Questões de Concurso
Comentadas para fepese
Foram encontradas 24.462 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
The Operations Function
Although somewhat ‘invisible’ to the marketplace the operations function in a typical company accounts for well over half the employment and well over half the physical assets. That, in itself, makes the operations function important. In a company’s organization chart, operations often enjoys parity with the other major business functions: marketing, sales, product engineering, finance control (accounting), and human resources (personnel, labor relations). Sometimes, the operations function is organized as a single entity which stretches out across the entire company, but more often it is embedded in the district, typically product-defined divisions into which most major companies are organized.
In many service businesses, the operations function is typically more visible. Service businesses are often organized into many branches, often with geographic responsibilities – field offices, retail outlets. In such tiers of the organization, operations are paramount.
The operations function itself is, often divided
.................two major groupings .................tasks:
line management and support services. Line management generally refers.................those managers directly concerned................the manufacture of the product or the delivery of the service. They are the ones who are typically close enough to the product or service that they can ‘touch’ it. Line management supervises the hourly, blue-collar workforce. In a manufacturing company, line management frequently extends to the stockroom (where material, parts, and semi-finished products – termed ‘work-in-process inventory – are stored), materials handling, the tool room, maintenance, the warehouse (where finished goods are stored), and distribution, as well as the so-called ‘factory floor’. In a service operation, what is considered line management can broaden considerably. Often, order-taking roles, in addition to orderfilling roles, are supervised by service line managers.
Support services for line management’s operations can be numerous. Within a manufacturing environment, support services carry titles such as quality control, production planning and scheduling, purchasing, inventory control, production control (which determines the status of jobs in the factory and what to do about jobs that may have fallen behind schedule), industrial engineering (which is work methods oriented), manufacturing engineering (which is hardware-oriented), on-going product engineering, and field service. In a service environment, some of the same roles are played but sometimes under vastly different names.
Thus, the managers for whom operational issues are central can hold a variety of titles. In manufacturing, the titles can range from vice-president – manufacturing, works manager, plant manager, and similar titles at the top of the hierarchy, through such titles as manufacturing or production manager, general superintendent, department manager, materials manager, director of quality control, and down to general foreman or foreman. Within service businesses, ‘operations manager’ is sometimes used but frequently the title is more general – business manager, branch manager, retail manager, and so on.
SCHMENNER, Roger W. Production/Operations Management.
5th Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1993.
The Operations Function
Although somewhat ‘invisible’ to the marketplace the operations function in a typical company accounts for well over half the employment and well over half the physical assets. That, in itself, makes the operations function important. In a company’s organization chart, operations often enjoys parity with the other major business functions: marketing, sales, product engineering, finance control (accounting), and human resources (personnel, labor relations). Sometimes, the operations function is organized as a single entity which stretches out across the entire company, but more often it is embedded in the district, typically product-defined divisions into which most major companies are organized.
In many service businesses, the operations function is typically more visible. Service businesses are often organized into many branches, often with geographic responsibilities – field offices, retail outlets. In such tiers of the organization, operations are paramount.
The operations function itself is, often divided
.................two major groupings .................tasks:
line management and support services. Line management generally refers.................those managers directly concerned................the manufacture of the product or the delivery of the service. They are the ones who are typically close enough to the product or service that they can ‘touch’ it. Line management supervises the hourly, blue-collar workforce. In a manufacturing company, line management frequently extends to the stockroom (where material, parts, and semi-finished products – termed ‘work-in-process inventory – are stored), materials handling, the tool room, maintenance, the warehouse (where finished goods are stored), and distribution, as well as the so-called ‘factory floor’. In a service operation, what is considered line management can broaden considerably. Often, order-taking roles, in addition to orderfilling roles, are supervised by service line managers.
Support services for line management’s operations can be numerous. Within a manufacturing environment, support services carry titles such as quality control, production planning and scheduling, purchasing, inventory control, production control (which determines the status of jobs in the factory and what to do about jobs that may have fallen behind schedule), industrial engineering (which is work methods oriented), manufacturing engineering (which is hardware-oriented), on-going product engineering, and field service. In a service environment, some of the same roles are played but sometimes under vastly different names.
