Questões de Concurso Sobre inglês

Foram encontradas 17.034 questões

Resolva questões gratuitamente!

Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!

Q2763214 Inglês

Read the text below and answer questions 28 and 29. 


Advantages of Being Bilingual 

Most children have the capacity and facility to learn more than one language. Researchers say that there are advantages to being bilingual. These advantages might include; 
• Being able to learn new words easily 
• Playing rhyming games with words like "cat" and "hat" 
• Breaking down words by sounds, such as C-AT for cat 
• Being able to use information in new ways 
• Putting words into categories 
• Coming up with solutions to problems 
• Good listening skills 
• Connecting with others 

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, more than one in 5 school-aged children (21%) speak a language other than English at home. That number of bilingual speakers is projected to increase in the coming years. 
Children who are learning to speak two languages follow patterns of learning. The sounds of the first language can influence how children learn and use a second language. It is easier to learn sounds and words when the languages you are learning are similar. Over time, the more difficult sounds and words will be learned. 
Fact: Communication disorders affect more than 42 million Americans. Of these, 28 million have a hearing loss and 14 million have a speech or language disorder. 
If a child _______ a speech or language problem, it ________up in both languages. However, these problems are not caused by learning two languages. If you know a child who is learning a second language and you have concerns about speech and language development, ASHA recommends contacting a bilingual speech-language pathologist (SLP). If you are unable to find a bilingual speech-language pathologist, look for a SLP who has knows the rules and structure of both languages and who has access to an interpreter. For more information or for a referral to a SLP, contact ASHA at 800-638-TALK (8255) (Spanish- speaking operators available) 

Acessado em 25/02/2015 http://www.asha.org/public/speech/developm ent/The- Advantages-of-Being-Bilingual/

Mark the alternative that doesn’t contain an advantage of being a bilingual person according to the text.

Alternativas
Q2763212 Inglês

Read the comic strip and mark the correct alternative.


Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Alternativas
Q2763210 Inglês

Read the sentences below and mark the correct alternative.


I. If I were sick, I’d go to a doctor.
II. If it doesn’t rain, we will stay at home.
III. He would have gone to the beach if he had had enough money.
IV. Unless she arrives on time, she won’t participate in the meeting.
The correct sentences are:

Alternativas
Q2763209 Inglês

Read the text and answer questions 22 to 25.

Slowly does it
Feb 19th 2015, 17:34 BY R.L.G. | BERLIN


LAST week’s column looked at the long history of language declinism: for more than 600 years people have complained that youngsters cannot write proper English anymore, and even ancient Sumerian schoolmasters worried about the state of the “scribal art” in the world’s first written language. Two universal truths emerge: languages are always changing, and older people always worry that the young are not taking proper care of the language.
But what if the sticklers have a point? Of course language always changes, but could technology (or a simple increase in youthful insouciance and lack of respect for tradition) mean that in some ages it changes faster than in others? Is change accelerating? In this case, a real problem could arise. Even if language change is not harmful, the faster language changes, the less new generations will be able to understand what their forebears wrote.
The Middle English quotation in last week’s column ________ the point for some readers: it is all but impenetrable to modern understanding without special training. It is, in effect, a foreign language. Is this a problem? Perhaps it is too much to expect writing to stay fresh on the shelf for 600 years. More recent writing holds up quite well. Pupils read Shakespeare with only modernised spelling and a bit of help from teachers. And Thomas Jefferson and Jane Austen are perfectly readable.
But maybe a greater conservatism would let modern readers peer further back in their own literary history. If change had been slower, perhaps Chaucer would be only as difficult as Shakespeare is to us; “Beowulf” only as distant as Chaucer is now. What’s not to like?
The problem is that conservatism works differently on writing than it does on speech. Writing is more permanent, so people choose their words carefully and conservatively. It is slow and considered, so people can avoid new usages widely seen as mistakes. It is taught carefully by adults to children, which naturally exerts some conservative drag on the written language. And it is often edited, so (say) a young journalist with a breezy contemporary style may well be edited to a more traditional one by an older editor.
Speech is different: instead of permanent, slow, considered and taught, it is impermanent, fast, spontaneous and learned naturally by children from their surroundings. Speech will—at almost any level of linguistic conservatism—change faster than written language.
The problem with overly successful conservatism then becomes clear. Speech moves on, writing does not, and the two diverge over time. Take just one example: English spelling. As with all languages, the pronunciation of English has changed a lot over the centuries. Spelling has changed much more slowly. Thanks to the Great Vowel Shift of the middle of the last millennium, English uses vowels differently from almost all other European languages. Silent letters like the gh in night are a remnant of an earlier pronunciation (a bit like the German nicht). Other odd spellings were intended to keep etymologies clear: a b was inserted into debt to show the link with Latin debitum. Some linguistic innovations do not make it into writing at all: nearly everyone says gonna and writes going to. ________ a language pays homage to the past, _________modern schoolchildren will find learning to write a bit like learning to speak a foreign tongue.

