Questões de Concurso
Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 10.014 questões
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. If the Fukushima disaster hadn’t happened, recent discussions about the safety of nuclear energy may not have taken place. 2. Germany may have problems in the future with their energy because of decisions they have taken now. 3. Brazil has absolutely no plans to use nuclear energy again.
Choose the alternative which indicates the correct statements.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
Instruction: Answer question based on the following text.
Fake news: improved critical literacy skills are key to telling fact from fiction
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/oct/17/fake-news-improved-criticalliteracy-skills-teaching-young-people
( ) Teachers are worried because students are citing false information found online as fact in their work. ( ) Students have problems, and do not memorize what they learn. ( ) Reading comprehension is key to develop students’ critical literacy.
From the top to the bottom, the parentheses are correctly filled with:
UNEARTHED: REMAINS OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN TSUNAMI VICTIM
By Charles Choi | October 25, 2017 1:00 pm
Paragraph 1 Tsunamis have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the past two decades. Now a new study finds that a 6,000-year-old skull may come from the earliest known victim of these killer waves.
Paragraph 2 The partial human skull was discovered in 1929 buried in a mangrove swamp outside the small town of Aitape Papua New Guinea, about 500 miles north of Australia. Scientists originally thought it belonged to an ancient extinct human species, Homo erectus. However, subsequent research dated it to about 5,000 or 6,000 years in age, suggesting that it instead belonged to a modern human.
A Rare Specimen
Paragraph 3 The skull is one of just two examples of ancient human remains found in Papua New Guinea after more than a century of work there. As such, archaeologists wanted to learn more about this skull to elucidate how people settled this region.
Paragraph 4 The scientists went back to where this skull was found and sampled the soil in which it was discovered. They focused on details such as sediment grain size and composition.
Paragraph 5 In the sediment, the researchers discovered a range of microscopic organisms from the ocean known as diatoms. These were similar to ones found in the soil after a 1998 tsunami killed more than 2,000 people in Papua New Guinea — for instance, their shells of silica were broken, likely by extremely powerful forces.
Paragraph 6 These diatom shells, combined with the chemical compositions and the size ranges of the grains, all suggest that a tsunami occurred when the skull was buried. The researchers suggested the catastrophe either directly killed the person or ripped open their grave.
Paragraph 7 Tsunamis, which are giant waves caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or underwater landslides, are some of the deadliest natural disasters known. The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed more than 230,000 people, a higher death toll than any fire or hurricane.
Paragraph 8 The site where the skull was found is currently about 7.5 miles away from the coast. Still, the researchers noted that back when whoever the skull belonged to was alive, sea levels were higher, and the area would have been just behind the shoreline.
Paragraph 9 The waves of the tsunami that hit Papua New Guinea in 1998 reached more than 50 feet high and penetrated up to three miles inland. “If the event we have identified resulted from a similar process, it could have also resulted in extremely high waves,” study co-lead author Mark Golitko, an archaeologist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and the Field Museum in Chicago.
Paragraph 10 These results show “that coastal populations have been vulnerable to such events for thousands of years,” Golitko said. “People have managed to live with such unpredictable and destructive occurrences, but it highlights how vulnerable people living near the sea can be. Given the far larger populations that live along coastlines today, the potential impacts are far more severe now.”
Paragraph 11 Golitko plans to return to the area over the next few years “to further study the frequency of such events, how the environment changed over time, and how people have coped with the environmental challenges of living in that environment.” He and his colleagues detailed their findings Wednesday in the journal PLOS O.
Retrieved and adapted from:
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/10/25/first-tsunami-victim/#.WfYiYmhSzIU>
De acordo com o autor, portanto, é FALSO afirmar:
Conheça nossos planos