Questões de Concurso Sobre inglês

Filtrar por:
Os seus filtros aparecerão aqui.

Foram encontradas 17.544 questões

Resolva questões gratuitamente!

Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!

Q2254454 Inglês
Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01

    The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program.
     The measure would also open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a long-sought goal of the oil industry that took a major step forward after years of political struggle. A bipartisan effort to strip the drilling provision narrowly failed.
    The Senate bill, which passed 52 to 47, is the first in nearly a decade to tackle the growth of entitlement spending, the part of the federal budget that rises automatically based on set formulas and population changes.
     It would shave payments to some farmers by 2.5 percent, while eliminating a major cotton support program and trimming agriculture conservation spending. A proposal to limit payments to rich farmers failed yesterday. The measure passed largely along party lines, with only two Democrats voting for it and five Republicans voting against it.
     Yesterday's action is part of an effort by congressional Republicans to demonstrate fiscal discipline after widespread complaints of profligate spending on Capitol Hill. ....51.... many Democrats and some moderate Republicans are concerned that the effort may go too far, prominent Republicans in the Senate and House said the cuts were necessary to slow the rate of spending and control a deficit projected to total $314 billion by the end of the fiscal year.
      During a speech yesterday, former House majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) repeatedly apologized for excessive spending by Congress, including recent highway legislation that was ....52.... with lawmakers’ pet projects. After noting that House Republicans have voted to cut taxes every year since winning the majority in 1994, DeLay acknowledged, “Our record on spending has not been as consistent, ....53.... .”

(Adapted from washingtonpost.com)
Na questão, a palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é
Alternativas
Q2254453 Inglês
Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01

    The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program.
     The measure would also open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a long-sought goal of the oil industry that took a major step forward after years of political struggle. A bipartisan effort to strip the drilling provision narrowly failed.
    The Senate bill, which passed 52 to 47, is the first in nearly a decade to tackle the growth of entitlement spending, the part of the federal budget that rises automatically based on set formulas and population changes.
     It would shave payments to some farmers by 2.5 percent, while eliminating a major cotton support program and trimming agriculture conservation spending. A proposal to limit payments to rich farmers failed yesterday. The measure passed largely along party lines, with only two Democrats voting for it and five Republicans voting against it.
     Yesterday's action is part of an effort by congressional Republicans to demonstrate fiscal discipline after widespread complaints of profligate spending on Capitol Hill. ....51.... many Democrats and some moderate Republicans are concerned that the effort may go too far, prominent Republicans in the Senate and House said the cuts were necessary to slow the rate of spending and control a deficit projected to total $314 billion by the end of the fiscal year.
      During a speech yesterday, former House majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) repeatedly apologized for excessive spending by Congress, including recent highway legislation that was ....52.... with lawmakers’ pet projects. After noting that House Republicans have voted to cut taxes every year since winning the majority in 1994, DeLay acknowledged, “Our record on spending has not been as consistent, ....53.... .”

(Adapted from washingtonpost.com)
Na questão, a palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é
Alternativas
Q2254452 Inglês
Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01

    The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program.
     The measure would also open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a long-sought goal of the oil industry that took a major step forward after years of political struggle. A bipartisan effort to strip the drilling provision narrowly failed.
    The Senate bill, which passed 52 to 47, is the first in nearly a decade to tackle the growth of entitlement spending, the part of the federal budget that rises automatically based on set formulas and population changes.
     It would shave payments to some farmers by 2.5 percent, while eliminating a major cotton support program and trimming agriculture conservation spending. A proposal to limit payments to rich farmers failed yesterday. The measure passed largely along party lines, with only two Democrats voting for it and five Republicans voting against it.
     Yesterday's action is part of an effort by congressional Republicans to demonstrate fiscal discipline after widespread complaints of profligate spending on Capitol Hill. ....51.... many Democrats and some moderate Republicans are concerned that the effort may go too far, prominent Republicans in the Senate and House said the cuts were necessary to slow the rate of spending and control a deficit projected to total $314 billion by the end of the fiscal year.
      During a speech yesterday, former House majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) repeatedly apologized for excessive spending by Congress, including recent highway legislation that was ....52.... with lawmakers’ pet projects. After noting that House Republicans have voted to cut taxes every year since winning the majority in 1994, DeLay acknowledged, “Our record on spending has not been as consistent, ....53.... .”