Thus, the managers for whom operational issues are central can hold a variety of titles. In manufacturing, the titles can range from vice-president – manufacturing, works manager, plant manager, and similar titles at the top of the hierarchy, through such titles as manufacturing or production manager, general superintendent, department manager, materials manager, director of quality control, and down to general foreman or foreman. Within service businesses, ‘operations manager’ is sometimes used but frequently the title is more general – business manager, branch manager, retail manager, and so on.
SCHMENNER, Roger W. Production/Operations Management.
5th Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1993.
( ) In a company’s organization sketch, operations often enjoys inequality with the other major business functions. ( ) At times, the operations function is organized as a single entity which features across the entire company. ( ) Some examples of major business functions are finance control and human resources only.
Now, choose the alternative which presents the correct sequence:
The Operations Function
Although somewhat ‘invisible’ to the marketplace the operations function in a typical company accounts for well over half the employment and well over half the physical assets. That, in itself, makes the operations function important. In a company’s organization chart, operations often enjoys parity with the other major business functions: marketing, sales, product engineering, finance control (accounting), and human resources (personnel, labor relations). Sometimes, the operations function is organized as a single entity which stretches out across the entire company, but more often it is embedded in the district, typically product-defined divisions into which most major companies are organized.
In many service businesses, the operations function is typically more visible. Service businesses are often organized into many branches, often with geographic responsibilities – field offices, retail outlets. In such tiers of the organization, operations are paramount.
The operations function itself is, often divided
.................two major groupings .................tasks:
line management and support services. Line management generally refers.................those managers directly concerned................the manufacture of the product or the delivery of the service. They are the ones who are typically close enough to the product or service that they can ‘touch’ it. Line management supervises the hourly, blue-collar workforce. In a manufacturing company, line management frequently extends to the stockroom (where material, parts, and semi-finished products – termed ‘work-in-process inventory – are stored), materials handling, the tool room, maintenance, the warehouse (where finished goods are stored), and distribution, as well as the so-called ‘factory floor’. In a service operation, what is considered line management can broaden considerably. Often, order-taking roles, in addition to orderfilling roles, are supervised by service line managers.
Support services for line management’s operations can be numerous. Within a manufacturing environment, support services carry titles such as quality control, production planning and scheduling, purchasing, inventory control, production control (which determines the status of jobs in the factory and what to do about jobs that may have fallen behind schedule), industrial engineering (which is work methods oriented), manufacturing engineering (which is hardware-oriented), on-going product engineering, and field service. In a service environment, some of the same roles are played but sometimes under vastly different names.
Thus, the managers for whom operational issues are central can hold a variety of titles. In manufacturing, the titles can range from vice-president – manufacturing, works manager, plant manager, and similar titles at the top of the hierarchy, through such titles as manufacturing or production manager, general superintendent, department manager, materials manager, director of quality control, and down to general foreman or foreman. Within service businesses, ‘operations manager’ is sometimes used but frequently the title is more general – business manager, branch manager, retail manager, and so on.
SCHMENNER, Roger W. Production/Operations Management.
5th Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Choose the alternative which presents the correct answer.
The Operations Function
Although somewhat ‘invisible’ to the marketplace the operations function in a typical company accounts for well over half the employment and well over half the physical assets. That, in itself, makes the operations function important. In a company’s organization chart, operations often enjoys parity with the other major business functions: marketing, sales, product engineering, finance control (accounting), and human resources (personnel, labor relations). Sometimes, the operations function is organized as a single entity which stretches out across the entire company, but more often it is embedded in the district, typically product-defined divisions into which most major companies are organized.
In many service businesses, the operations function is typically more visible. Service businesses are often organized into many branches, often with geographic responsibilities – field offices, retail outlets. In such tiers of the organization, operations are paramount.
