Questões de Concurso
Comentadas para vestibular
Foram encontradas 621 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
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:
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 move was welcomed by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident.”
Choose the correct 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.
“But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?”
The pronoun in bold, refers 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.
“This approach seems to be working because by May 2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials.”
The verb “shelved” means:
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.
1. If the Fukushima disaster hadn’t happened, recent discussions about the safety of nuclear energy may not have taken place. 2. Germany may have problems in the future with their energy because of decisions they have taken now. 3. Brazil has absolutely no plans to use nuclear energy again.
Choose the alternative which indicates the correct statements.
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.
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.
Texto 4
A misteriosa afinidade entre a mulher e os felinos
Volta a ressuscitar a discussão sobre a preferência das mulheres pelos felinos, enquanto os homens escolheriam os cachorros. Os gatos, além disso, se entenderiam melhor com as mulheres, e os cães, com os varões. Ignoro se alguns experimentos universitários realizados sobre o tema possuem valor científico. Há quem, para explicar isso, recorra ao fato de, desde tempos remotos, os cães terem sido usados pelos homens para a caça, com os gatos ficando em casa, perto da mulher.
O que é certo é que há mais de 5.000 anos nenhum outro animal foi tão divinizado e associado ao mistério e à mulher quanto o gato. Ainda hoje se discute em psicologia a simbologia do gato associado à mulher. Seguimos nos perguntando por que os gatos são relacionados à independência, e os cachorros, à submissão. Isso tornaria os cães sempre amados, e os gatos há séculos seriam divinizados, mas também execrados e amaldiçoados.
Como a mulher?
Nenhum animal teve uma trajetória tão tortuosa em seus simbolismos, medos e atração quanto o felino. No Egito fazia parte da divindade, personalizada na figura da egípcia Bastet, a deusa gata mulher, que protegia a felicidade das pessoas. Na Índia simbolizava a sabedoria, com a gata sendo a deusa sábia, rainha da fertilidade. A Igreja, mais tarde, satanizou os felinos ao mesmo tempo em que apresentou a mulher como obstáculo à virtude e mais facilmente possuída pelo demônio que os homens. Nos séculos sombrios da Idade Média os gatos, por influência da Igreja, passaram a ser o símbolo do demoníaco e da maldade. Foram perseguidos, esfolados vivos, queimados nas fogueiras, junto com as mulheres. Hoje o papa Francisco faz diversas declarações a favor dos gatos: “São os animais mais inteligentes. Sempre gostei deles e conversava com eles”, disse a um jornalista francês que lhe perguntou se ele também considerava os gatos como demônios.
Os gatos são difíceis de entender. É preciso saber interpretá-los. Escondem uma parte de seu mistério ancestral. E um bocado de seu instinto selvagem. Como a mulher? Entendem nossa linguagem? Minha gata Nana, sim. Posso dizer isso porque tenho minha mulher de testemunha. A gata, de rua, tem o costume de se aboletar nas minhas pernas quando leio ou assisto TV. Durante alguns dias preferiu dormir numa poltrona a alguns metros de distância. Numa destas noites, enquanto Nana dormia profundamente, disse à minha mulher: “Que estranho a Nana não vir mais ficar comigo!”. Não se passou um segundo. Abriu os olhos, olhou pra mim, deu um salto e veio se acomodar nas minhas pernas. Minha mulher não conseguiu acreditar. Os gatos são assim. É inútil querermos entendê-los muito. Como a mulher?
ARIAS, Juan. Disponível em:<http://brasil.elpais.com/
brasil/2016/11/21/opinion/1479727737_894045.html>
Considere as afirmativas abaixo, com base no texto 4.
1. Na primeira frase do texto, o termo “enquanto” poderia ser substituído, sem prejuízo semântico e gramatical, por “ao passo que”.
2. Em “quanto o gato” (2° parágrafo), o termo sublinhado tem valor adverbial intensificador.
3. O termo sublinhado em “por que os gatos” (2° parágrafo) poderia ser substituído, sem prejuízo semântico e gramatical, por “porque”.
4. A expressão temporal “há séculos” (2° parágrafo) poderia ser substituída, sem prejuízo semântico e gramatical, por “fazem séculos”.
5. A construção “com a gata sendo a deusa sábia” (4° parágrafo) poderia ser substituída, sem prejuízo semântico e gramatical, por “sendo a gata a deusa sábia”.
Assinale a alternativa que indica todas as afirmativas
corretas.
Texto 4
A misteriosa afinidade entre a mulher e os felinos
Volta a ressuscitar a discussão sobre a preferência das mulheres pelos felinos, enquanto os homens escolheriam os cachorros. Os gatos, além disso, se entenderiam melhor com as mulheres, e os cães, com os varões. Ignoro se alguns experimentos universitários realizados sobre o tema possuem valor científico. Há quem, para explicar isso, recorra ao fato de, desde tempos remotos, os cães terem sido usados pelos homens para a caça, com os gatos ficando em casa, perto da mulher.
O que é certo é que há mais de 5.000 anos nenhum outro animal foi tão divinizado e associado ao mistério e à mulher quanto o gato. Ainda hoje se discute em psicologia a simbologia do gato associado à mulher. Seguimos nos perguntando por que os gatos são relacionados à independência, e os cachorros, à submissão. Isso tornaria os cães sempre amados, e os gatos há séculos seriam divinizados, mas também execrados e amaldiçoados.
Como a mulher?
