Questões de Concurso Comentadas por alunos sobre tradução | translation em inglês

Leia o texto seguinte e responda a questão.

Mother's day at Amazon.com

Mother's day is a good time to familiarize yourself with Amazon.com where shopping is quick and easy. There you can order books, CDs, and video tapes, always ideal gifts, which will be sent wrapped in festive gift paper. But this year Amazon.com has some new and exciting alternatives for you.

Perhaps the most entertaining of these, and certainly the cheapest (It's free), are their e-cards, greeting cards, some are animated, with personalized messages. Simply visit Amazon.com, click on “ecards”, and select the design and front you like.

Using your phone, you can even add a voice greeting to any Amazon.com card.

More traditional, but no less useful, gifts are Amazon.com gift certificates. Delivered via e-mail and free of charge, these certificates are perfect for those who have everything. More importantly, they are a blessing for the last minute shopper! Such online gift certificates can be sent up to the very last minute and still arrive on time. And, if you prefer a paper version of the gift certificate, that, too, is possible. Also sent free of charge, it will arrive in three to seven business days. For more information, visit Amazon.com Gift Certificate.

And don't forget to make shopping easier for your loved ones by filling out an Amazon.com ”wish list”. To do this, shop in any area of Amazon.com.

When you come across an item that you'd like to receive, click the “Add to My Wish List” button. (It can be found under the “Add to my shopping”).

(Extraído da Revista Speak up, Maio/2000.)

Read the extract of the song GIVE ME LO VE by ED Sheeram and answer

Told you l ’d let them go

And TU fight my comer

Maybe tonight Til call ya

After my blood turns into alcohol

No I just wanna hold ya

Give a little time to me, we’ll burn this out

We’ll play hide and seek, to turn this around

All I want is the taste that your lips allow

Give me love like never before

‘Cause lately /Ve been craving more

And it’s been a while but I still feel the same

Maybe I should let you go

05/01/2012

Understand legal issues when using CBCT scans

by Stuart J. Oberman, USA

      Dentists are legally and ethically obligated to do no harm to their patients. Improper diagnosis after using a CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography) does not align with this standard because delay of diagnosis leads to delay of treatment. This is not in the best interest of the patient because it can lead to an inferior prognosis. Also, not every patient requires a CBCT scan; therefore, it is the dentist’s responsibility to determine whether a CBCT scan is necessary by using reasonable, careful judgment in light of the patient’s medical and dental history and thorough examination. The dentist should do a cost-benefit analysis before requesting a CBCT scan. When doing so, the dentist should consider whether the likely benefit to the patient exceeds the ionizing radiation risk and the financial cost. 

      Dentists’ scope of legal responsibility to diagnose

      When using CBCT, as with other diagnostic tools, the dentist’s responsibility is not limited to the area of interest being diagnosed or treated. The treating dentist is legally responsible for diagnosing any disease that falls within the scope of the dentist’s license, which is normally broad in scope, encompassing all diseases and lesions of the jaw and related structures. As for a dentist’s responsibility for diagnosing a disease that falls outside the scope of the dentist’s license, the answer is not clear. Thus, it is always a good idea to be cautious and assume the responsibility to recognize any abnormality that appears anywhere on the CBCT scan. If ... ART 1 ... dentist is unsure of ...ART 2... scan results, he or she should consult with ...ART 3... specialists in the field or refer ...ART 4... patient to ...ART 5... specialist.  

 Para responder a questão, considere o texto a seguir:                          

Environmental law in Brazil

      BRAZIL’S gridlocked Congress often ends up passing contentious laws only after the combatants collapse in exhaustion. So it is with the revision of the Forest Code, a set of rules that, ...A... the name, apply to all privately owned rural land, not just plots in wooded areas. The code, originally approved in 1965, requires owners to keep native vegetation on parts of their land − 80% in the Amazon, less elsewhere − and in erosion-prone and biodiverse areas such as riverbanks and mangrove swamps. But it was long ignored.

      Since harsher penalties and enforcement were introduced in the late 1990s the ruralistas, as Brazil’s powerful farming lobby is known, have been trying to revise the code. On April 25th, after 13 years of arguments, rewrites and stalling, the final text landed on the desk of the president, Dilma Rousseff. It was far from the version she wanted. Two government defeats in the ruralista-packed lower house meant it contained few of her own previous revisions or those of the more green-friendly Senate.

      The president faced a difficult choice: to scrap the text and start again − which would probably be taken as a declaration of war by the ruralistas − or to make the best of a bad job. She chose the latter. On May 25th ministers went to Congress to say that the president would veto 12 of the new code’s 84 articles and make 32 smaller cuts. The resulting holes would be backfilled in a separate executive decree. Only on May 28th were the details published.

       Under Ms Rousseff’s veto, the amnesty sought by ruralistas will apply only to smallholders, who will still have to replant 20% of their plots. Everyone else will have five years to right past wrongs and add their properties to a new Rural Environmental Register. Holdouts will be denied bank loans and face prosecution.

      Rubens Ricupero, one of ten former environment ministers consulted by the president before the veto, praises her attempt to strike a balance. Treating small landowners more leniently was both practical, he thinks − they account for 90% of rural properties by number but just 24% by area − and socially just: few could afford much replanting.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/21556245?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a)