A university student has strongly denied using artificial intelligence during an examination after submitting a 1,900-word answer beginning, “Certainly! Here is a clear and well-structured response to your question.”
The student insisted the wording merely reflected his personal academic style.
“I have always written like this,” he said. “My primary objective is to provide a balanced, nuanced, and comprehensive overview while highlighting key considerations.”
Suspicions were first raised when the answer to “Was the defendant negligent?” opened with a definition of negligence, supplied seven bullet points, proposed “some practical next steps,” and concluded by offering to rewrite itself in a more concise or academic tone.
Faculty members remained divided.
“One should not jump to conclusions,” said a member of the Academic Integrity Committee. “There are perfectly innocent reasons why an 18-year-old might suddenly write immaculate prose containing the phrase ‘it is important to note that’ 14 times.”
The student’s case was strengthened when three other candidates submitted completely different answers to the same question, each concluding: “Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all answer.”
At press time, the university was considering a new assessment policy under which students would be permitted to use AI provided they could demonstrate that, at some stage in the process, they had also been present.