Questões de Concurso Público CGU 2022 para Auditor Federal de Finanças e Controle - Manhã
Foram encontradas 30 questões
Em muitos momentos de nossa vida profissional, temos que apresentar uma ideia e defendê-la. Observe o texto a seguir, publicado há alguns anos, como mostra o tema da discussão:
“Frequentemente ouve-se dizer que a causa principal da distância dos jovens em relação à leitura é a televisão. Não vamos insistir aqui sobre os problemas que esse aparelho apresenta para a leitura e o estudo, mas desejo acrescentar duas reflexões: primeiro, que já Rousseau, no século XVIII, qualificava a leitura como ‘o castigo da juventude’, o que indica que, mesmo quando não havia televisão, ler também podia ser uma atividade pouco atrativa para muitos jovens. Em segundo lugar, que, apesar do que sempre se diz sobre a pouca leitura, nunca se leu tanto quanto agora e, às vezes, a televisão, ainda que pareça mentira, usada racionalmente, pode ajudar a ler. Assim, é frequente que as séries televisivas de mais audiência façam disparar a venda dos livros nos que se baseiam, como ocorreu com a série ‘Senhor dos Anéis’. Pode ser que esse cinema doméstico não ajude a promover a leitura, já que é mais passivo que o livro, exige menos esforço mental, é mais atrativo para os pequenos, mas em nenhum caso é a principal razão de que hoje em dia não se leia”.
Para defender sua ideia, o autor do texto apela para uma série de recursos argumentativos; a opção em que o recurso indicado está exemplificado adequadamente é:
Observe o seguinte texto de Pascal, que discute a distinção entre demonstrar e agradar: “Ninguém ignora que há dois caminhos por onde as opiniões são recebidas na alma, que são o entendimento e a vontade. O mais natural é o do entendimento, porque não deveríamos aceitar jamais a não ser as verdades demonstradas; mas o mais comum, embora contra a natureza, é o caminho da vontade porque todos os homens são levados sempre a crer não pela prova, mas pelo prazer. Esse caminho é baixo, indigno e estranho: assim todos o desaprovam”.
O segmento abaixo que se utiliza dos dois caminhos referidos por Pascal a fim de convencer o leitor é:
Leia com atenção o texto de Albert Camus: “Não há vida sem diálogo. E, na maior parte do mundo, o diálogo está sendo substituído pela polêmica. O século XX é o século da polêmica e do insulto. Ela se trava entre as nações e os indivíduos e ocupa o espaço que era anteriormente ocupado pelo diálogo de reflexão. Milhares de vozes, dia e noite, praticando cada uma de seu lado um monólogo tumultuado, derramam sobre as pessoas uma torrente de palavras mistificadoras, ataques, defesas, exaltações...[...] Não há vida sem persuasão. E a história moderna não conhece nada além da intimidação”.
O texto abaixo que exemplifica o caso da intimidação do leitor é:
Em uma tarde ensolarada, estou no portão da escola recebendo as crianças como todos os dias. De repente, um carro para em frente ao portão. Um menino de quatro anos chega à porta da escola com o telefone nas mãos, assistindo desenho ou jogando (não foi possível identificar), tão concentrado que nem percebe que chegou à escola. A mãe chama e ele não atende. Então, ela pega o telefone das mãos do filho e ele começa a reclamar, chorando e exaltado, querendo o telefone novamente. A mãe pede ao filho para parar de chorar e de “fazer birra”, mas este não a atende. Para parar de ouvir a reclamação do filho, ela então vai ao carro, busca o tablet e deixa que o filho o leve para a escola.
Diário de bordo, 26 de fevereiro de 2018.
Sobre a estrutura desse pequeno texto, retirado de um estudo sobre a Tecnologia e a Educação Infantil, a afirmativa adequada é que se trata de um texto:
Um personagem de um célebre romance francês é enunciador do seguinte discurso:
“O que teria eu que fazer para demonstrar a utilidade da agricultura? Quem provê nossas necessidades? Quem fornece nossos alimentos? Não é o agricultor? O agricultor, senhores, que semeia nossos campos com sua mão laboriosa, faz nascer o trigo, que, triturado por engenhosas máquinas, dá origem à farinha, que, transportada para o padeiro, produz alimento para o pobre e para o rico. Não é também o agricultor que gera nossas roupas, engordando os seus rebanhos, nas nossas pastagens? Porque, como nos vestiríamos, como nos alimentaríamos sem o agricultor?”
Sobre a estrutura argumentativa desse pequeno texto, a única afirmativa correta é:
Observe o texto expositivo a seguir.
Por uma vida mais longa
Terra, novembro/2003
“Qual é a verdadeira extensão da vida humana? Estaremos caminhando para uma vida sem limites? Essas são as questões colocadas na reportagem de capa desta edição de Terra, um detalhado trabalho do jornalista Celso Arnaldo Araújo, duas vezes ganhador do Prêmio Esso de Jornalismo na área de ciências. As conclusões são impressionantes e evidentes. Com o aprimoramento da medicina, da bioengenharia e da genética, a tendência é que, em meados do século XXI, a expectativa de vida do ser humano ultrapasse os cem anos. E pode ir mais longe.
Se na Idade Média um homem de 30 anos já era um ancião, hoje já se pode pensar que, com alguns cuidados e muita tecnologia, você pode viver muito mais que seus antepassados.
