Questões de Vestibular Comentadas sobre inglês

Foram encontradas 799 questões

Ano: 2021 Banca: CECIERJ Órgão: CEDERJ Prova: CECIERJ - 2021 - CEDERJ - Vestibular - Língua Inglesa - 2022.1 |
Q1859703 Inglês

TEXT 2

Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Available from: www.nature.com/naturemedicine. Access: 10 Oct. 2021. Adapted.


The linking word “although” (underlined in two sentences of the text) establishes a contrast between ideas, and it may be replaced by “but”. The alternative which correctly expresses the ideas which are contrasted in the two sentences is: 

Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: CECIERJ Órgão: CEDERJ Prova: CECIERJ - 2021 - CEDERJ - Vestibular - Língua Inglesa - 2022.1 |
Q1859702 Inglês

TEXT 1

Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Avaiable from:<https://twitter.com/dalupton/status/1291675856926998530>   Access: 10 Oct. 2021.


In the comic strip, all the characters are answering a question. It may be inferred, from their answers, that this question is:
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: FUVEST Órgão: USP Prova: FUVEST - 2021 - USP - Vestibular - Edital 2022 |
Q1858896 Inglês

Imagem associada para resolução da questão


Considerando os elementos visuais e verbais da figura, é possível interpretar a fala da mulher como 

Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: INEP Órgão: UFMS Prova: INEP - 2018 - UFMS - Processo Seletivo - Vestibular UFMS |
Q1803276 Inglês

Read Text to answer question.


The article analyzes the relationship of Indigenous Peoples with the public policy of Social Assistance (AS) in Brazil. Based on data collected during field work carried out in 2014, will analyze the case of the Indigenous Reserve of Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul. In the first part, I characterize the unequal relationship between society and national state with Indigenous Peoples to, then approach the Welfare State politics as an opportunity to face the violation of rights resulting from the colonial siege. Then we will see if Dourados to illustrate the dilemmas and possibilities of autonomy and indigenous role faced with this public policy. It is expected to contribute to the discussion of statehood pointing concrete cases where the local implementation of AS policy is permeable to a greater or lesser extent, the demands of Indigenous Peoples by adaptation to their social organizations and worldviews.


(BORGES, Júlio César. Brazilian society has made us poor: Social Assistance and ethnic autonomy of Indiggenous Peoples. The case of Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul. Horiz. antropol. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0104-71832016000200303&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en>. Acesso em: 10 nov. 2018).

Read the comic to answer question.


Imagem associada para resolução da questão


According to the comic, it is correct to affirm that:

Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802352 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

As for the companies which will be part of the LEAF coalition, they must have the commitment to
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802351 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

Still about the countries which will receive financial support from the coalition to reduce emissions and deforestation, the text mentions that they will
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802350 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

Countries that will benefit from the investments of the LEAF coalition, will have to
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802349 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

The text mentions situations in which sometimes companies have tried to fund projects in defense of tropical forests, but were prey to circumstances related to
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802348 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

Statistics related to deforestation in tropical forests show that in 2020 it
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802347 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

According to John Kerry, the LEAF coalition constitutes an essential endeavor towards the
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802346 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

The initiative effort of countries and companies to protect tropical forests is in line with the attempt to
Alternativas
Ano: 2021 Banca: UECE-CEV Órgão: UECE Prova: UECE-CEV - 2021 - UECE - Prova de Conhecimentos Gerais |
Q1802345 Inglês

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.


    Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.


    The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.


    Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.


    “The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.” 

    An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.


    The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.


    Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.


    Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.


From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

According to the text, tropical forests are being cut down, among other reasons, for
Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2018 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2018 - Medicina |
Q1798996 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão. 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age



     “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options. 
      “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.
     More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.
     In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.
     But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.
    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.
     However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.
      Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and
Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the
University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)
Assinale a alternativa cujo trecho evidencia a posição atual da autora sobre o desafio apresentado no título.
Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2018 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2018 - Medicina |
Q1798994 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão. 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age



     “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options. 
      “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.
     More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.
     In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.
     But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.
    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.
     However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.
      Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and
Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the
University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)
De acordo com o quinto e o sexto parágrafos, um dos benefícios dos dados médicos disponíveis na internet é
Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2018 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2018 - Medicina |
Q1798992 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão. 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age



     “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options. 
      “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.
     More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.
     In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.
     But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.
    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.
     However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.
      Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and
Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the
University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)
De acordo com o quarto parágrafo, a profissão médica contribui para que as pessoas recorram à internet em vez de recorrer a médicos. A justificativa apresentada é que
Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2018 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2018 - Medicina |
Q1798991 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão. 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age



     “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options. 
      “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.
     More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.
     In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.
     But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.
    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.
     However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.
      Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and
Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the
University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)
No trecho do quarto parágrafo “the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source”, a expressão sublinhada equivale, em português, a
Alternativas
Ano: 2018 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2018 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2018 - Medicina |
Q1798988 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão. 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age



     “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options. 
      “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.
     More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.
     In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.
     But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.
    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.
     However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.
      Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and
Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the
University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)
No trecho do primeiro parágrafo “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you”, o termo sublinhado refere-se
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2019 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2019 - Medicina |
Q1798261 Inglês
Leia a tirinha e o quadrinho para responder à questão. 