Which words complete the conclusion correctly.

Alternativas
Q2763202 Inglês

Read the text and answer questions 22 to 25.

Slowly does it
Feb 19th 2015, 17:34 BY R.L.G. | BERLIN


LAST week’s column looked at the long history of language declinism: for more than 600 years people have complained that youngsters cannot write proper English anymore, and even ancient Sumerian schoolmasters worried about the state of the “scribal art” in the world’s first written language. Two universal truths emerge: languages are always changing, and older people always worry that the young are not taking proper care of the language.
But what if the sticklers have a point? Of course language always changes, but could technology (or a simple increase in youthful insouciance and lack of respect for tradition) mean that in some ages it changes faster than in others? Is change accelerating? In this case, a real problem could arise. Even if language change is not harmful, the faster language changes, the less new generations will be able to understand what their forebears wrote.
The Middle English quotation in last week’s column ________ the point for some readers: it is all but impenetrable to modern understanding without special training. It is, in effect, a foreign language. Is this a problem? Perhaps it is too much to expect writing to stay fresh on the shelf for 600 years. More recent writing holds up quite well. Pupils read Shakespeare with only modernised spelling and a bit of help from teachers. And Thomas Jefferson and Jane Austen are perfectly readable.
But maybe a greater conservatism would let modern readers peer further back in their own literary history. If change had been slower, perhaps Chaucer would be only as difficult as Shakespeare is to us; “Beowulf” only as distant as Chaucer is now. What’s not to like?
The problem is that conservatism works differently on writing than it does on speech. Writing is more permanent, so people choose their words carefully and conservatively. It is slow and considered, so people can avoid new usages widely seen as mistakes. It is taught carefully by adults to children, which naturally exerts some conservative drag on the written language. And it is often edited, so (say) a young journalist with a breezy contemporary style may well be edited to a more traditional one by an older editor.
Speech is different: instead of permanent, slow, considered and taught, it is impermanent, fast, spontaneous and learned naturally by children from their surroundings. Speech will—at almost any level of linguistic conservatism—change faster than written language.
The problem with overly successful conservatism then becomes clear. Speech moves on, writing does not, and the two diverge over time. Take just one example: English spelling. As with all languages, the pronunciation of English has changed a lot over the centuries. Spelling has changed much more slowly. Thanks to the Great Vowel Shift of the middle of the last millennium, English uses vowels differently from almost all other European languages. Silent letters like the gh in night are a remnant of an earlier pronunciation (a bit like the German nicht). Other odd spellings were intended to keep etymologies clear: a b was inserted into debt to show the link with Latin debitum. Some linguistic innovations do not make it into writing at all: nearly everyone says gonna and writes going to. ________ a language pays homage to the past, _________modern schoolchildren will find learning to write a bit like learning to speak a foreign tongue.

Which verbal tense best completes the sentence” The Middle English quotation in last week’s column ________ the point for some readers”

Alternativas
Q2763199 Inglês

Read the text and answer questions 22 to 25.

