Questões de Concurso
Para pesquisador-tecnologista em informações e avaliações educacionais
Foram encontradas 80 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 |
Q297311
Direito Constitucional
Ao servidor público da administração direta, autárquica e fundacional, no exercício de mandato eletivo, aplica- se as seguintes disposições, EXCETO:
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297310
Direito Administrativo
É a denominação dada à qualificação concedida, por decreto específico, a autarquias ou fundações que celebrem contrato de gestão com a Administração a que se achem vinculadas, para melhorar a eficiência e reduzir custos:
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297309
Direito Constitucional
Relativamente às garantias da magistratura e às
vedações impostas aos juízes, pode-se afirmar que:
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297307
Direito Constitucional
Acerca dos direitos e garantias fundamentais, assinale a alternativa INCORRETA.
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297306
Direito Constitucional
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta um dos
objetivos fundamentais da República Federativa do Brasil.
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297305
Legislação Federal
Em relação ao Sistema Nacional de Avaliação Superior (SINAES), analise as afirmativas abaixo.
I. Os objetivos do SINAES são a melhoria da qualidade da Educação Superior, a orientação da expansão da sua oferta, o aumento permanente da sua eficácia institucional e efetividade acadêmica e social e a promoção do aprofundamento dos compromissos e das responsabilidades sociais das Instituições de Educação Superior.
II. O SINAES desenvolve-se em cooperação com os sistemas de ensino dos Estados e do Distrito Federal.
III. O SINAES visa a assegurar processo nacional de avaliação das Instituições de Educação Superior, dos cursos de graduação e do desempenho acadêmico de seus estudantes.
Está correto o que se afirma
I. Os objetivos do SINAES são a melhoria da qualidade da Educação Superior, a orientação da expansão da sua oferta, o aumento permanente da sua eficácia institucional e efetividade acadêmica e social e a promoção do aprofundamento dos compromissos e das responsabilidades sociais das Instituições de Educação Superior.
II. O SINAES desenvolve-se em cooperação com os sistemas de ensino dos Estados e do Distrito Federal.
III. O SINAES visa a assegurar processo nacional de avaliação das Instituições de Educação Superior, dos cursos de graduação e do desempenho acadêmico de seus estudantes.
Está correto o que se afirma
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297304
Pedagogia
Sobre as determinações da LDB sobre o Ensino Fundamental, considere as afirmações abaixo.
I. A lei prevê a avaliação contínua do aluno.
II. O ensino de uma língua estrangeira deve ter início no primeiro ano do Ensino Fundamental I.
III. A duração do Ensino Fundamental é de 4 anos, com carga horária diária de, no mínimo, 4 horas.
Está correto o que se afirma em
I. A lei prevê a avaliação contínua do aluno.
II. O ensino de uma língua estrangeira deve ter início no primeiro ano do Ensino Fundamental I.
III. A duração do Ensino Fundamental é de 4 anos, com carga horária diária de, no mínimo, 4 horas.
Está correto o que se afirma em
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297303
Legislação Federal
Analise as afirmativas abaixo.
I. A periodicidade máxima de aplicação do Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE) aos estudantes de cada curso de graduação é de dois anos.
II. A inscrição dos alunos habilitados à participação no Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE), junto ao Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP), é responsabilidade do dirigente da Instituição de Educação Superior.
III. O Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE) é componente curricular não obrigatório dos cursos de graduação.
De acordo com a lei nº 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004, que institui o Sistema Nacional de Avaliação Superior (SINAES), está correto
I. A periodicidade máxima de aplicação do Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE) aos estudantes de cada curso de graduação é de dois anos.
II. A inscrição dos alunos habilitados à participação no Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE), junto ao Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP), é responsabilidade do dirigente da Instituição de Educação Superior.
III. O Exame Nacional de Desempenho dos Estudantes (ENADE) é componente curricular não obrigatório dos cursos de graduação.
De acordo com a lei nº 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004, que institui o Sistema Nacional de Avaliação Superior (SINAES), está correto
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297302
Pedagogia
Analise as afirmativas abaixo.
