Competency 3 and Competency 4 both contribute to argument construction, but they do not measure the same thing. The most useful distinction for revision is this: Competency 3 looks at the architecture of the reasoning — what you choose to defend, which arguments you select, the order in which you develop them, and how they support the thesis — while Competency 4 looks at the linguistic linking that connects sentences, clauses, and paragraphs.
This distinction appears explicitly in the Inep Participant Guide – The 2025 Enem Essay: Competency 3 is tied to planning and the “text project,” while Competency 4 deals with the linguistic mechanisms that create cohesion. In July 2026, Inep also published the updated Enem Reference Matrices page.
The central difference: text project vs. cohesion
| When revising, ask | Competency 3 | Competency 4 |
|---|---|---|
| What is the focus? | Argumentative strategy and overall coherence. | Linguistic articulation between parts. |
| What does the grader notice? | Thesis, argument selection, order, progression, and development. | Connectors, references, lexical substitutions, and relationships between sentences and paragraphs. |
| Typical problem | Loose, repeated, contradictory, or underdeveloped ideas. | Juxtaposed passages, inappropriate connectors, repetition, and ambiguous references. |
| Key question | “Does my reasoning form a clear path toward defending my viewpoint?” | “Can the reader see how one part is linguistically connected to the next?” |
What Competency 3 actually assesses
The official wording of Competency 3 involves selecting, relating, organizing, and interpreting information, facts, opinions, and arguments in defense of a viewpoint. In practice, that demands more than simply “having good arguments”: those arguments must form a recognizable strategy.
The text project does not need to appear as a written outline before the essay. It becomes visible in the final text when the reader can perceive deliberate choices: the thesis is delimited; the arguments are selected for a reason; there is an order of presentation; each paragraph performs a function; and the conclusion responds to the argumentative path that was built.
That is why Competency 3 is a useful lens for questions such as:
- is my viewpoint defined, or does it change during the essay?
- does each argument add something new, or merely repeat the thesis?
- does the order of the paragraphs help the reader follow the reasoning?
- are examples, data, and references explained and connected to the argument?
- are there gaps that force the reader to supply the relationship between ideas?
A reference can be accurate and relevant yet still contribute little to Competency 3 if it is merely mentioned and abandoned. The value appears when the reference is interpreted and used to support the viewpoint.
What Competency 4 actually assesses
Competency 4 also looks at argument construction, but from another layer. Its focus is on the linguistic resources that give continuity to the text and make relationships such as cause, contrast, consequence, conclusion, exemplification, and reference explicit.
This includes argumentative operators such as “however,” “therefore,” and “in addition,” but it is not limited to a list of connectors. Pronouns, referential expressions, lexical substitutions, and other ways of referring back to information without creating ambiguity or excessive repetition also matter.
The decisive point is appropriateness. A text with many connectors is not automatically more cohesive. If “therefore” introduces something that is not a consequence, if “on the other hand” does not introduce a contrast, or if the reference of “this” is vague, a linking marker is present but the relationship itself does not work well.
Two contrasting paragraphs: what to look for in each competency
Example A — a visible text project, but cohesion still needs work:
Schools can reduce the spread of misinformation among teenagers by teaching source verification as a regular practice. Misinformation spreads when a student receives content and does not check its origin. Misinformation also gains strength when a post is shared simply because it confirms a prior opinion. Teaching students to compare authorship, date, evidence, and context directly addresses these two weaknesses and turns checking into a habit.
In this paragraph, the line of reasoning is recognizable: there is a central claim, two causes, and a development showing why the proposal is relevant. That favors the Competency 3 reading. At the same time, the repetition of “misinformation” and the limited variety of links between sentences show room to improve Competency 4.
Example B — many linking markers, but a weak argumentative project:
In addition, misinformation is an important problem. In this sense, many young people use social media. On the other hand, the internet also contains information. Therefore, misinformation must be discussed because the topic deserves attention.
The surface contains several connectors, but the paragraph barely progresses: the ideas are generic, some logical relationships are weak, and there is not enough development of a cause, consequence, or justification. Connectors alone do not create a good text project. And because some of them do not match the relationship between the sentences, Competency 4 is not automatically solved either.
Note: the examples are isolated and didactic. In the exam, the competencies are assessed by considering the essay as a whole; one paragraph cannot predict an exact score.
Separate checklist for reviewing Competency 3
- Thesis: can I summarize the viewpoint I am defending in one sentence?
- Selection: are the chosen arguments actually useful for proving that thesis?
- Order: is the paragraph sequence strategic rather than just a collection of ideas?
- Development: do I explain why each example, fact, or reference supports the argument?
- Progression: does each part advance the discussion without contradictions or empty repetition?
Separate checklist for reviewing Competency 4
- Between paragraphs: is the transition from one stage of the reasoning to the next linguistically marked when necessary?
- Between sentences: are relationships of cause, contrast, conclusion, addition, or exemplification clear?
- Connectors: does each operator express the correct relationship rather than being inserted only for decoration?
- References: do pronouns and phrases such as “this problem,” “this measure,” or “such a situation” have an unambiguous referent?
- Variety and precision: do I avoid mechanical repetition without replacing a clear word with an artificial synonym?
Three confusions that undermine revision
1. “If the text has connectors, Competency 4 is guaranteed”
No. The repertoire of cohesive resources has to work. Variety matters, but so does the semantic relationship constructed between the parts.
2. “If the paragraphs are well connected, Competency 3 is also solved”
Not necessarily. A text may flow smoothly at the linguistic level while still repeating ideas, developing arguments superficially, or failing to show why the selected information supports the thesis.
3. “A text project just means making a draft before starting”
Prior planning helps, but what matters for assessment is the project that can be perceived in the final essay: coherent selection, organization, progression, and development of arguments.
How the two competencies complement each other
The Inep guide itself separates the two layers in a useful way: Competency 3 looks at the deeper structure of the text; Competency 4 looks at the surface linguistic markers that help the reader follow that structure. This is why coherence and cohesion work together but are not synonyms.
In practice, a strong revision can be done in two passes. First, ignore the connectors for a few minutes and inspect the map of the reasoning: thesis, arguments, order, progression, and conclusion. Then reread sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph to check the linguistic links. Separating the questions prevents you from trying to “fix” an argumentative problem simply by adding “in addition” or “therefore.”
Scoring and official references
Each of the five essay competencies receives a score from 0 to 200 points from each evaluator, and the guide presents six possible bands per competency: 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, and 200. For Competency 3, the levels mainly distinguish organization, consistency, and defense of a viewpoint; for Competency 4, they distinguish the quality of articulation and the repertoire of cohesive resources.
For institutional study material, use the Participant Guide – The 2025 Enem Essay and the Enem Reference Matrix page published by Inep in 2026. On the Enem “Other Documents” page, updated in July 2026, Inep still lists the 2025 essay guide as the available guide for this specific orientation.
Remember: Competency 3 asks whether the argument was planned and developed logically; Competency 4 asks whether that argument was linguistically linked with clarity and precision. Reviewing them one at a time makes it easier to identify what really needs to be corrected.
