Questões de Vestibular
Comentadas sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 680 questões
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
“You said you’d be home at half a candle.” Depreende-se do cartum que a moça
Text
Volunteering is fun!
Disponível em: https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/magazine/life-around-world/volunteering-fun. Texto
adaptado. Acesso em: ago. 2020.
Text
Volunteering is fun!
Disponível em: https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/magazine/life-around-world/volunteering-fun. Texto
adaptado. Acesso em: ago. 2020.
Text
The School of the Future
Disponível em: https://www.typekids.com/blog/the-school-of-the-future/ Texto adaptado. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2020.
The pronoun it is referring respectively to
Considerando o texto 2, qual parágrafo apresenta relação com a ideia ilustrada na charge (texto 3)
Texto 5
Coronavirus has swept through tribes, killing elders and inflicting irreparable damage on tribal history, culture and medicine
When Bep Karoti Xikrin fell ill with Covid-19, he refused to go to a hospital. The 64-year-old chief of a Xikrin indigenous village in Brazil’s Amazon was plagued by headaches and fatigue and struggled for breath. But, according to his daughter Bekuoi Raquel, he was afraid that if he were admitted to hospital he might never return.
Instead, he died in his village – and with him, was lost decades of knowledge and leadership. “He knew so much about things we haven’t even experienced,” said Bekuoi, 21. “Everyone admired him. He was very loved.”
As Brazil’s confirmed overall death toll from Covid-19 passes 50,000, the virus is scything through the country’s indigenous communities, killing chiefs, elders and traditional healers – and raising fears that alongside the toll of human lives, the pandemic may inflict irreparable damage on tribal knowledge of history, culture and natural medicine.
The Munduruku people alone have lost 10 sábios, or wise ones. “We always say they are living libraries,” said Alessandra Munduruku, a tribal leader. “It’s been very painful.”
The victims include prominent figures such as Paulinho Paiakan, a Kayapó leader who fought alongside rock star Sting against the Belo Monte dam.
The indigenous organisation Apib has logged at least 332 Covid-19 deaths, and 7,208 coronavirus cases across 110 communities. “We are facing extermination,” said its executive coordinator, Dinamam Tuxá.
Indigenous leaders such as Tuxá say the government of the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, is failing to protect the country’s 900,000 indigenous people – many of whom live in small communities, where dozens often share the same house.
Tuxá said Brazil’s Funai indigenous agency has taken too long to send emergency food kits to people isolating in their villages, forcing them to risk infection by traveling to nearby towns for emergency government payments. Funai said it had delivered 82,000 basic food kits and 43,000 hygiene kits.
Some leaders even blame government health workers for bringing the virus. Katia Silene Akrãtikatêjê, 51, a chief from the Gavião tribe in Pará state, believes she caught Covid-19 after a government health team visited their village to give flu vaccines. “Everyone got sick from there on,” she said.
From: shorturl.at/finAM. Accessed on 07/01/2020
Texto 5
Coronavirus has swept through tribes, killing elders and inflicting irreparable damage on tribal history, culture and medicine
When Bep Karoti Xikrin fell ill with Covid-19, he refused to go to a hospital. The 64-year-old chief of a Xikrin indigenous village in Brazil’s Amazon was plagued by headaches and fatigue and struggled for breath. But, according to his daughter Bekuoi Raquel, he was afraid that if he were admitted to hospital he might never return.
Instead, he died in his village – and with him, was lost decades of knowledge and leadership. “He knew so much about things we haven’t even experienced,” said Bekuoi, 21. “Everyone admired him. He was very loved.”
As Brazil’s confirmed overall death toll from Covid-19 passes 50,000, the virus is scything through the country’s indigenous communities, killing chiefs, elders and traditional healers – and raising fears that alongside the toll of human lives, the pandemic may inflict irreparable damage on tribal knowledge of history, culture and natural medicine.
The Munduruku people alone have lost 10 sábios, or wise ones. “We always say they are living libraries,” said Alessandra Munduruku, a tribal leader. “It’s been very painful.”
The victims include prominent figures such as Paulinho Paiakan, a Kayapó leader who fought alongside rock star Sting against the Belo Monte dam.
The indigenous organisation Apib has logged at least 332 Covid-19 deaths, and 7,208 coronavirus cases across 110 communities. “We are facing extermination,” said its executive coordinator, Dinamam Tuxá.
Indigenous leaders such as Tuxá say the government of the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, is failing to protect the country’s 900,000 indigenous people – many of whom live in small communities, where dozens often share the same house.
Tuxá said Brazil’s Funai indigenous agency has taken too long to send emergency food kits to people isolating in their villages, forcing them to risk infection by traveling to nearby towns for emergency government payments. Funai said it had delivered 82,000 basic food kits and 43,000 hygiene kits.
Some leaders even blame government health workers for bringing the virus. Katia Silene Akrãtikatêjê, 51, a chief from the Gavião tribe in Pará state, believes she caught Covid-19 after a government health team visited their village to give flu vaccines. “Everyone got sick from there on,” she said.
