Questões de Vestibular Comentadas sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 799 questões
Q1686600
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Modern-day slavery: an explainer
Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty
What is modern-day slavery?
About 150 years after most countries banned slavery –
Brazil was the last to abolish its participation in the transatlantic
slave trade, in 1888 – millions of men, women and children are
still enslaved. Contemporary slavery takes many forms, from
women forced into prostitution, to child slavery in agriculture
supply chains or whole families working for nothing to pay
off generational debts. Slavery thrives on every continent and
in almost every country. Forced labour, people trafficking,
debt bondage and child marriage are all forms of modern-day
slavery that affect the world’s most vulnerable people.
How is slavery defined?
Slavery is prohibited under the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be held in slavery
or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.”
Definitions of modern-day slavery are mainly taken
from the 1956 UN supplementary convention, which says:
“debt bondage, serfdom, forced marriage and the delivery
of a child for the exploitation of that child are all slavery-like
practices and require criminalisation and abolishment”. The
1930 Forced Labour Convention defines forced labour as “all
work or service which is exacted from any person under the
menace of any penalty and for which the said person has
not offered himself voluntarily”. As contemporary systems of
slavery have evolved, new definitions, including trafficking and
distinguishing child slavery from child labour, have developed.
How many people are enslaved across the world?
Due to its illegality, data on modern-day slavery is difficult
to collate. The UN’s International Labour Organisation (ILO)
estimates that about 21 million people are in forced labour
at any point in time. The ILO says this estimate includes
trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The only
exceptions are trafficking for organ removal, forced marriage
and adoption, unless the last two practices result in forced
labour. The ILO calculates that 90% of the 21 million are
exploited by individuals or companies, while 10% are forced
to work by the state, rebel military groups, or in prisons under
conditions that violate ILO standards. Sexual exploitation
accounts for 22% of slaves.
(www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/03/modern-day-slavery-explainer. Adaptado)
De acordo com o terceiro parágrafo, a Convenção Suplementar das Nações Unidas de 1956 inclui como escravidão
moderna
Q1686599
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Modern-day slavery: an explainer
Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty
What is modern-day slavery?
About 150 years after most countries banned slavery –
Brazil was the last to abolish its participation in the transatlantic
slave trade, in 1888 – millions of men, women and children are
still enslaved. Contemporary slavery takes many forms, from
women forced into prostitution, to child slavery in agriculture
supply chains or whole families working for nothing to pay
off generational debts. Slavery thrives on every continent and
in almost every country. Forced labour, people trafficking,
debt bondage and child marriage are all forms of modern-day
slavery that affect the world’s most vulnerable people.
How is slavery defined?
Slavery is prohibited under the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be held in slavery
or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.”
Definitions of modern-day slavery are mainly taken
from the 1956 UN supplementary convention, which says:
“debt bondage, serfdom, forced marriage and the delivery
of a child for the exploitation of that child are all slavery-like
practices and require criminalisation and abolishment”. The
1930 Forced Labour Convention defines forced labour as “all
work or service which is exacted from any person under the
menace of any penalty and for which the said person has
not offered himself voluntarily”. As contemporary systems of
slavery have evolved, new definitions, including trafficking and
distinguishing child slavery from child labour, have developed.
How many people are enslaved across the world?
Due to its illegality, data on modern-day slavery is difficult
to collate. The UN’s International Labour Organisation (ILO)
estimates that about 21 million people are in forced labour
at any point in time. The ILO says this estimate includes
trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The only
exceptions are trafficking for organ removal, forced marriage
and adoption, unless the last two practices result in forced
labour. The ILO calculates that 90% of the 21 million are
exploited by individuals or companies, while 10% are forced
to work by the state, rebel military groups, or in prisons under
conditions that violate ILO standards. Sexual exploitation
accounts for 22% of slaves.
(www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/03/modern-day-slavery-explainer. Adaptado)
No trecho do terceiro parágrafo – all work or service which is
exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and
for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily –
o termo em destaque se refere a
Q1686598
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Modern-day slavery: an explainer
Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty
What is modern-day slavery?
About 150 years after most countries banned slavery –
Brazil was the last to abolish its participation in the transatlantic
slave trade, in 1888 – millions of men, women and children are
still enslaved. Contemporary slavery takes many forms, from
women forced into prostitution, to child slavery in agriculture
supply chains or whole families working for nothing to pay
off generational debts. Slavery thrives on every continent and
in almost every country. Forced labour, people trafficking,
debt bondage and child marriage are all forms of modern-day
slavery that affect the world’s most vulnerable people.