Slowly does it
Feb 19th 2015, 17:34 BY R.L.G. | BERLIN


LAST week’s column looked at the long history of language declinism: for more than 600 years people have complained that youngsters cannot write proper English anymore, and even ancient Sumerian schoolmasters worried about the state of the “scribal art” in the world’s first written language. Two universal truths emerge: languages are always changing, and older people always worry that the young are not taking proper care of the language.
But what if the sticklers have a point? Of course language always changes, but could technology (or a simple increase in youthful insouciance and lack of respect for tradition) mean that in some ages it changes faster than in others? Is change accelerating? In this case, a real problem could arise. Even if language change is not harmful, the faster language changes, the less new generations will be able to understand what their forebears wrote.
The Middle English quotation in last week’s column ________ the point for some readers: it is all but impenetrable to modern understanding without special training. It is, in effect, a foreign language. Is this a problem? Perhaps it is too much to expect writing to stay fresh on the shelf for 600 years. More recent writing holds up quite well. Pupils read Shakespeare with only modernised spelling and a bit of help from teachers. And Thomas Jefferson and Jane Austen are perfectly readable.
But maybe a greater conservatism would let modern readers peer further back in their own literary history. If change had been slower, perhaps Chaucer would be only as difficult as Shakespeare is to us; “Beowulf” only as distant as Chaucer is now. What’s not to like?
The problem is that conservatism works differently on writing than it does on speech. Writing is more permanent, so people choose their words carefully and conservatively. It is slow and considered, so people can avoid new usages widely seen as mistakes. It is taught carefully by adults to children, which naturally exerts some conservative drag on the written language. And it is often edited, so (say) a young journalist with a breezy contemporary style may well be edited to a more traditional one by an older editor.
Speech is different: instead of permanent, slow, considered and taught, it is impermanent, fast, spontaneous and learned naturally by children from their surroundings. Speech will—at almost any level of linguistic conservatism—change faster than written language.
The problem with overly successful conservatism then becomes clear. Speech moves on, writing does not, and the two diverge over time. Take just one example: English spelling. As with all languages, the pronunciation of English has changed a lot over the centuries. Spelling has changed much more slowly. Thanks to the Great Vowel Shift of the middle of the last millennium, English uses vowels differently from almost all other European languages. Silent letters like the gh in night are a remnant of an earlier pronunciation (a bit like the German nicht). Other odd spellings were intended to keep etymologies clear: a b was inserted into debt to show the link with Latin debitum. Some linguistic innovations do not make it into writing at all: nearly everyone says gonna and writes going to. ________ a language pays homage to the past, _________modern schoolchildren will find learning to write a bit like learning to speak a foreign tongue.

Which pair of Synonyms is the correct one.

Alternativas
Q2763197 Inglês

Read the text and answer questions 22 to 25.

Slowly does it
Feb 19th 2015, 17:34 BY R.L.G. | BERLIN


LAST week’s column looked at the long history of language declinism: for more than 600 years people have complained that youngsters cannot write proper English anymore, and even ancient Sumerian schoolmasters worried about the state of the “scribal art” in the world’s first written language. Two universal truths emerge: languages are always changing, and older people always worry that the young are not taking proper care of the language.
But what if the sticklers have a point? Of course language always changes, but could technology (or a simple increase in youthful insouciance and lack of respect for tradition) mean that in some ages it changes faster than in others? Is change accelerating? In this case, a real problem could arise. Even if language change is not harmful, the faster language changes, the less new generations will be able to understand what their forebears wrote.
The Middle English quotation in last week’s column ________ the point for some readers: it is all but impenetrable to modern understanding without special training. It is, in effect, a foreign language. Is this a problem? Perhaps it is too much to expect writing to stay fresh on the shelf for 600 years. More recent writing holds up quite well. Pupils read Shakespeare with only modernised spelling and a bit of help from teachers. And Thomas Jefferson and Jane Austen are perfectly readable.
But maybe a greater conservatism would let modern readers peer further back in their own literary history. If change had been slower, perhaps Chaucer would be only as difficult as Shakespeare is to us; “Beowulf” only as distant as Chaucer is now. What’s not to like?
The problem is that conservatism works differently on writing than it does on speech. Writing is more permanent, so people choose their words carefully and conservatively. It is slow and considered, so people can avoid new usages widely seen as mistakes. It is taught carefully by adults to children, which naturally exerts some conservative drag on the written language. And it is often edited, so (say) a young journalist with a breezy contemporary style may well be edited to a more traditional one by an older editor.
Speech is different: instead of permanent, slow, considered and taught, it is impermanent, fast, spontaneous and learned naturally by children from their surroundings. Speech will—at almost any level of linguistic conservatism—change faster than written language.
The problem with overly successful conservatism then becomes clear. Speech moves on, writing does not, and the two diverge over time. Take just one example: English spelling. As with all languages, the pronunciation of English has changed a lot over the centuries. Spelling has changed much more slowly. Thanks to the Great Vowel Shift of the middle of the last millennium, English uses vowels differently from almost all other European languages. Silent letters like the gh in night are a remnant of an earlier pronunciation (a bit like the German nicht). Other odd spellings were intended to keep etymologies clear: a b was inserted into debt to show the link with Latin debitum. Some linguistic innovations do not make it into writing at all: nearly everyone says gonna and writes going to. ________ a language pays homage to the past, _________modern schoolchildren will find learning to write a bit like learning to speak a foreign tongue.