From: shorturl.at/finAM. Accessed on 07/01/2020
Texto 4
Coronavirus is 10 times deadlier than swine flu: WHO
COVID-19, the disease caused by coronavirus, is officially 10 times deadlier than the H1N1 swine flu strain that ripped across much of the world in 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed Monday.
The only way to truly halt the spread is a vaccine, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing from Geneva. More than 1.8 million people have been infected so far worldwide, and at least 115,000 have died.
“Evidence from several countries is giving us a clearer picture about this virus, how it behaves, how to stop it and how to treat it,” Tedros said. “We know that COVID-19 spreads fast, and we know that it is deadly – 10 times deadlier than the 2009 flu pandemic.”
While swine flu, as it was popularly known, killed 18,500 people, the true toll may have been closer to between 151,700 and 575,400, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported, citing The Lancet.
“We know that the virus can spread more easily in crowded environments like nursing homes,” Tedros continued. “We know that early case finding, testing, isolating, caring for every case, and tracing every contact is essential for stopping transmission.”
Pointing out that in some countries cases are doubling every three to four days, the disease accelerates fast but “decelerates much more slowly,” Tedros said. “In other words, the way down is much slower than the way up,” he said. “That means control measures must be lifted slowly and with control.”
Tedros cautioned that restarting the shutdown portions of the economy in the U.S. and other countries whose leaders have been anxious to loosen restrictions could prove deadly. He also exhorted everyone around the world to work together, as several development ministers from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden had done in a recent joint editorial.
Texto 4
Coronavirus is 10 times deadlier than swine flu: WHO
COVID-19, the disease caused by coronavirus, is officially 10 times deadlier than the H1N1 swine flu strain that ripped across much of the world in 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed Monday.
The only way to truly halt the spread is a vaccine, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing from Geneva. More than 1.8 million people have been infected so far worldwide, and at least 115,000 have died.
“Evidence from several countries is giving us a clearer picture about this virus, how it behaves, how to stop it and how to treat it,” Tedros said. “We know that COVID-19 spreads fast, and we know that it is deadly – 10 times deadlier than the 2009 flu pandemic.”
While swine flu, as it was popularly known, killed 18,500 people, the true toll may have been closer to between 151,700 and 575,400, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported, citing The Lancet.
“We know that the virus can spread more easily in crowded environments like nursing homes,” Tedros continued. “We know that early case finding, testing, isolating, caring for every case, and tracing every contact is essential for stopping transmission.”
Pointing out that in some countries cases are doubling every three to four days, the disease accelerates fast but “decelerates much more slowly,” Tedros said. “In other words, the way down is much slower than the way up,” he said. “That means control measures must be lifted slowly and with control.”
Tedros cautioned that restarting the shutdown portions of the economy in the U.S. and other countries whose leaders have been anxious to loosen restrictions could prove deadly. He also exhorted everyone around the world to work together, as several development ministers from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden had done in a recent joint editorial.
Texto 4
Coronavirus is 10 times deadlier than swine flu: WHO
COVID-19, the disease caused by coronavirus, is officially 10 times deadlier than the H1N1 swine flu strain that ripped across much of the world in 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed Monday.
The only way to truly halt the spread is a vaccine, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing from Geneva. More than 1.8 million people have been infected so far worldwide, and at least 115,000 have died.
“Evidence from several countries is giving us a clearer picture about this virus, how it behaves, how to stop it and how to treat it,” Tedros said. “We know that COVID-19 spreads fast, and we know that it is deadly – 10 times deadlier than the 2009 flu pandemic.”
While swine flu, as it was popularly known, killed 18,500 people, the true toll may have been closer to between 151,700 and 575,400, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported, citing The Lancet.
“We know that the virus can spread more easily in crowded environments like nursing homes,” Tedros continued. “We know that early case finding, testing, isolating, caring for every case, and tracing every contact is essential for stopping transmission.”
Pointing out that in some countries cases are doubling every three to four days, the disease accelerates fast but “decelerates much more slowly,” Tedros said. “In other words, the way down is much slower than the way up,” he said. “That means control measures must be lifted slowly and with control.”
Tedros cautioned that restarting the shutdown portions of the economy in the U.S. and other countries whose leaders have been anxious to loosen restrictions could prove deadly. He also exhorted everyone around the world to work together, as several development ministers from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden had done in a recent joint editorial.
Texto 3
The lessons Italy has learned about its COVID-19 outbreak could help the rest of the world
Only carefully conducted epidemiological studies will bring to light exactly how and why COVID-19 took off in northern Italy with such speed. But in the midst of the emergency, experts say there are already lessons to be gleaned from Italy's fatal errors — and urgent messages for other parts of the world.
"The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region," said Carlo Borghetti, the vice- premier of Lombardy, an economically crucial region with a population of 10 million.
"We should have immediately set up separate structures exclusively for people sick with coronavirus. I recommend the rest of the world do this, to not send COVID patients into health-care facilities that are still uninfected."