The operations function itself is, often divided
.................two major groupings .................tasks:
line management and support services. Line management generally refers.................those managers directly concerned................the manufacture of the product or the delivery of the service. They are the ones who are typically close enough to the product or service that they can ‘touch’ it. Line management supervises the hourly, blue-collar workforce. In a manufacturing company, line management frequently extends to the stockroom (where material, parts, and semi-finished products – termed ‘work-in-process inventory – are stored), materials handling, the tool room, maintenance, the warehouse (where finished goods are stored), and distribution, as well as the so-called ‘factory floor’. In a service operation, what is considered line management can broaden considerably. Often, order-taking roles, in addition to orderfilling roles, are supervised by service line managers.
Support services for line management’s operations can be numerous. Within a manufacturing environment, support services carry titles such as quality control, production planning and scheduling, purchasing, inventory control, production control (which determines the status of jobs in the factory and what to do about jobs that may have fallen behind schedule), industrial engineering (which is work methods oriented), manufacturing engineering (which is hardware-oriented), on-going product engineering, and field service. In a service environment, some of the same roles are played but sometimes under vastly different names.
Thus, the managers for whom operational issues are central can hold a variety of titles. In manufacturing, the titles can range from vice-president – manufacturing, works manager, plant manager, and similar titles at the top of the hierarchy, through such titles as manufacturing or production manager, general superintendent, department manager, materials manager, director of quality control, and down to general foreman or foreman. Within service businesses, ‘operations manager’ is sometimes used but frequently the title is more general – business manager, branch manager, retail manager, and so on.
SCHMENNER, Roger W. Production/Operations Management.
5th Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Texto 3
Contra os iconoclastas
A mentira está no mundo. Ela está em nós e ao nosso redor. Não podemos fechar-lhe os olhos. Omnis homo mandax, diz um salmo (115, 11). Podemos traduzir: o homem é uma criatura capaz de mentir. Se não são todos os homens que escondem seus pensamentos com a língua, no caso de políticos e diplomatas a mentira integra o métier. Hermann Kesten expande a ideia como um leque: “Há categorias profissionais inteiras, sobre as quais o povo pensa de antemão, que obrigam seus representantes a mentir, como, por exemplo, teólogos, políticos, prostitutas, diplomatas, jornalistas, advogados, atores, juízes […]”. Palavras de um poeta?
Santo Agostinho, o primeiro a tornar a mentira objeto de reflexão filosófica e teológica, viu também em primeira mão o aspecto linguístico da mentira. Seria mentira o discurso figurado? Quod absit omnino (‘O que seria pura tolice’), disse Agostinho, ao refletir sobre a ideia de que a linguagem figurada em todas as suas formas talvez devesse ser considerada no âmbito da mentira. Não são muitos os que censuram explicitamente a metáfora (adotaremos o termo para todos os tipos de imagens linguísticas) de ser mentirosa. Mas implicitamente se ouve sempre essa censura. Em especial na ciência parece reinar um profundo ceticismo em relação à metáfora. Vez ou outra entram em cena iconoclastas arrogando que querem agora purificar a linguagem científica de todas as metáforas, e tudo ficaria bem, a verdade assomaria. Comparação deve ceder lugar à razão, dizem, e a ciência deve exprimir-se em sua linguagem. As metáforas apenas dissimulariam os pensamentos científicos, ou mesmo os deformariam. Um pesquisador sério escreve sem metáforas.
Mas eliminar as metáforas quer dizer não somente arrancar as flores do caminho da verdade, quer dizer também se privar do veículo que ajuda a acelerar o acesso à verdade. Uma palavra isolada jamais pode ser uma metáfora. “Fogo” é sempre a palavra normal cujo significado (lexical) conhecemos. Somente através de um contexto essa palavra pode se tornar uma metáfora, por exemplo, “fogo da paixão”. Se a metáfora necessariamente tem o contexto como condição de sua formação, não se aplica para ela a semântica da palavra isolada, mas a semântica da palavra no texto, com o jogo da determinação entre os polos do significado lexical e do significado textual. Essa tensão constitui o fascínio da metáfora.
