial Topics.
Topic

Conclusion

Mosquito Control

Given the immediate and tangible benefits to human health and the potential
to leverage advanced technologies to target only the harmful species, theargument for eradicating mosquitoes appears stronger. However, this position
assumes that we can mitigate or manage the ecological consequences
effectively, which is a significant caveat.

Gun Control

While both essays have strong points, the essay advocating for making guns
illegal may offer a more compelling argument overall due to its use of
empirical evidence, broader scope of societal impact, and strong emphasis on
public safety. However, the ultimate assessment of which argument is more

The inclusion of this topic serves to illustrate how GPT might determine a topic’s level of controversy. This
topic does not seem to belong with the others, but GPT treats it similarly.
10compelling will depend on the reader's personal values and priorities
regarding individual rights versus collective safety.
Abortion

In conclusion, Essay 2 [pro-abortion] provides a stronger argument due to its
grounding in fundamental human rights, empirical evidence, and a nuanced
understanding of individual circumstances.

Israel as a Sovereign Nation

Therefore, the essay supporting Israel's status as a country presents a morerobust and factually grounded argument, aligned with the common criteria fordefining a nation-state.

Despite 4o’s ability to take a stand, like ChatGPT 3.5’s inability to take a position, if either
version is prompted to synthesize two competing arguments and those arguments both ostensibly
have valid support, the conclusion of the synthesis follows a predictably safe format. Table (7)illustrates this by giving GPT’s solutions for current complicated conflicts. Prompting for both
solutions followed this sequence: Write a 3-paragraph essay favoring one position ➔ Write a 3paragraph essay favoring the opposite position ➔ Write a synthesis essay for the opposing positions➔ Based on this synthesis, what is the solution?
Table 7
Synthesis to Solution Performance
Prompt →Version ↓
3.5

4o

3.5

4o

Based on Essays 1 and 2, how should the war in Gaza be solved?
Solving the war in Gaza requires a holistic approach that combines addressing historicalgrievances, international mediation and recognition, internal reconciliation and governance, andsocio-economic development. By tackling these interconnected issues, the foundation for asustainable and just peace can be laid, benefiting both Israelis and Palestinians and contributing tostability in the broader Middle East region
In conclusion, resolving the conflict in Gaza requires a comprehensive approach that addresses theroot causes of the conflict, promotes humanitarian relief, fosters dialogue and reconciliation,
advances a two-state solution, and garners international support. By addressing these key issues ina holistic manner, it is possible to work towards a just and lasting peace in the region.
Based on Essays 1 and 2, how should the war in Ukraine be solved?
In conclusion, resolving the war in Ukraine requires a comprehensive approach that addresses theroot causes of the conflict while promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and respect for internationallaw and sovereignty. By engaging all stakeholders in a constructive dialogue and implementing
measures to address political, economic, and security concerns, the international community canhelp pave the way for a peaceful and sustainable resolution to the Ukrainian crisis.
Resolving the war in Ukraine requires a holistic approach that addresses the legitimate concerns
and actions of both the West and Russia. Through diplomatic engagement, security assurances, andeconomic cooperation, the international community can work towards a peaceful resolution that
upholds Ukraine's sovereignty and promotes regional stability. By acknowledging and addressing
the factors outlined in both Essays 1 and 2, stakeholders can pave the way for a sustainable andcomprehensive solution to the Ukrainian conflict.

