Questões de Vestibular CESMAC 2018 para Processo Seletivo Tradicional- 2019.1- AGRESTE

Read the text below and answer the following question.

Let's be clear: "Fake news" has always existed. From P.T. Barnum to Ripley's Believe It or Not to supermarket tabloids, selling outrageous ideas has long been a part of our culture. Most kids can tell the difference between the shocking stories they see in the checkout line and the more evenhanded reporting they see on the local TV news.

But today's fake online news sources so closely mimic real news that it's challenging even for adults to discern what's real and what's fake. Also, kids have less experience in and context for evaluating news sources, so certain words or images that might immediately tell an adult that something is fake or biased might not have the same effect on kids.

According to Common Sense Media's report, News and America's Kids: How Young People Perceive and Are Impacted by the News, less than half of kids agree that they know how to tell fake news stories from real ones. When it comes to online news, the stats reveal a serious lack of faith:

Only about one in four kids who gets news online think that news posted online is "very accurate."

Only seven percent think news by people they don't know well is "very accurate."

Tweens are more likely than teens to think that news posted online is "very accurate."

The good news is that kids who get news from social media sites are trying to be careful readers. Most kids who get their news from social media say they pay "a lot" or "some" attention to the source the link on social media takes them to. And the majority who get news online say that when they come across information in a news story that they think is wrong, they "sometimes" or "often" try to figure out whether or not it's true.

Adaptado de: < https://www.commonsensemedia.org/news-andmedia-literacy/do-tweens-and-teens-believe-fake-news> Acessado em 19 de outubro de 2018. 

Read the text below and answer the following question.

The official object that defines the mass of a kilogram is a tiny, 139-year-old cylinder of platinum and iridium that resides in a triple-locked vault near Paris. Because it is so important, scientists almost never take it out; instead they use copies called working standards. But the last time they did inspect the real kilogram, they found it is roughly five parts in 100 million heavier than all the working standards, which have been leaving behind a few atoms of metal every time they are put on scales. This is one of the reasons the kilogram may soon be redefined not by a physical object but through calculations based on fundamental constants.

“This [shrinking] is the kind of thing that happens when you have an object that needs to be conserved in order to have a standard,” says Peter Mohr, a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who serves on the committee that oversees the International System of Units (SI). “Fundamental constants, on the other hand, are not going to change over time.”

The redefinition of the kilogram will be part of a planned larger overhaul to make SI units fully dependent on constants of nature. Representatives from 57 countries will vote on the proposed change this month at a conference in Versailles, France, and the new rules are expected to pass.

What will happen to the old kilogram artifacts after the redefinition? Rather than packing them off to museums, scientists plan to keep studying how they fare over time. “There is so much measurement history on these,” says physicist Stephan Schlamminger of NIST. “It would be irresponsible to not continue to measure them.”

Adaptado de: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/redefining-thekilogram/>  Acessado em 10 de outubro de 2018.