Questões de Vestibular Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 5.992 questões
Responda a questão de acordo com o texto de Lauren Camera.
Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities
By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.
In a unanimous decision with major implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.
“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”
There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.
The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.
While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.
Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.
“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
*reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.
In:<https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities>
Responda a questão de acordo com o texto de Lauren Camera.
Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities
By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.
In a unanimous decision with major implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.
“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”
There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.
The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.
While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.
Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.
“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
*reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.
In:<https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities>
Responda a questão de acordo com o texto de Lauren Camera.
Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities
By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.
In a unanimous decision with major implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.
“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”
There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.
The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.
While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.
Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.
“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
*reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.
In:<https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities>
Responda a questão de acordo com o texto de Lauren Camera.
Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities
By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.
In a unanimous decision with major implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.
“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”
There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.
The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.
While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.
Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.
“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
*reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.
In:<https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities>
Responda a questão de acordo com o texto de Lauren Camera.
Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities
By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.
In a unanimous decision with major implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.
“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”
There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.
The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.
While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.
Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.
“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
*reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.
In:<https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities>
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 2.
TEXT 2
The smell of rain on dry ground
QUINION, Michael. www.worldwidewords.org
(fragment)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 2.
TEXT 2
The smell of rain on dry ground
QUINION, Michael. www.worldwidewords.org
(fragment)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 2.
TEXT 2
The smell of rain on dry ground
QUINION, Michael. www.worldwidewords.org
(fragment)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 2.
TEXT 2
The smell of rain on dry ground
QUINION, Michael. www.worldwidewords.org
(fragment)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
I. Doctors encourage their patients to learn about them on sites.
II. Social networking sites are creating new challenges for those who work in clinical settings.
III. The use of paging beepers is recommended for doctors to become visible.
The only statement(s) which has/have support from the text is/are
INSTRUCTION: Answer question with information from text 1.
TEXT 1
(Source: The New England Journal of Medicine,
Number 7, August 13, 2009)
I. In 1946, a group of national governments formed the IWC in order to collaborate with the killing and hunting of whales for commercial purposes. II. The original regulations of IWC were not really helpful. III. The IWC does not make any exception for whaling. IV. The IWC requested a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. V. Japan and Norway completely agreed with the policy proposed by IWC.
Mark the correct option.
The phrase “long in the tooth” comes from the practice of gauging a horse’s age by the length of its teeth. Nineteenth century horse-traders were not a particularly trustworthy bunch, so a wise buyer would often check inside the animal’s mouth. If the teeth looked long it meant its gums had already receded, suggesting the potential purchase might be older than claimed. This might have served people well when it came to buying horses, but what about humans? Gingival recession, as it’s formally known, is more common amongst the elderly. A US study of almost 10,000 people found that 38% of people aged 30-39 had some degree of the condition, compared with 71% in the 50-59 age group, and 90% for those aged between 80-90. However that doesn’t mean ageing in itself is the cause. It’s a long process that can start in your teens, and one that can be triggered by various factors. In some cases, there is nothing people can do to reduce their chances of developing the condition. Some people inherit thin and fragile gums which recede more easily. Others have teeth which are overcrowded or stick out, meaning that there’s not enough jawbone to cover the root of the tooth. Dental hygiene also plays a big role. Plaque, consisting of a sticky film of bacteria, is constantly forming on our teeth. Failure to clear the build ups through brushing and flossing can lead to gum disease. If left untreated, one possible complication is the destruction of the bone around the teeth and the gum tissue in which they sit. As the tissue recedes, the root of the tooth is exposed, making it appear longer. Then there’s the way you brush your teeth. If you use a sawing action with a hard brush, there’s a danger of gradually wearing away the gum. For this reason dentists tend to advise brushing in small circles with a soft brush or using an electric toothbrush to prevent you from pressing so hard. The damage accumulates over time, causing the gums to recede imperceptibly, until one day you look in the mirror and realise you’ve changed. As this transformation can take decades, many people assume it’s a natural part of the ageing process. Research on receding gums often relies on asking people what kind of toothbrush they use, the brushing motions they use and how hard they brush. Some argue that due to a lack of controlled studies, there’s no definitive evidence that hard brushing does anything more than cause temporary abrasions, but many dentists do consider there to be a link. The condition is also more common in smokers. With so many different factors involved, controlled studies are difficult to do. Many are cross-sectional, meaning they take a snapshot in time. So if you’re looking to buy a horse it might be worth their checking their teeth, but ageing is not a direct cause of receding gums. It’s simply that the damage accumulates and becomes more obvious over time. Source: http://www.bbc.com (Adapted) According to the text, it is INCORRECT to say
The phrase “long in the tooth” comes from the practice of gauging a horse’s age by the length of its teeth. Nineteenth century horse-traders were not a particularly trustworthy bunch, so a wise buyer would often check inside the animal’s mouth. If the teeth looked long it meant its gums had already receded, suggesting the potential purchase might be older than claimed. This might have served people well when it came to buying horses, but what about humans? Gingival recession, as it’s formally known, is more common amongst the elderly. A US study of almost 10,000 people found that 38% of people aged 30-39 had some degree of the condition, compared with 71% in the 50-59 age group, and 90% for those aged between 80-90. However that doesn’t mean ageing in itself is the cause. It’s a long process that can start in your teens, and one that can be triggered by various factors. In some cases, there is nothing people can do to reduce their chances of developing the condition. Some people inherit thin and fragile gums which recede more easily. Others have teeth which are overcrowded or stick out, meaning that there’s not enough jawbone to cover the root of the tooth. Dental hygiene also plays a big role. Plaque, consisting of a sticky film of bacteria, is constantly forming on our teeth. Failure to clear the build ups through brushing and flossing can lead to gum disease. If left untreated, one possible complication is the destruction of the bone around the teeth and the gum tissue in which they sit. As the tissue recedes, the root of the tooth is exposed, making it appear longer. Then there’s the way you brush your teeth. If you use a sawing action with a hard brush, there’s a danger of gradually wearing away the gum. For this reason dentists tend to advise brushing in small circles with a soft brush or using an electric toothbrush to prevent you from pressing so hard. The damage accumulates over time, causing the gums to recede imperceptibly, until one day you look in the mirror and realise you’ve changed. As this transformation can take decades, many people assume it’s a natural part of the ageing process. Research on receding gums often relies on asking people what kind of toothbrush they use, the brushing motions they use and how hard they brush. Some argue that due to a lack of controlled studies, there’s no definitive evidence that hard brushing does anything more than cause temporary abrasions, but many dentists do consider there to be a link. The condition is also more common in smokers. With so many different factors involved, controlled studies are difficult to do. Many are cross-sectional, meaning they take a snapshot in time. So if you’re looking to buy a horse it might be worth their checking their teeth, but ageing is not a direct cause of receding gums. It’s simply that the damage accumulates and becomes more obvious over time. Source: http://www.bbc.com (Adapted)
According to the text, judge the items below as true (T) or false (F).
I. Nineteenth century horse-traders were reliable people. II. A buyer who would check the horse's gums before buying it, was not considered a clever person. III. Although it is more observed amongst the elderly, gingival recession can begin during youth. IV. The phrase “long in the tooth” is related to the practice of determining a horse's age, and therefore its value, by examining its teeth. V. People can always prevent the development of gingival recession, once it is never possible for them to inherited sensitive gums.
Mark the correct option:
Source: www.glasbergen.com
Conheça nossos planos