Already, Italian cities in other regions are doing this, as well as field hospitals in Milan and Bergamo, Lombardy, which are almost complete.
However, the virus was not only spread to "clean" — i.e. infection-free — hospitals by admitting positive patients. In early March, as the number of infected was doubling every few days, authorities allowed overwhelmed hospitals to transfer those who tested positive but weren't gravely ill into assistedliving facilities for the elderly.
"It was like throwing a lit match onto a haystack," said Borghetti, who spoke out against the directive at the time. "Some facilities refused to take in the positive patients. For those that did [take them in], it was devastating."
Along with the tragic misstep of putting infected people under the same roof as clusters of the most physically vulnerable, Borghetti and others point to a deeper structural factor that accelerated the outbreak in northern Italy: a highly centralized health-care system with large hospitals as its focus.
From: shorturl.at/cMRTW. Accesses on 04/09/2020
Texto 3
The lessons Italy has learned about its COVID-19 outbreak could help the rest of the world
Only carefully conducted epidemiological studies will bring to light exactly how and why COVID-19 took off in northern Italy with such speed. But in the midst of the emergency, experts say there are already lessons to be gleaned from Italy's fatal errors — and urgent messages for other parts of the world.
"The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region," said Carlo Borghetti, the vice- premier of Lombardy, an economically crucial region with a population of 10 million.
"We should have immediately set up separate structures exclusively for people sick with coronavirus. I recommend the rest of the world do this, to not send COVID patients into health-care facilities that are still uninfected."
Already, Italian cities in other regions are doing this, as well as field hospitals in Milan and Bergamo, Lombardy, which are almost complete.
However, the virus was not only spread to "clean" — i.e. infection-free — hospitals by admitting positive patients. In early March, as the number of infected was doubling every few days, authorities allowed overwhelmed hospitals to transfer those who tested positive but weren't gravely ill into assistedliving facilities for the elderly.
"It was like throwing a lit match onto a haystack," said Borghetti, who spoke out against the directive at the time. "Some facilities refused to take in the positive patients. For those that did [take them in], it was devastating."
Along with the tragic misstep of putting infected people under the same roof as clusters of the most physically vulnerable, Borghetti and others point to a deeper structural factor that accelerated the outbreak in northern Italy: a highly centralized health-care system with large hospitals as its focus.
From: shorturl.at/cMRTW. Accesses on 04/09/2020
Texto 3
The lessons Italy has learned about its COVID-19 outbreak could help the rest of the world
Only carefully conducted epidemiological studies will bring to light exactly how and why COVID-19 took off in northern Italy with such speed. But in the midst of the emergency, experts say there are already lessons to be gleaned from Italy's fatal errors — and urgent messages for other parts of the world.
"The biggest mistake we made was to admit patients infected with COVID-19 into hospitals throughout the region," said Carlo Borghetti, the vice- premier of Lombardy, an economically crucial region with a population of 10 million.
"We should have immediately set up separate structures exclusively for people sick with coronavirus. I recommend the rest of the world do this, to not send COVID patients into health-care facilities that are still uninfected."
Already, Italian cities in other regions are doing this, as well as field hospitals in Milan and Bergamo, Lombardy, which are almost complete.
However, the virus was not only spread to "clean" — i.e. infection-free — hospitals by admitting positive patients. In early March, as the number of infected was doubling every few days, authorities allowed overwhelmed hospitals to transfer those who tested positive but weren't gravely ill into assistedliving facilities for the elderly.
"It was like throwing a lit match onto a haystack," said Borghetti, who spoke out against the directive at the time. "Some facilities refused to take in the positive patients. For those that did [take them in], it was devastating."
Along with the tragic misstep of putting infected people under the same roof as clusters of the most physically vulnerable, Borghetti and others point to a deeper structural factor that accelerated the outbreak in northern Italy: a highly centralized health-care system with large hospitals as its focus.
From: shorturl.at/cMRTW. Accesses on 04/09/2020
Texto 2
Boris Johnson should have taken his own medicine - The British prime minister tested positive for Covid-19 and went into isolation, but not before doing untold damage and setting a bad example.
Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Britain, on Friday announced that he had tested positive for the coronavirus. In a brief video released on Twitter, he shared the basics: Having developed “mild symptoms — that’s to say, a temperature and a persistent cough” — he underwent testing and received the bad news. He will now be “selfisolating” until the illness has run its course.
Looking mostly healthy, if typically disheveled, Mr. Johnson stressed that he would continue to “lead the national fightback” from his home via teleconferencing. He urged the British public to abide by the three-week lockdown put into place on Monday.
The more effectively people stick with social distancing, the faster the nation and its National Health Service (N.H.S.) will “bounce back,” he said, before closing with the plea, “Stay at home, protect the N.H.S and save lives.” It was a responsible, no- drama message. If only the prime minister had displayed such leadership sooner, he — and who knows how many others — might have been spared this illness.
From: shorturl.at/dKV23. Accessed on 03/27/2020
Conheça nossos planos