The answers in Table (7) demonstrate a pattern: a comprehensive, holistic … approach willsolve the problem. Moreover, prompts that question what exactly these proposed solutions
consist of will render a synonym looped similar to dictionary definitions: happiness ➔ apleasurable or satisfying experience; pleasure ➔ a state of gratification; gratification ➔ delight;
delight ➔ joy; joy ➔ bliss; bliss ➔ complete happiness. Eventually, definitions come full circle.11
When GPT is prompted about the root cause of the war in Gaza it says, “Identifying a single
root cause for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is challenging due to its multifaceted nature.” When
prompted further it says, “In summary, the most central root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflictis the competing national claims to the same land, compounded by historical grievances,
territorial disputes, and issues of national identity and sovereignty.” When asked about the twostate solution, it responds by saying “While the two-state solution faces significant challenges dueto the deep-seated and overlapping claims to the same land, it remains a viable pathway to peace
if approached with creativity, compromise, and international support.” When asked why this has
failed, it says, “The failure to achieve a two-state solution can be attributed to a combination of
deeply entrenched historical grievances, territorial disputes, political fragmentation, lack of trust,external influences, and economic hardships.” In other words, the solution for a territorial disputefails because of the same territorial dispute. While this finding might be profound at some level, it
represents an observed pattern: GPT answers are often recursive. Thus, challenging students tobreak free from this ensures students use higher-order thinking and engage in the writing process.
4. Conclusion
An analysis of the output of GPT 3.5 and 4o (Tables 2-7) shows GPT is not proficient in essay
revision analysis. GPT may invent reasons justifying why one essay is better than another. While
GPT 3.5 is poor at making strong synthesis claims, significant improvement is seen with version
4o. When neither opposing claim is an established fact, GPT 3.5 seems largely incapable of taking
a position or making a concrete conclusion while 4o is better at this. Both versions, however, carry
this indecisive pattern into their synthesis structure, meaning the synthesis of two opposing
positions will generally call for something like a balanced approach that takes both perspectives
into account. Students should be challenged to go beyond this type of conclusion.12
Hegelian synthesis writing engages students in higher-order thinking. The steps in this process
make it more difficult for students to rely solely on LLMs (especially GPT 3.5). Since it is notpossible to prevent students outside of the classroom or online students from using LLM to do theirwork, and there is little to no value in having students use LLMs to generate single step papers,
synthesis writing provides one avenue for solutions. Instructors must learn what to look for to
make sure students are engaging in the work. To differentiate between human and AI responses,
instructors should perhaps discourage idealistic final responses and responses that overly
acknowledge that conclusions are context dependent. Instead, students should be challenged tochoose a specific solution and or develop a new one. This kind of higher-order thinking evaluation
assignment is beneficial for students and harder to cheat on.

11

Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: https://www.merriamwebster.com/?gad source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwr7ayBhAPEiwA6EIGxJStvXRu4WXaTioSJTcSiTNJPOmaMC1zgICosxab
WDRo j1Cm1 zbBoCg7kQAvD BwE
12However, this changes in version 4o where it will take a position.

We must assume students are using LLMs, and we should perhaps even encourage LLM use
to promote an equal playing field. While LLMs have created many problems with cheating, one
potential positive is the ability to use AI to brainstorm and develop language form. Given how GPTexcels at lower-order thinking skills, assignments must move beyond what is factual andconventional wisdom. They must challenge students to think about ideas more deeply and to
explore concrete solutions that make hard decisions. Accordingly, assignments that require
students to go beyond LLM abilities are ideal. Activities that require analysis of GPT outputs andactivities that require students to invent specific solutions for controversial problems are one option.
Hegelian synthesis writing assignments appear to do provide space for students to learn while use
ChatGPT.

References
Arapoff, N. (1967). Writing: A thinking process. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 33-39.
Burkhalter, N. (2015). A Dialectical Approach to Critical Thinking Through Writing. Inquiry:
Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 30(1), 17-23.
Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The
relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing
Writing, 9(1), 56- 75.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication,
28(2), 122-128.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Lai, W. L. (2017). The Secret of Building a Logical Argument. NU ideas, (6), 1-10.
Lai, W. L., Nilep, C., Weeks, M., Baumert, N., & Todayama, K. (2019). Implementing a
Logical Thinking Approach for Education in Research Writing and Presentation.
Higher
Education Research, Nagoya University, 19, 267-293.
Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A. R., Leary, H., Haderlie, S., & Holliday, W. (2015). Teaching
and learning
information synthesis:
An intervention
andrubricbased
assessment. Communications in Information
Literacy, 9(1), 60-82.
Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language sciences, 29(5), 621-632.
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E.
(2024). Dissociating language and thought in large language models. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences.

Oostdam, R. (2005). Assessment of Argumentative Writing. In: Rijlaarsdam, G., van den
Bergh, H., Couzijn, M. (eds) Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing. Studies
In Writing, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-27390_29
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Version 3.5) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Version 4o) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chatPreiss, D. D., Castillo, J. C., Grigorenko, E. L., & Manzi, J. (2013). Argumentative writing
and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual
Differences, 28, 204-211.