Questões de Concurso
Comentadas para inep
Foram encontradas 71 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297297
Inglês
Read the following sentences I, II, III: I.
I sent a letter to the airline company complaining about the problems I had during the flight and they have promised to look into the matter.
II. Although that doctor hasn't won the Nobel Prize, I look up to him.
III. I promised her that I would look after her kids if she weren't able to do that.
It's correct to say that the meaning of each underline bold phrasal verb is respectively
I sent a letter to the airline company complaining about the problems I had during the flight and they have promised to look into the matter.
II. Although that doctor hasn't won the Nobel Prize, I look up to him.
III. I promised her that I would look after her kids if she weren't able to do that.
It's correct to say that the meaning of each underline bold phrasal verb is respectively
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297296
Inglês
There's a missing connective in each of the following sentences I, II and III:
I. Brooke Ellison is a quadriplegic girl. _________ her difficulty, she remains active.
II. You had better write down her phone, _________ you won't be able to remember it.
III. You could attend the meeting _________ you don't accuse anyone.
The alternative that respectively brings the correct connective for each one is
I. Brooke Ellison is a quadriplegic girl. _________ her difficulty, she remains active.
II. You had better write down her phone, _________ you won't be able to remember it.
III. You could attend the meeting _________ you don't accuse anyone.
The alternative that respectively brings the correct connective for each one is
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297295
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
In the passage “The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole" the meaning of the phrasal verb is
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297294
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
The alternative that brings the best synonym to the bold underline idiom in the passage “Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010" is
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297293
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Read the following passages:
The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake.
The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a little- known dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation.
The underlined bold words are
The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake.
The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a little- known dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation.
The underlined bold words are
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297292
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
According to the text, it's not correct to say that
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297291
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
The suing against Knoedler & Company gallery was established by
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297290
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text and answer questions 19), 20), 21), 22), 23) and 24).
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
Lawsuits claim Knoedler made huge profits on fakes
For more than a dozen years the Upper East Side gallery Knoedler & Company was “substantially dependent” on profits it made from selling a mysterious collection of artwork that is at the center of a federal forgery investigation, former clients of this former gallery have charged in court papers. The analysis is based on financial records turned over as part of a lawsuit against the gallery filed by Domenico and Eleanore De Sole, who in 2004 paid $8.3 million for a painting attributed to Mark Rothko that they now say is a worthless fake. The Rothko is one of approximately 40 works that Knoedler, which closed last year, obtained from Glafira Rosales, a littleknown dealer whose collection of works attributed to Modernist masters has no documented provenance and is the subject of an F.B.I. investigation. Between 1996 and 2008, the suit asserts, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million from works that Ms. Rosales provided on consignment or sold outright to the gallery and cleared $40 million in profits. In one year, 2002, for example, the complaint says the gallery’s entire profit — $5.6 million — was derived from the sale of Ms. Rosales’s works. “Knoedler’s viability as a business was substantially — and, in some years, almost entirely — dependent on sales from the Rosales Collection,” the De Soles claimed last month in an amended version of the suit they filed this year. While the forgery allegations are well known and have been the subject of three federal lawsuits against Knoedler, the recent filings expand the known number of Rosales artworks that were handled by the gallery, which was in business for 165 years, and assert that they played a pivotal role in the gallery’s success. After the F.B.I. issued subpoenas to the gallery in the fall of 2009, Michael Hammer, Knoedler’s owner, halted the sale of any Rosales works. Knoedler ended up losing money that year and in 2010, the court papers say. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/arts/design/knoe...
The alternative that brings the most comprehensive idea about the text is
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297289
Estatística
Os “pesos" de vinte atletas estão distribuídos de acordo com a tabela abaixo:
Considerando a distribuição acima, assinale a alternativa que apresenta respectivamente os valores da média e da moda bruta:
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297281
Estatística
Seja x a variável discreta “número de carros" de 20 pessoas e considerando a distribuição abaixo:
A média contínua do número de carros é:
A média contínua do número de carros é:
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297279
Português
Considere o período e as afirmações abaixo.
Os alunos que são muito indisciplinados foram punidos.
I. A pontuação está correta.
II. Se a oração adjetiva estivesse entre vírgulas, não haveria mudança de sentido.
III. Há duas orações no período.
Está correto o que se afirma apenas em
Os alunos que são muito indisciplinados foram punidos.
I. A pontuação está correta.
II. Se a oração adjetiva estivesse entre vírgulas, não haveria mudança de sentido.
III. Há duas orações no período.
Está correto o que se afirma apenas em
Conheça nossos planos