(http://leadership-learning-with-dilbert.blogspot.com)





(www.glasbergen.com. Adaptado.)
Na última fala da tira “I hate him, but I also love him”, os termos sublinhados referem-se
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2019 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2019 - Medicina |
Q1798259 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão.

Worshiping the false idols of wellness




     Before we go further, I’d like to clear something up: wellness is not the same as medicine. Medicine is the science of reducing death and disease, and increasing long and healthy lives. Wellness used to mean a blend of health and happiness. Something that made you feel good or brought joy and was not medically harmful — perhaps a massage or a walk along the beach. But it has become a false antidote to the fear of modern life and death.
    The wellness industry takes medical terminology, such as “inflammation” or “free radicals,” and polishes it to the point of incomprehension. The resulting product is a “Do It Yourself” medicine for longevity that comes with a confidence that science can only aspire to achieve.
     Let’s take the trend of adding a pinch of activated charcoal to your food or drink. While the black color is strikingly unexpected and alluring, it’s sold as a supposed “detox.” Guess what? It has the same efficacy as a spell from the local witch. Maybe it’s a matter of aesthetics. Wellness potions in beautiful jars with untested ingredients of unknown purity are practically packaged for Instagram.
     Medicine and religion have long been deeply intertwined, and it’s only relatively recently that they have separated. The wellness-industrial complex seeks to resurrect that connection. It’s like a medical throwback, as if the idyllic days of health were 5,000 years ago. Ancient cleansing rituals with a modern twist — supplements, useless products and scientifically unsupported tests.
     The dietary supplements that are the backbone of wellness make up a $30 billion a year business despite studies showing they have no value for longevity (only a few vitamins have proven medical benefits, like folic acid before and during pregnancy and vitamin D for older people at risk of falling). Modern medicine wants you to get your micronutrients from your diet, which is inarguably the most natural source.
     Yet the wellness-industrial complex has managed to pervert that narrative and make supplements a necessary tool for nonsensical practices, such as boosting the immune system or fighting the war on inflammation. The resulting fluorescent yellow urine from multivitamins may provide a false sense of efficacy, but it’s a fool’s gold (and the consequence of excessive B2 that couldn’t possibly be absorbed). So what’s the harm of spending money on charcoal for non-existent toxins or vitamins for expensive urine? Here’s what: the placebo effect or “trying something natural” can lead people with serious illnesses to postpone effective medical care. However, I admit that doctors can learn something from wellness. It’s clear that some people are looking for healers, so we must find ways to serve that need that are medically ethical.

(Jen Gunter. www.nytimes.com, 01.08.2018. Adaptado.)
De acordo com o último parágrafo, as práticas promovidas pela indústria do bem-estar
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: SÃO CAMILO Prova: VUNESP - 2019 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 2º Semestre de 2019 - Medicina |
Q1798258 Inglês
Leia o texto para responder à questão.

Worshiping the false idols of wellness




     Before we go further, I’d like to clear something up: wellness is not the same as medicine. Medicine is the science of reducing death and disease, and increasing long and healthy lives. Wellness used to mean a blend of health and happiness. Something that made you feel good or brought joy and was not medically harmful — perhaps a massage or a walk along the beach. But it has become a false antidote to the fear of modern life and death.
    The wellness industry takes medical terminology, such as “inflammation” or “free radicals,” and polishes it to the point of incomprehension. The resulting product is a “Do It Yourself” medicine for longevity that comes with a confidence that science can only aspire to achieve.
     Let’s take the trend of adding a pinch of activated charcoal to your food or drink. While the black color is strikingly unexpected and alluring, it’s sold as a supposed “detox.” Guess what? It has the same efficacy as a spell from the local witch. Maybe it’s a matter of aesthetics. Wellness potions in beautiful jars with untested ingredients of unknown purity are practically packaged for Instagram.
     Medicine and religion have long been deeply intertwined, and it’s only relatively recently that they have separated. The wellness-industrial complex seeks to resurrect that connection. It’s like a medical throwback, as if the idyllic days of health were 5,000 years ago. Ancient cleansing rituals with a modern twist — supplements, useless products and scientifically unsupported tests.
     The dietary supplements that are the backbone of wellness make up a $30 billion a year business despite studies showing they have no value for longevity (only a few vitamins have proven medical benefits, like folic acid before and during pregnancy and vitamin D for older people at risk of falling). Modern medicine wants you to get your micronutrients from your diet, which is inarguably the most natural source.
     Yet the wellness-industrial complex has managed to pervert that narrative and make supplements a necessary tool for nonsensical practices, such as boosting the immune system or fighting the war on inflammation. The resulting fluorescent yellow urine from multivitamins may provide a false sense of efficacy, but it’s a fool’s gold (and the consequence of excessive B2 that couldn’t possibly be absorbed). So what’s the harm of spending money on charcoal for non-existent toxins or vitamins for expensive urine? Here’s what: the placebo effect or “trying something natural” can lead people with serious illnesses to postpone effective medical care. However, I admit that doctors can learn something from wellness. It’s clear that some people are looking for healers, so we must find ways to serve that need that are medically ethical.

(Jen Gunter. www.nytimes.com, 01.08.2018. Adaptado.)
In the fifth paragraph, the text in brackets
Alternativas
Respostas
41: D
42: A
43: E
44: A
45: B
46: D
47: A
48: C
49: B
50: A
51: D
52: C
53: D
54: E
55: E
56: D
57: C
58: E
59: A
60: C