Nenhum animal teve uma trajetória tão tortuosa em seus simbolismos, medos e atração quanto o felino. No Egito fazia parte da divindade, personalizada na figura da egípcia Bastet, a deusa gata mulher, que protegia a felicidade das pessoas. Na Índia simbolizava a sabedoria, com a gata sendo a deusa sábia, rainha da fertilidade. A Igreja, mais tarde, satanizou os felinos ao mesmo tempo em que apresentou a mulher como obstáculo à virtude e mais facilmente possuída pelo demônio que os homens. Nos séculos sombrios da Idade Média os gatos, por influência da Igreja, passaram a ser o símbolo do demoníaco e da maldade. Foram perseguidos, esfolados vivos, queimados nas fogueiras, junto com as mulheres. Hoje o papa Francisco faz diversas declarações a favor dos gatos: “São os animais mais inteligentes. Sempre gostei deles e conversava com eles”, disse a um jornalista francês que lhe perguntou se ele também considerava os gatos como demônios.
Os gatos são difíceis de entender. É preciso saber interpretá-los. Escondem uma parte de seu mistério ancestral. E um bocado de seu instinto selvagem. Como a mulher? Entendem nossa linguagem? Minha gata Nana, sim. Posso dizer isso porque tenho minha mulher de testemunha. A gata, de rua, tem o costume de se aboletar nas minhas pernas quando leio ou assisto TV. Durante alguns dias preferiu dormir numa poltrona a alguns metros de distância. Numa destas noites, enquanto Nana dormia profundamente, disse à minha mulher: “Que estranho a Nana não vir mais ficar comigo!”. Não se passou um segundo. Abriu os olhos, olhou pra mim, deu um salto e veio se acomodar nas minhas pernas. Minha mulher não conseguiu acreditar. Os gatos são assim. É inútil querermos entendê-los muito. Como a mulher?
ARIAS, Juan. Disponível em:<http://brasil.elpais.com/
brasil/2016/11/21/opinion/1479727737_894045.html>
Texto 3
New York, 6 de julho de 1946.
Clarice,
Não posso te mandar nenhuma palavra animadora: sei que você deve estar se desesperando com o seu livro, que não vai, que não vai, pois também me desespero com o meu, tenho trabalhado a sério e sofrido muito. E como esse desespero vem de não saber por quê; saber como a gente acaba sabendo, mas intimamente desconhece que a angústia e a expectativa deprimente vêm de não saber por quê. Se te mandam quebrar pedra ou fazer um móvel, a inteligência vai te angustiar na procura do meio mais certo, mais eficiente e mais perfeito de quebrar ou de fazer. Mas a insaciedade que te faz artista vai te atirar numa procura muito mais afetiva, digna e criadora: saber o que é uma cadeira, e que proveito os outros tirarão da pedra que você vai quebrar. Só assim você estará sendo artista. Sem saber isso você será escravo.
Digo apenas que não concordo com você quando você diz que faz arte porque “tem um temperamento infeliz e doidinho”. Tenho uma grande, uma grande esperança em você e já te disse que você avançou na frente de todos nós. Apenas desejo intensamente que você não avance demais para não cair do outro lado. Tem de ser equilibrista até o final.
Agora, espero mais intensamente ainda que você descubra o que é que esse livro vai ser.
Um abraço do amigo,
Fernando
SABINO, Fernando; LISPECTOR, Clarice. Cartas perto do coração. 3 ed.
Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2001. p. 24-31. [adaptado]
Texto 2
Berna, 19 junho 1946.
Fernando,
Estivemos em Paris andando desde manhã até de noite. Aquela cidade é doida, é maravilhosa. De volta fomos diretamente para um apartamento novo, ainda novo, tudo encaixotado, estranho, desarrumado. Encontrei cartas de casa e vários recortes de jornal. E nota de Álvaro Lins dizendo que meus dois romances são mutilados e incompletos… Com o cansaço de Paris, no meio dos caixotes, femininamente e gripada chorei de desânimo e cansaço. Tudo o que ele diz é verdade. Não se pode fazer arte só porque se tem um temperamento infeliz e doidinho. Um desânimo profundo.
Acabei de passar uma semana das piores em relação ao trabalho. Nada presta, não sei por onde começar, não sei que atitude tome, não sei de nada. Digo a mim mesma: não adianta desesperar, desesperar é mais fácil ainda que trabalhar. Me mande um conselho, Fernando, e uma palavra bem amiga. Desculpe esta carta tola. Respondam depressa e eu mandarei uma muito boa, muito calma.
Fernando, Helena, um grande abraço.
Clarice
SABINO, Fernando; LISPECTOR, Clarice. Cartas perto do coração. 3 ed.
Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2001. p. 20-23. [adaptado]
( ) A construção “femininamente e gripada” é um recurso linguístico cujo efeito estilístico se dá pela combinação de palavras de categorias diferentes (advérbio e adjetivo), expressando, respectivamente, o modo da ação e o estado da escritora. ( ) Em “Aquela cidade é doida, é maravilhosa.”, ocorre um uso metafórico, pois os dois adjetivos expressam comparações implícitas. ( ) Em “cartas de casa” e “recortes de jornal”, as expressões sublinhadas situam a origem locativa dos objetos aos quais estão relacionadas. ( ) A reescrita de “uma semana das piores” por “uma das piores semanas” fere a norma culta da língua e acarreta prejuízo de sentido ao enunciado. ( ) Para dar paralelismo à construção no contexto do período, a forma verbal sublinhada em “não sei que atitude tome” deveria ser substituída por “tomar”.
Assinale a alternativa que indica a sequência correta, de cima para baixo.
Conheça nossos planos