According to the text, it is correct to say that

Alternativas
Q2763191 Inglês

Observe the cartoon below and mark the correct alternative.


Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Alternativas
Q2760800 Inglês

Todo o vocabulário de uma língua é formado através de alguns processos específicos. Há palavras primitivas, das quais se derivam outras palavras. Há palavras que evoluíram de línguas mais antigas que originaram aquela língua em particular, há misturas entre essas palavras herdadas e outras próprias da língua e há os processos de formação de palavras internos às línguas, que se dão através de derivação e de composição. O estudo da formação das palavras denomina-se morfologia (do grego morphe: morfo = forma + logos = estudo) e demonstra não só a flexibilidade da língua em receber e em criar novos vocábulos, mas as possibilidades do usuário nativo da língua transferir uma palavra de uma categoria a outra através do uso dos mecanismos que permitem essa variação.

Sobre a morfologia a Língua Inglesa, não é verdadeira a afirmação:

Alternativas
Q2760799 Inglês

A Gramática tradicional diz que o verbo descreve o que uma pessoa ou coisa faz ou o que acontece: uma ação, um evento, uma situação, uma mudança. A forma básica de um verbo é conhecida como o infinitivo.

Sobre os verbos da Língua Inglesa não é verdadeiro o que afirma a letra:

Alternativas
Q2760798 Inglês

As palavras pertencem a categorias chamadas classes de palavras (ou partes do discurso - parts of speech) de acordo com a função que elas desempenham em uma frase.

Sobre as classes de palavras da Língua Inglesa é falso afirmar que:

Alternativas
Q2760176 Inglês

TEXT III


How energy companies can adjust their business models to a period of recovery



The character of Chuck Noland, played by Tom Hanks, says near the end of the film Cast Away, “...because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?” He makes this observation after having survived on a desert island for four years before being rescued and returned to civilization. If you’re a top executive in an oil and gas company, more than likely you’re feeling the same way right about now — optimistic but extremely cautious.

Much of the oil and gas industry has survived an especially tough few years with weak demand and low prices. It has been difficult to make strategic decisions and plan for the future. Only now is the sector beginning to emerge from its upheaval. If there is hope on the horizon, we must, like Noland in Cast Away, remain mindful of the risk. […]

So if you are an oil and gas executive peering out over 2017 and beyond, you will face structural and cultural issues internally; many companies do not have the talent, organizational framework, systems, processes, or attitudes to be sufficiently flexible and innovative in an evolving and uncertain marketplace. You should be prepared to pursue new drilling and extraction technologies and to increase your research into sustainability and clean energy. To start planning for the future, oil and gas leaders in all segments might consider some fundamental questions: Do I have the right business models in place? How can my company develop new capabilities and in what areas? How should asset portfolios evolve? What type of technology plays should I invest in?

As companies address these challenges, we see a number of business models and strategic responses emerging between now and 2020.


(From https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/trend/2017-oil-and-gas-trends. Accessed July 19th, 2017)

The word “likely” in “more than likely you’re feeling” indicates:

Alternativas
Q2760175 Inglês

TEXT III


How energy companies can adjust their business models to a period of recovery



The character of Chuck Noland, played by Tom Hanks, says near the end of the film Cast Away, “...because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?” He makes this observation after having survived on a desert island for four years before being rescued and returned to civilization. If you’re a top executive in an oil and gas company, more than likely you’re feeling the same way right about now — optimistic but extremely cautious.

Much of the oil and gas industry has survived an especially tough few years with weak demand and low prices. It has been difficult to make strategic decisions and plan for the future. Only now is the sector beginning to emerge from its upheaval. If there is hope on the horizon, we must, like Noland in Cast Away, remain mindful of the risk. […]

So if you are an oil and gas executive peering out over 2017 and beyond, you will face structural and cultural issues internally; many companies do not have the talent, organizational framework, systems, processes, or attitudes to be sufficiently flexible and innovative in an evolving and uncertain marketplace. You should be prepared to pursue new drilling and extraction technologies and to increase your research into sustainability and clean energy. To start planning for the future, oil and gas leaders in all segments might consider some fundamental questions: Do I have the right business models in place? How can my company develop new capabilities and in what areas? How should asset portfolios evolve? What type of technology plays should I invest in?