Não há nenhuma razão para desconfiança ante as metáforas. Não se pode falar que a linguagem figurada seja como uma cobertura de flores, bela, mas inútil. Todas as palavras nos deveriam ser bem-vindas se queremos usá-las no texto, aquelas em contexto esperado, bem como aquelas em contexto inesperado, as metáforas. Não há mentira na metáfora, portanto.
WEINRICH, H. Linguística da mentira. Trad. de M. A. Barbosa e
W. Heidermann. Florianópolis: Ed. da Ufsc, 2017. p. 13-15; 53-59.
Adaptado.
Identifique abaixo as afirmativas verdadeiras ( V ) e as falsas ( F ), considerando o texto 3.
( ) No primeiro parágrafo, o sinal de dois-pontos desempenha a mesma função em suas duas ocorrências: anuncia uma síntese do que acabou de ser dito.
( ) A pergunta “Palavras de um poeta?” (1° parágrafo) é usada como recurso argumentativo, sendo respondida pelo autor no decorrer do texto.
( ) Em “As metáforas apenas dissimulariam os pensamentos científicos, ou mesmo os deformariam.” (2º parágrafo), as palavras sublinhas têm valor argumentativo, podendo ser substituídas, respectivamente, por “somente” e “até”, sem prejuízo de significado no texto.
( ) Em “Não há nenhuma razão para desconfiança ante as metáforas.” (4º parágrafo), a expressão sublinhada pode ser substituída por “razão alguma”, sem prejuízo de significado no texto.
( ) A frase “‘Fogo’ é sempre a palavra normal cujo significado (lexical) conhecemos.” (3° parágrafo) pode ser reescrita como “‘Fogo’ é sempre a palavra normal da qual conhecemos o significado (lexical).”
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a sequência correta, de cima para baixo.
Texto 1
A filosofia como forma de vida
A filosofia, ao menos desde os tempos de Sócrates (século V a.C.), tinha como principal objetivo ajudar os sujeitos a não viver uma mera vida animal, aprendendo a construir uma forma de vida própria (bios) que fosse além da mera sobrevivência imposta pela vida biológica (zoe). Cada sujeito deveria criar a forma de sua vida de acordo com as opções axiológicas e suas convicções epistêmicas.
Desse modo, o aparato conceitual desenvolvido por cada escola filosófica, episteme, tinha por finalidade auxiliar na constituição de um ethos ou modo de vida dos sujeitos. A finalidade filosófica de criar uma forma de vida é uma tarefa essencialmente ética. Só há ética no modo como o sujeito constitui sua vida. Como consequência, esse ethos influía nas formas coletivas que os sujeitos criaram nas pólis, política. Havia uma estreita relação entre a forma de vida e a forma política de governo.
A preocupação da filosofia por ajudar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida foi diminuindo a partir do século V d.C., com a transferência gradativa dessa tarefa para a teologia cristã, que vinha se consolidando como um saber que adaptou a mensagem bíblica e a tradição sapiencial oriental, própria da teologia semita, aos parâmetros da filosofia grega. Para uma parte significativa dos pensadores cristãos, a teologia cristã, do modo como eles a estavam construindo, era vista como a culminação da filosofia clássica. Michel Foucault considera que o momento crítico em que a filosofia se afastou da teologia, na sua originária missão de criar uma forma de vida, aconteceu no século XVII, quando a razão moderna separou definitivamente o conhecimento da ética, o saber do modo de ser. O que Foucault denominou de “momento cartesiano” representaria o declínio definitivo da filosofia moderna em sua missão de auxiliar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida.
Vários autores contemporâneos voltaram parte de suas pesquisas para essa problemática, identificando na filosofia um saber que tem a potencialidade de constituir formas de vida para os sujeitos. Para Foucault e Agamben, a filosofia é capaz de criar estilos de vida com autonomia efetiva dos sujeitos e, como consequência, uma prática que possibilite resistir aos dispositivos biopolíticos de sujeição e controle que dominam nossas sociedades.
