QUESTÕES DE MATEMÁTICA PASSÍVEIS DE ANULAÇÃO CONCURSO CORREIOS 2024 ??

Summary

In this video, the speaker discusses two controversial math questions from the Correios postal service exam. One question involves an equation with integers, which some students argue should be annulled due to lack of explicit mention in the exam's syllabus. The other question deals with direct proportionality in the context of a postal worker's bonus, which many believe was unclear. The speaker argues that both questions should not be annulled, as they can be justified based on the syllabus and mathematical reasoning, though acknowledges the challenges in interpreting them.

Takeaways

• 😀 The tutor discusses two math questions in the Correios competition that are being questioned for potential annulment.
• 😀 The first question involves integers and linear equations, with students questioning its alignment with the edital (official syllabus).
• 😀 The tutor argues that although the term 'equation' is not explicitly in the edital, the question can still be solved using topics covered by the syllabus, such as fractions and integer properties.
• 😀 He believes the first question was the most difficult on the exam and could lead to an unfair advantage if annulled, as it’s worth 1.5 points.
• 😀 The second question revolves around a bonus distribution among postal workers based on their deliveries, which some students feel should be annulled due to unclear phrasing.
• 😀 The tutor explains that the second question involves a directly proportional relationship between the number of deliveries and the bonus, even though it’s not explicitly stated.
• 😀 He argues that the second question should not be annulled, as the concept of direct proportionality is clear from the problem's context.
• 😀 The tutor stresses that annulling questions, especially in math, would lead to a higher cutoff score, making the exam even harder for future candidates.
• 😀 He emphasizes that mathematical questions are crucial because they are worth 1.5 points each, which heavily impacts the overall score and difficulty of the exam.
• 😀 The tutor advises students to submit resources if they feel disadvantaged by the questions but suggests that these two questions are unlikely to be annulled.
• 😀 Overall, the tutor believes both questions align with the content of the syllabus and that annulling them would do more harm than good, increasing the exam’s difficulty.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video transcript?

The video discusses two controversial math questions from a recent Correios competition exam and whether they should be annulled due to issues with the wording or alignment with the syllabus.

Why do some students believe the first question should be annulled?

Some students believe the first question, which involves a linear equation with positive integers, should be annulled because they argue that the syllabus doesn't explicitly mention linear equations, even though it refers to integers, rationals, and functions.

How does the speaker justify that the first question fits within the syllabus?

The speaker argues that the question can be interpreted in different ways, such as framing it as a problem involving fractions or as a first-degree function. Both of these methods align with topics mentioned in the syllabus, even if the exact wording of linear equations isn't specified.

What is the concern about annulling the first question?

The concern is that annulling the first question would raise the exam's cutoff score, making it more difficult for candidates to succeed. The speaker emphasizes that each math question is worth 1.5 points, and annulling one could unfairly affect many students.

What was the speaker's opinion on the difficulty level of the first question?

The speaker believes the first question was the most difficult on the exam, and this difficulty has led to many complaints. He suggests that it tests the candidates who were well-prepared and that annulling it would unfairly alter the competitive nature of the exam.

What was the issue with the second question about the postal worker's bonus?

The second question involved dividing a bonus based on the number of deliveries made by postal workers. Students were questioning whether the problem clearly indicated a direct proportional relationship, as the word 'proportional' wasn't explicitly used in the question.

How does the speaker defend the interpretation of the second question?

The speaker defends the interpretation by explaining that the problem implies a direct proportionality: the more deliveries a worker makes, the more bonus they receive. Even though the word 'proportional' isn't explicitly stated, the speaker believes the relationship is implicitly suggested by the problem.

What is the speaker’s stance on whether the second question should be annulled?

The speaker believes that the second question should not be annulled because the proportionality is clear enough through the problem's context, even if not explicitly stated. He argues that it fits into the standard approach for solving proportionality problems.

Why does the speaker believe that annulling any questions in the math section would be harmful?

The speaker believes that annulling any math questions would raise the exam's cutoff score, which could disadvantage many candidates. The math section already has a higher point value per question (1.5 points), and annulling questions could make the exam even harder.

What is the overall message the speaker is trying to convey in the video?

The speaker is arguing that the two controversial questions should not be annulled, as they can be justified within the context of the syllabus. He advises students to consider submitting an appeal if they feel unfairly affected, but emphasizes that annulling questions could hurt the overall integrity of the competition.