O impacto da longevidade humana será, sem dúvida, um dos temas da agenda do planeta ainda neste século, mas, ainda que isso represente um problema social e previdenciário, não deixa de ser alvissareiro imaginar que o ser humano terá mais tempo para aproveitar sua existência e talvez não seja uma utopia pensar que, diante dessa perspectiva, o homem passe a cuidar melhor da Terra em que viverá por mais tempo.”
Esse texto – que apresenta um futuro artigo da revista – mostra
uma falha em sua composição, que pode ser identificada do
seguinte modo:
“Naquele verão de 2021, o grupo de turistas se aglomerou à porta da Matriz, ao redor do guia, que, naquele momento, lhes passava informações importantes para a adequada visualização daquele monumento. A enorme porta de madeira chamou logo a atenção, mas o interior do templo, com suas imagens barrocas, levou, em seguida, emoção a todos os que têm olhos para ver. Na saída, os comentários reclamavam do pouco tempo de visita a locais tão belos, mas o mês de janeiro estava no fim e o trabalho já se anunciava.”
Esse pequeno texto traz um conjunto de elementos encarregados de situações temporais; sobre esse aspecto, a única afirmação inadequada é:
Em todos os segmentos abaixo, foram suprimidos os conectores lógicos que faziam ligações entre os segmentos.
A opção em que um conector lógico estabelece uma relação lógica adequada ao contexto, independentemente de modificações na construção, é:
Leia o texto abaixo, publicado em jornal algum tempo atrás:
Tecnologia e família
São inegáveis as mudanças positivas que a internet trouxe para a vida de muitas famílias em nosso país e no mundo, como a possibilidade de trabalho e educação a distância e uma intensa vida social.
Creio que o acesso aos recursos da internet nem sempre tem consequências positivas. É frequente ver que os adolescentes e jovens – por estarem diante da tela do computador – invertem perigosamente seus horários, perdem horas de sono e, basicamente, deixam de relacionar-se com amigos e membros da família.
É verdade que a internet é um instrumento que possibilita uma nova forma de relação interpessoal, mas esta é muito diferente da relação íntima, cara a cara, que se dá no âmbito familiar. Por isso, a perda da noção de contacto físico e emocional – que no mundo da rede é substituído pela transmissão e interação virtual – poderia afetar as relações familiares.
O lar é um espaço privilegiado onde rapidamente podemos detectar as consequências do uso abusivo da rede, com claras repercussões no conjunto do entorno familiar. Todos devíamos preparar-nos para o grande desafio do novo milênio, que é o de tentar integrar os incríveis progressos científicos e tecnológicos, aqui representados pela internet, de modo que possam ampliar os limites da experiência humana sem desumanizá-la, mas enriquecendo-a e aprofundando-a.
Sobre o texto acima, é correto afirmar que:
Em uma de suas crônicas, Rubem Braga tece os seguintes comentários sobre o padre Feijó, figura importante de nossa história: “...quanta mediocridade, quanta incoerência! Não era homem excepcional nem pela inteligência nem pela cultura. Não teve, diante dos problemas do Brasil, nenhuma visão mais larga nem penetrante; não nos legou, nem mesmo aos homens do Segundo Império, nenhuma ideia mais alta ou mais justa para levar adiante. Teimoso e limitado, tinha dois ou três projetos que defendeu até a velhice, e nenhum deles de maior mérito”.
Temos aqui o exemplo de um argumento ad hominem, ou seja, uma argumentação crítica contra uma pessoa.
O tipo de argumento ad hominem que é adequado ao texto de Rubem Braga é aquele que:
Observe o seguinte texto, de autoria de um conhecido sociólogo contemporâneo: “A moda satisfaz ao mesmo tempo o desejo de reunião com os outros, e o do isolamento, da diferenciação. O indivíduo na moda se sente diferente, original, e, ao mesmo tempo, objeto da aprovação do maior número de pessoas, que se comportam como ele”.
Sobre os componentes estruturais desse segmento, a afirmação adequada é:
Observe os dois textos a seguir.
1) “Nossa civilização é uma soma de conhecimentos e de lembranças acumuladas por gerações que nos precederam. Nós não podemos participar dela a não ser entrando em contato com o pensamento dessas gerações.”
2) “Os jovens dificilmente admitem o valor da experiência. A mutação brusca que vivemos, o acontecimento da sociedade científica, desqualifica seriamente, é necessário que se diga, a experiência das gerações precedentes.”
Sobre esses textos, é correto afirmar que:
Observe o texto descritivo a seguir.
“Entramos vagarosa e silenciosamente pela porta do laboratório às escuras; o cheiro do local era nauseabundo e havia uma substância pegajosa não identificada por todo o chão. Havia tubos de ensaio espalhados, como se os trabalhadores do local tivessem saído às pressas... Pelo amargo de nossas bocas, as expectativas eram as piores possíveis.”
A estratégia empregada nessa descrição é a de:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Based on the information provided by the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).
( ) An inquisitive mind is germane to those engaged in auditing.
( ) Bringing out a verifiable estimate on skepticism can be done in no time.
( ) On no account should professional skepticism be brushed aside when focusing on audit quality.
The statements are, respectively:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Conheça nossos planos