How is slavery defined?
Slavery is prohibited under the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be held in slavery
or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.”
Definitions of modern-day slavery are mainly taken
from the 1956 UN supplementary convention, which says:
“debt bondage, serfdom, forced marriage and the delivery
of a child for the exploitation of that child are all slavery-like
practices and require criminalisation and abolishment”. The
1930 Forced Labour Convention defines forced labour as “all
work or service which is exacted from any person under the
menace of any penalty and for which the said person has
not offered himself voluntarily”. As contemporary systems of
slavery have evolved, new definitions, including trafficking and
distinguishing child slavery from child labour, have developed.
How many people are enslaved across the world?
Due to its illegality, data on modern-day slavery is difficult
to collate. The UN’s International Labour Organisation (ILO)
estimates that about 21 million people are in forced labour
at any point in time. The ILO says this estimate includes
trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The only
exceptions are trafficking for organ removal, forced marriage
and adoption, unless the last two practices result in forced
labour. The ILO calculates that 90% of the 21 million are
exploited by individuals or companies, while 10% are forced
to work by the state, rebel military groups, or in prisons under
conditions that violate ILO standards. Sexual exploitation
accounts for 22% of slaves.
(www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/03/modern-day-slavery-explainer. Adaptado)
Leia o primeiro parágrafo, em que se responde à pergunta
“What is modern-day slavery?”. De acordo com esse parágrafo, uma das formas que a escravidão moderna assume é
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682921
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682920
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
It is an explicit opinion by the author of the text:
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682918
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The subtitle that most closely represents the content of the
fifth and sixth paragraphs is:
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682917
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
No trecho do quarto parágrafo “whereas those more
predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in
isolation”, o termo sublinhado introduz
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682916
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
In the fragment from the fourth paragraph “Those of us
more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to
a broader matrix of factors”, the underlined term refers most
specifically to
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682915
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The expression “Before you know it” (3rd paragraph) can be
correctly interpreted as
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682913
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
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.____________________
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.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
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.
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.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
Os trechos “when your colleague pronounces that wearing a
face mask in public is a threat to his liberty” e “when you see
that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives
matter”, no terceiro parágrafo,
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682897
Inglês
Examine o cartum de Caitlin Cass, publicado no Instagram da
revista The New Yorker em 10.03.2019.
“You said you’d be home at half a candle.”
Depreende-se do cartum que a moça
“You said you’d be home at half a candle.” Depreende-se do cartum que a moça
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 1º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1680915
Inglês
Texto associado
Text
Volunteering is fun!
Disponível em: https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/magazine/life-around-world/volunteering-fun. Texto
adaptado. Acesso em: ago. 2020.
Nesta análise linguística do texto, apenas uma afirmativa está INCORRETA. Assinale-a!
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 1º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1680913
Inglês
Texto associado
Text
Volunteering is fun!
Disponível em: https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/magazine/life-around-world/volunteering-fun. Texto
adaptado. Acesso em: ago. 2020.
Considerando o ponto de vista da autora do texto, assinale a alternativa CORRETA.
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 1º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1680911
Inglês
Texto associado
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.
In the 3rd paragraph, the pronoun it appears twice: The possibilities and potential it offers
…..… / …..… and it could extend into the world of education too.
The pronoun it is referring respectively to
The pronoun it is referring respectively to
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 3º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1679745
Inglês
Considerando o texto 2, qual parágrafo apresenta relação com a ideia ilustrada na charge (texto 3)
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 3º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1679743
Inglês
Observe as falas do texto e a análise atribuída a cada uma delas; em seguida, assinale a
alternativa que está INCORRETA.
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 3º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1679740
Inglês
In the 5
th paragraph, the word ―our‖ is used four times as a
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 3º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1679737
Inglês
According to the text,
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UPENET/IAUPE
Órgão:
UPE
Prova:
UPENET/IAUPE - 2021 - UPE - Vestibular - 3º Fase - 1º Dia |
Q1679736
Inglês
In the 1
st paragraph, the word ―meeting‖ is used four times as
Ano: 2021
Banca:
CEV-URCA
Órgão:
URCA
Prova:
CEV-URCA - 2021 - URCA - Prova II - História / Geografia / Português / Inglês |
Q1676061
Inglês
Texto associado
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
As críticas que o líder indígena
Tuxá fez estão relacionadas ao fato de o governo
federal:
Conheça nossos planos