RUIZ, C. B. A filosofia como forma de vida. Disponível em: <<http://
www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/artigo/5965-artigo-castor-bartolome-
Desse modo, o aparato conceitual desenvolvido por cada escola filosófica, episteme, tinha por finalidade auxiliar na constituição de um ethos ou modo de vida dos sujeitos. A finalidade filosófica de criar uma forma de vida é uma tarefa essencialmente ética. Só há ética no modo como o sujeito constitui sua vida. Como consequência, esse ethos influía nas formas coletivas que os sujeitos criaram nas pólis, política. Havia uma estreita relação entre a forma de vida e a forma política de governo.
Identifique abaixo as afirmativas verdadeiras ( V ) e as falsas ( F ), em relação ao texto.
( ) No parágrafo, os tempos verbais se alternam predominantemente entre pretérito imperfeito e presente do modo indicativo, expressando situações passadas e comentários do autor, respectivamente. ( ) A palavra “essencialmente” é usada com o mesmo significado da palavra sublinhada em “a razão moderna separou definitivamente o conhecimento da ética” (3° parágrafo), podendo ambas serem substituídas por “necessariamente” sem prejuízo de significado no texto. ( ) O vocábulo “como” pode ser substituído por “pelo qual”, tanto na ocorrência do trecho acima quanto em “do modo como eles a estavam construindo” (3° parágrafo), sem prejuízo de significado no texto. ( ) O verbo haver tem sentido existencial e, em ambas as ocorrências sublinhadas, o sujeito está posposto ao verbo. ( ) O pronome demonstrativo “esse” pode ser substituído pelo artigo indefinido “um”, mantendo-se a coesão referencial do texto pela retomada de “um ethos”.
Assinale a alternativa que indica a sequência correta, de cima para baixo.
Texto 1
A filosofia como forma de vida
A filosofia, ao menos desde os tempos de Sócrates (século V a.C.), tinha como principal objetivo ajudar os sujeitos a não viver uma mera vida animal, aprendendo a construir uma forma de vida própria (bios) que fosse além da mera sobrevivência imposta pela vida biológica (zoe). Cada sujeito deveria criar a forma de sua vida de acordo com as opções axiológicas e suas convicções epistêmicas.
Desse modo, o aparato conceitual desenvolvido por cada escola filosófica, episteme, tinha por finalidade auxiliar na constituição de um ethos ou modo de vida dos sujeitos. A finalidade filosófica de criar uma forma de vida é uma tarefa essencialmente ética. Só há ética no modo como o sujeito constitui sua vida. Como consequência, esse ethos influía nas formas coletivas que os sujeitos criaram nas pólis, política. Havia uma estreita relação entre a forma de vida e a forma política de governo.
A preocupação da filosofia por ajudar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida foi diminuindo a partir do século V d.C., com a transferência gradativa dessa tarefa para a teologia cristã, que vinha se consolidando como um saber que adaptou a mensagem bíblica e a tradição sapiencial oriental, própria da teologia semita, aos parâmetros da filosofia grega. Para uma parte significativa dos pensadores cristãos, a teologia cristã, do modo como eles a estavam construindo, era vista como a culminação da filosofia clássica. Michel Foucault considera que o momento crítico em que a filosofia se afastou da teologia, na sua originária missão de criar uma forma de vida, aconteceu no século XVII, quando a razão moderna separou definitivamente o conhecimento da ética, o saber do modo de ser. O que Foucault denominou de “momento cartesiano” representaria o declínio definitivo da filosofia moderna em sua missão de auxiliar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida.
Vários autores contemporâneos voltaram parte de suas pesquisas para essa problemática, identificando na filosofia um saber que tem a potencialidade de constituir formas de vida para os sujeitos. Para Foucault e Agamben, a filosofia é capaz de criar estilos de vida com autonomia efetiva dos sujeitos e, como consequência, uma prática que possibilite resistir aos dispositivos biopolíticos de sujeição e controle que dominam nossas sociedades.