(Adapted from washingtonpost.com)
Na questão, a palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é
Alternativas
Q2254451 Inglês
Analise as seguintes afirmações:
I. Num lemons market sempre se concretizam transações, até mesmo quando os compradores estejam dispostos a pagar, por um bem de boa qualidade, um preço superior àquele que os vendedores estejam dispostos a negociá-lo.
II. O fato do mercado de arte ter proporções reduzidas pode ser explicado, entre outras razões, pelo risco que consumidores comuns correm de adquirir uma obra falsa pelo preço de uma verdadeira.
III. A existência de franquias elevadas para seguros de automóveis é justificada pelo fato de as seguradores não poderem verificar individualmente o cuidado que os segurados tomam com seus veículos.
IV. A garantia oferecida pelas concessionárias de automóveis, ao comercializarem carros usados, bem como sua reputação no mercado, são sinais utilizados para demonstrar que esses produtos têm qualidade acima da média esperada pelo comprador.
V. A relação agente-principal é aquela em que uma pessoa (agente) atua como preposto de outra (principal), recebendo para isso uma remuneração; esse tipo de relação é ilustrativa do moral hazard, já que nem sempre o principal consegue monitorar integralmente o comportamento dos agentes.
É INCORRETO o que consta APENAS em
Alternativas
Q2254401 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

After reading the text, which happens first?
Alternativas
Q2254400 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

According to the text, which title would best describe the purpose of this text?
Alternativas
Q2254399 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

According to the text, why do people bring metal detectors to the beach?
Alternativas
Q2254398 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

According to the text, we can infer that metal detectors: 
Alternativas
Q2254397 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

Which alternative best describes the main idea of the third paragraph?
Alternativas
Q2254396 Inglês

Reading Comprehension

Metal Detectors


Have you ever seen a man with a headset pointing a long pole at the ground on the beach?


If so you might have seen a person using a metal detector. People use these devices to find metal.


Metal detectors make magnetic waves. These waves go through the ground. The waves change when they hit metal then it beeps. This lets the person with the device know that metal is close.


The first metal detectors were meant to help miners. They were big and cost a lot of money. Although they use a lot of power, they didn’t work well. People kept trying to make them better.


Nowadays metal detectors are smaller, light and cheap. That’s why people bring them to the beach. People can look for rings in the water, as well as look for phones in the sand. But they usually find junk though. Metal detectors also protect people. They help to keep guns out of some places:


Airports, courthouses and, schools. They also help guards look for weapons. Guards use special wands to find metal on a person.


These devices save lives in other ways too. During wars, people plant bombs in the ground. When the war ends, they don’t clean up their messes. This is unsafe for the people who live in those places. Others use metal detectors to find bombs. They remove them and help the people. These devices also make clothes safer. It sounds funny, but it’s true. Most clothes are made in big factories.


There are lots of needles in these places. Needles break from time to time. They get stuck in the clothes. They would poke people trying them on. They don’t though. That’s because our clothes are scanned for metal. Isn’t that nice?


Metal detectors make the world a safer place.

Identify the following statements as true ( T ) or false ( F ) about metal detectors according to the text.

( ) They used to be too big. ( ) They were too expensive. ( ) They didn’t work well. ( ) They were unsafe. ( ) They make magnetic waves.

Choose the alternative which presents the correct sequence:
Alternativas
Q2254326 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Segundo o texto, Henry Ford 
Alternativas
Q2254271 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No geral, o texto
Alternativas
Q2254270 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
O pronome it, no final do texto, refere-se a
Alternativas
Q2254269 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Segundo o texto, a escolha de um órgão supervisor multilateral da Internet poderia tornar o registro de domínio
Alternativas
Q2254268 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
In the third paragraph, such abuses have not occurred means that
Alternativas
Q2254267 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No segundo parágrafo, should indica
Alternativas
Q2254265 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Ainda no primeiro parágrafo, os dois períodos Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? e It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was. podem ser ligadas, sem alteração de sentido, pela conjunção
Alternativas
Q2254264 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No primeiro parágrafo, reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins significa
Alternativas
Q2254263 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No texto, a palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é 
Alternativas
Q2254262 Inglês
The Internet at Risk

    Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
    The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that  ....51....
        The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
        It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.

(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No texto, o verbo que preenche corretamente a lacuna é 
Alternativas
Respostas
5161: D
5162: B
5163: C
5164: A
5165: D
5166: A
5167: C
5168: D
5169: E
5170: A
5171: B
5172: E
5173: D
5174: C
5175: A
5176: C
5177: D
5178: B
5179: E
5180: A