Questões de Vestibular
Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 4.863 questões
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229815
Inglês
" Transgender" in TEXT D refers to people:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229814
Inglês
According to TEXT D, gender dichotomy was first set up:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229813
Inglês
TEXT D suggests that gender is:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229811
Inglês
TEXT C affirms that:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229810
Inglês
According to TEXT C, one of the biggest problems faced by the world today is:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229809
Inglês
The family mentioned in TEXT B wishes to stay at Carpenter’s Cottages for:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229808
Inglês
TEXT B is:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229807
Inglês
The speaker in TEXT A expresses:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229805
Inglês
Which of the following groups of words from TEXT A only represents colours:
Ano: 2007
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2007 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229804
Inglês
According to TEXT A, Henri Rousseau is:
Q229468
Inglês
Texto associado
As questões de 4 a 6 referem-se às imagens e aos textos abaixo.
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
De acordo com as ideias expressas pelas imagens e pelos textos acima, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229467
Inglês
Texto associado
As questões de 4 a 6 referem-se às imagens e aos textos abaixo.
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Levando-se em conta as imagens e os textos acima, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229466
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Considerando os aspectos estruturais do texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229465
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Com base nas ideias e opiniões expressas no texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229464
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
De acordo com o conteúdo do texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Ano: 2008
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2008 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229223
Inglês
Which of the following statements is true, with reference to TEXT E:
Ano: 2008
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2008 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229221
Inglês
TEXT E claims that reprogrammable biology:
Ano: 2008
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2008 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229220
Inglês
According to TEXT D, payment of fees allowed the students to:
Ano: 2008
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2008 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229218
Inglês
The theme of TEXT D is:
Ano: 2008
Banca:
CPCON
Órgão:
UEPB
Prova:
CPCON - 2008 - UEPB - Vestibular - Português - Literatura Brasileira e Inglês |
Q229216
Inglês
According to TEXT C the difference between the East and West is due to:
Conheça nossos planos