I. As Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais, em virtude dos seus objetivos, estão dispensadas de prever elementos voltados para a Educação Ambiental.
II. Os sistemas de ensino devem promover as condições para que as instituições educacionais sejam espaços educadores sustentáveis.
III. Os sistemas de ensino e as instituições de pesquisa, em regime de colaboração, devem fomentar e divulgar estudos e experiências realizados na área da Educação Ambiental.
De acordo com o conteúdo da Resolução nº 2, de 15 de junho de 2012, que estabelece as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Ambiental, está correto
I. As Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais, em virtude dos seus objetivos, estão dispensadas de prever elementos voltados para a Educação Ambiental.
II. Os sistemas de ensino devem promover as condições para que as instituições educacionais sejam espaços educadores sustentáveis.
III. Os sistemas de ensino e as instituições de pesquisa, em regime de colaboração, devem fomentar e divulgar estudos e experiências realizados na área da Educação Ambiental.
De acordo com o conteúdo da Resolução nº 2, de 15 de junho de 2012, que estabelece as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Ambiental, está correto
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297301
Pedagogia
Com base na Resolução nº 4, de 2 de outubro de 2009, que institui as Diretrizes Operacionais para o Atendimento Educacional Especializado na Educação Básica, assinale a alternativa que não apresenta uma atribuição do professor do Atendimento Educacional Especializado (AEE).
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297300
Pedagogia
Considere os segmentos descritos abaixo.
I. Alunos com deficiência (com impedimentos de longo prazo de natureza física, intelectual, mental ou sensorial).
II. Alunos com transtornos globais do desenvolvimento (apresentam quadro de alterações no desenvolvimento neuropsicomotor ou comprometimento nas relações sociais, na comunicação ou estereotipias motoras).
III. Alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação (apresentam potencial elevado e grande envolvimento com as áreas do conhecimento humano, isoladas ou combinadas: intelectual, liderança, psicomotora, artes e criatividade).
Na Resolução nº 4, de 2 de outubro de 2009, que institui as Diretrizes Operacionais para o Atendimento Educacional Especializado na Educação Básica, modalidade Educação Especial, o público-alvo do Atendimento Educacional Especializado (AEE) é constituído
I. Alunos com deficiência (com impedimentos de longo prazo de natureza física, intelectual, mental ou sensorial).
II. Alunos com transtornos globais do desenvolvimento (apresentam quadro de alterações no desenvolvimento neuropsicomotor ou comprometimento nas relações sociais, na comunicação ou estereotipias motoras).
III. Alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação (apresentam potencial elevado e grande envolvimento com as áreas do conhecimento humano, isoladas ou combinadas: intelectual, liderança, psicomotora, artes e criatividade).
Na Resolução nº 4, de 2 de outubro de 2009, que institui as Diretrizes Operacionais para o Atendimento Educacional Especializado na Educação Básica, modalidade Educação Especial, o público-alvo do Atendimento Educacional Especializado (AEE) é constituído
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297299
Inglês
Choose the best alternative, according to the following situation described:
Situation: I left my bicycle here and now it's gone.
Situation: I left my bicycle here and now it's gone.
Ano: 2012
Banca:
IBFC
Órgão:
INEP
Prova:
IBFC - 2012 - INEP - Pesquisador-Tecnologista em Informações e Avaliações Educacionais - Área III |
Q297298
Inglês
Read the following sentences I, II and III.
I. For sure I wouldn't know what to tell them if they showed up.
II. I must admit, I am a drug addicted.
III. I'm in terrible shape. I must exercise more, otherwise I'll be in trouble.
The alternative that respectively brings the meaning of each one is
I. For sure I wouldn't know what to tell them if they showed up.
II. I must admit, I am a drug addicted.
III. I'm in terrible shape. I must exercise more, otherwise I'll be in trouble.
The alternative that respectively brings the meaning of each one is
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
Conheça nossos planos