Questões de Concurso
Para cgu
Foram encontradas 1.613 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
As políticas públicas são desenhadas por meio de instrumentos capazes de traduzir as intenções dos formuladores de políticas em um conjunto de ações concretas. A escolha das ferramentas de aplicação, sejam elas a atuação direta do Estado ou as várias formas de parceria e arranjos público-privados, é fundamental no processo de formulação de políticas públicas. Nessa escolha, diversos fatores devem ser levados em conta, quais sejam: ideais, interesses, indivíduos e instituições. Cada fator apresenta um impacto diferente na escolha das ferramentas.
Sobre as instituições como fatores na escolha de ferramentas de aplicação de políticas públicas, é correto afirmar que, em conjunto com:
A formulação de políticas públicas é um processo longo cujo desenvolvimento é permeado por conflitos de interesses. Grupos políticos divergentes buscam favorecer seus interesses e, consequentemente, podem influir na formulação de políticas públicas.
Acerca da corrupção na formulação de políticas públicas, é correto afirmar que é:
Na gestão por resultados, cabe ao gestor tomar decisões com base em critérios como eficiência, eficácia, viabilidade e aceitabilidade.
Sobre o papel do gestor e a gestão por resultados na administração pública, é correto afirmar que:
No cenário atual, um dos desafios dos gestores públicos está centrado no alcance de resultados organizacionais voltados à melhoria dos serviços prestados ao cidadão. Uma metodologia tradicionalmente aplicada ao planejamento orientado para resultados é a PDCA, implementada em diversas organizações, tanto na esfera pública quanto no meio empresarial.
Sobre essa metodologia, é correto afirmar que o foco:
No processo de planejamento e execução de políticas públicas (PP), diversos fatores se fazem presentes e influem, direta e indiretamente, no processo decisório público. Compete aos gestores analisar com isenção os fatores de maior ou menor impacto de maneira a assegurar o uso apropriado de recursos com vistas ao alcance da finalidade, dos objetivos e da missão de seus órgãos. Quando trabalhando em conjunto com outros órgãos no planejamento e análise de PP, os decisores e gestores se defrontam com situações nas quais pode haver conflito de interesses na utilização de recursos.
Nesses casos específicos, devem-se considerar:
No processo de formulação de estratégias e políticas públicas, por vezes os corpos burocráticos das organizações são considerados como elementos secundários ou pouco relevantes. O entendimento é de que cabe a esses grupos apenas o cumprimento dos desígnios de cúpulas e gabinetes de direção. Entretanto, diversos autores consideram que o corpo burocrático é componente fundamental da implementação e que, portanto, é necessário estabelecer fortes controles que evitem desvios na ação burocrática.
O estabelecimento de controles internos e externos sobre o corpo burocrático, no contexto da administração pública, é essencial para a implementação eficiente de políticas, pois:
A Estratégia de Governo Digital (EGD), estabelecida em 2020 no contexto do Poder Executivo Federal, busca formalizar o esforço de modernização do governo brasileiro, tendo como elementos fundamentais a integração e o acesso a dados entre os órgãos públicos.
Para tanto, a EGD:
Com o advento da Constituição da República de 1988, a demanda por acesso à informação e transparência tem gradativamente aumentado no cenário nacional. Em 2019, visando ao fortalecimento da integridade, o governo federal instituiu no âmbito do Poder Executivo a Política Nacional de Governo Aberto (PNGA), que propõe como uma de suas principais diretrizes o fomento à participação social nos processos decisórios, bem como delega à Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU) a coordenação do Comitê Interministerial de Governo Aberto.
Sobre o papel da CGU previsto na PNGA, é correto afirmar que cabe à CGU:
Os conselhos de gestão agem como a arena de interação e debate entre os componentes políticos e os movimentos sociais. Um dos principais fatores relacionados ao sucesso dos movimentos sociais no propósito de impactar as políticas públicas está centrado no acesso aos decisores, para o qual os conselhos de gestão funcionam como mecanismos formais que visam garantir esse acesso.
Sobre os conselhos de gestão e sua contribuição para a participação social na formulação de políticas públicas, é correto afirmar que são:
Diversos autores apontam características comuns aos problemas públicos para facilitar o processo de identificação, podendo, assim, o analista de políticas categorizar e buscar soluções para novos desafios a partir de problemas anteriores de natureza semelhante. Entretanto, nem todos os problemas públicos compartilham características. No universo de problemas públicos contemporâneos merecem destaque os wicked problems, problemas desestruturados que desafiam continuamente os analistas.
Os wicked problems são singulares e diferenciam-se dos demais problemas públicos:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Based on the information provided by the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).
( ) An inquisitive mind is germane to those engaged in auditing.
( ) Bringing out a verifiable estimate on skepticism can be done in no time.
( ) On no account should professional skepticism be brushed aside when focusing on audit quality.
The statements are, respectively:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Observe o texto descritivo a seguir.
“Entramos vagarosa e silenciosamente pela porta do laboratório às escuras; o cheiro do local era nauseabundo e havia uma substância pegajosa não identificada por todo o chão. Havia tubos de ensaio espalhados, como se os trabalhadores do local tivessem saído às pressas... Pelo amargo de nossas bocas, as expectativas eram as piores possíveis.”
A estratégia empregada nessa descrição é a de:
Observe os dois textos a seguir.
1) “Nossa civilização é uma soma de conhecimentos e de lembranças acumuladas por gerações que nos precederam. Nós não podemos participar dela a não ser entrando em contato com o pensamento dessas gerações.”
2) “Os jovens dificilmente admitem o valor da experiência. A mutação brusca que vivemos, o acontecimento da sociedade científica, desqualifica seriamente, é necessário que se diga, a experiência das gerações precedentes.”
Sobre esses textos, é correto afirmar que:
Observe o seguinte texto, de autoria de um conhecido sociólogo contemporâneo: “A moda satisfaz ao mesmo tempo o desejo de reunião com os outros, e o do isolamento, da diferenciação. O indivíduo na moda se sente diferente, original, e, ao mesmo tempo, objeto da aprovação do maior número de pessoas, que se comportam como ele”.
Sobre os componentes estruturais desse segmento, a afirmação adequada é:
Em uma de suas crônicas, Rubem Braga tece os seguintes comentários sobre o padre Feijó, figura importante de nossa história: “...quanta mediocridade, quanta incoerência! Não era homem excepcional nem pela inteligência nem pela cultura. Não teve, diante dos problemas do Brasil, nenhuma visão mais larga nem penetrante; não nos legou, nem mesmo aos homens do Segundo Império, nenhuma ideia mais alta ou mais justa para levar adiante. Teimoso e limitado, tinha dois ou três projetos que defendeu até a velhice, e nenhum deles de maior mérito”.
Temos aqui o exemplo de um argumento ad hominem, ou seja, uma argumentação crítica contra uma pessoa.
O tipo de argumento ad hominem que é adequado ao texto de Rubem Braga é aquele que:
Conheça nossos planos