RUIZ, C. B. A filosofia como forma de vida. Disponível em: <<http://
www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/artigo/5965-artigo-castor-bartolome-
A filosofia, ao menos desde os tempos de Sócrates (século V a.C.), tinha como principal objetivo ajudar os sujeitos a não viver uma mera vida animal, aprendendo a construir uma forma de vida própria (bios) que fosse além da mera sobrevivência imposta pela vida biológica (zoe).
Assinale a alternativa correta em relação ao texto.
Texto 1
A filosofia como forma de vida
A filosofia, ao menos desde os tempos de Sócrates (século V a.C.), tinha como principal objetivo ajudar os sujeitos a não viver uma mera vida animal, aprendendo a construir uma forma de vida própria (bios) que fosse além da mera sobrevivência imposta pela vida biológica (zoe). Cada sujeito deveria criar a forma de sua vida de acordo com as opções axiológicas e suas convicções epistêmicas.
Desse modo, o aparato conceitual desenvolvido por cada escola filosófica, episteme, tinha por finalidade auxiliar na constituição de um ethos ou modo de vida dos sujeitos. A finalidade filosófica de criar uma forma de vida é uma tarefa essencialmente ética. Só há ética no modo como o sujeito constitui sua vida. Como consequência, esse ethos influía nas formas coletivas que os sujeitos criaram nas pólis, política. Havia uma estreita relação entre a forma de vida e a forma política de governo.
A preocupação da filosofia por ajudar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida foi diminuindo a partir do século V d.C., com a transferência gradativa dessa tarefa para a teologia cristã, que vinha se consolidando como um saber que adaptou a mensagem bíblica e a tradição sapiencial oriental, própria da teologia semita, aos parâmetros da filosofia grega. Para uma parte significativa dos pensadores cristãos, a teologia cristã, do modo como eles a estavam construindo, era vista como a culminação da filosofia clássica. Michel Foucault considera que o momento crítico em que a filosofia se afastou da teologia, na sua originária missão de criar uma forma de vida, aconteceu no século XVII, quando a razão moderna separou definitivamente o conhecimento da ética, o saber do modo de ser. O que Foucault denominou de “momento cartesiano” representaria o declínio definitivo da filosofia moderna em sua missão de auxiliar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida.
Vários autores contemporâneos voltaram parte de suas pesquisas para essa problemática, identificando na filosofia um saber que tem a potencialidade de constituir formas de vida para os sujeitos. Para Foucault e Agamben, a filosofia é capaz de criar estilos de vida com autonomia efetiva dos sujeitos e, como consequência, uma prática que possibilite resistir aos dispositivos biopolíticos de sujeição e controle que dominam nossas sociedades.
RUIZ, C. B. A filosofia como forma de vida. Disponível em: <<http://
www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/artigo/5965-artigo-castor-bartolome-
Assinale a alternativa incorreta em relação ao assunto.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. They say we should continue using it… 2.…which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. 3. While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed… 4. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy…
Choose the alternative which presents the correct uses according to their meanings:
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. 2. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain… 3. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown… 4. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because…
Choose the alternative that presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
Column 1 Words 1. power plant 2. damage 3. improve 4. waste 5. supply
Column 2 Definitions ( ) make better ( ) harm ( ) provide for ( ) an electric utility generating station ( ) rejected material
Choose the alternative that presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. “Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from…” 2. “Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany…”
The underlined words in the sentences above, have their correct meanings in which alternative:
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
Choose the alternative which indicates some of the serious problems the Chernobyl disaster has caused, according to the article.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
They are being used in the article as a part of speech to:
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
( ) There are some nuclear plants in Rio de Janeiro. ( ) German people consume 23% of renewable energy. ( ) There are 17 nuclear plants that will be eliminated in Germany by the year 2022. ( ) There are plans to build more nuclear plants in Brazil. ( ) It is possible for a big country like Brazil to survive without much nuclear power.
Choose the alternative which presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom:
Conheça nossos planos