As companies address these challenges, we see a number of business models and strategic responses emerging between now and 2020.


(From https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/trend/2017-oil-and-gas-trends. Accessed July 19th, 2017)

The wording of the question “Who knows what the tide could bring?” is based on an awareness of the:

Alternativas
Q2760174 Inglês

TEXT III


How energy companies can adjust their business models to a period of recovery



The character of Chuck Noland, played by Tom Hanks, says near the end of the film Cast Away, “...because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?” He makes this observation after having survived on a desert island for four years before being rescued and returned to civilization. If you’re a top executive in an oil and gas company, more than likely you’re feeling the same way right about now — optimistic but extremely cautious.

Much of the oil and gas industry has survived an especially tough few years with weak demand and low prices. It has been difficult to make strategic decisions and plan for the future. Only now is the sector beginning to emerge from its upheaval. If there is hope on the horizon, we must, like Noland in Cast Away, remain mindful of the risk. […]

So if you are an oil and gas executive peering out over 2017 and beyond, you will face structural and cultural issues internally; many companies do not have the talent, organizational framework, systems, processes, or attitudes to be sufficiently flexible and innovative in an evolving and uncertain marketplace. You should be prepared to pursue new drilling and extraction technologies and to increase your research into sustainability and clean energy. To start planning for the future, oil and gas leaders in all segments might consider some fundamental questions: Do I have the right business models in place? How can my company develop new capabilities and in what areas? How should asset portfolios evolve? What type of technology plays should I invest in?

As companies address these challenges, we see a number of business models and strategic responses emerging between now and 2020.


(From https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/trend/2017-oil-and-gas-trends. Accessed July 19th, 2017)

The author of Text III positions himself. He concludes the text with:

Alternativas
Q2760173 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

In “the offshore rigs must be decommissioned”, the underlined verb is a synonym of:

Alternativas
Q2760172 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

The pronoun “them” in “The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike” refers to:

Alternativas
Q2760171 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

The extract that presents a superlative is:

Alternativas
Q2760170 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

From the sentence “offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents” one can infer that:

Alternativas
Q2760169 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

The opposite of “beneath” in “Just beneath the ocean’s surface” is:

Alternativas
Q2760168 Inglês

TEXT II



Like Castles In An Aquarium, Offshore Drilling Platforms Are Sprawling With Residents


Just beneath the ocean’s surface, there’s an unseen world that most people will never have the opportunity to witness firsthand. A place where nature and mankind have struck a balance – a mutual respect, a friendship of sorts.

Offshore drilling platforms have become home to vast communities of sea life. Florid carpets of coral encrust their massive pylons, along with sponge, sea urchins, crabs, and snails. Swimming in the sanctuary of their enormous risers are schools of rockfish, bright orange garibaldi and angel fish. And splashing about on the surface is the occasional sea lion.

Now scientists have confirmed what some had suspected all along. Most of the sea life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled there, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And fish that would otherwise perish in vast expanses of open ocean, settle within the safety of the structures.

Like castles in an aquarium, offshore platforms are sprawling with underwater residents. Scientists say these are the richest marine ecosystems on the entire planet. They are even more productive than coral reefs and estuaries, according to marine biologists.

The first thing anyone – trained scientist or casual recreational diver – notices around a rig is the big fish -- lots of them, say marine researchers and divers, alike.

For a decade and a half, researchers used submersibles to survey fish at 16 different platforms. When the researchers tabulated the data, they were surprised to discover that, by one standard, California’s oil rigs are among the most productive marine habitats ever recorded.

At the end of their production, however, the offshore rigs must be decommissioned. Scientific insight is adding momentum to efforts to convert some of these rigs into artificial reefs […].


(From http://thesurge.com/stories/like-castles-aquarium-offshore-drilling-platformssprawling-residents. Accessed July 18th, 2017)

Read the statements below:


I – Most communities of sea life which cover the drilling platforms have come from the open sea;

II – California’s oil rigs are posing a threat to the most productive marine habitats;

III – Researchers plan to transform the rigs into artificial reefs when they become inactive.

Alternativas
Respostas
1301: C
1302: D
1303: E
1304: C
1305: C
1306: E
1307: E
1308: C
1309: A
1310: B
1311: C
1312: C
1313: E
1314: B
1315: E
1316: C
1317: E
1318: B
1319: D
1320: C