Questões de Vestibular
Foram encontradas 68.627 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030413
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
The words “recycling” (line 3), “littering” (line
40), and “being” (line 55) are respectively used as
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030412
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
In “Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who was not
involved in the study, said it could offer a more
accurate accounting of plastic pollution...” (lines 78-
81), there is an example of
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030411
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
The sentence “The United States, which
does not have sufficient infrastructure to handle
its recycling demands at home, exports about half
of its recyclable waste.” (lines 19-22) contains
a/an
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030410
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
The sentence “The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed between 1.1
and 2.2 million metric tons of plastic waste to the
oceans…” (lines 36-39) contains a/an
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030409
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
Considering the information provided in the
text, it is clear that of the total plastic waste in the
United States
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030408
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
A high percentage of the USA's exported
recyclable waste goes to countries that
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030407
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
The article mentions that half of the American
recyclable waste is
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030406
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
One of the factors that contributes to the huge
amount of plastic waste is the fact that
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030405
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
According to the text, the United States
Ano: 2020
Banca:
UECE-CEV
Órgão:
UECE
Prova:
UECE-CEV - 2020 - UECE - Vestibular - Conhecimentos Específicos - Primeiro Dia - Prova 1 - Inglês |
Q2030404
Inglês
Texto associado
Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to
the Oceans Than Thought
The United States is using more
plastic than ever, and waste exported for
recycling is often mishandled, according
to a new study.
The United States contribution
to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
significantly larger than previously
thought, possibly by as much as five
times, according to a study published
Friday. The research, published in Science
Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
by the same authors. Two factors
contributed to the sharp increase:
Americans are using more plastic than
ever and the current study included
pollution generated by United States
exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
one did not.
The United States, which does
not have sufficient infrastructure to
handle its recycling demands at home,
exports about half of its recyclable waste.
Of the total exported, about 88 percent
ends up in countries considered to have
inadequate waste management.
“When you consider how much
of our plastic waste isn’t actually
recyclable because it is low-value,
contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
not surprising that a lot of it ends up
polluting the environment,” said the
study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
research professor of oceanography at
Sea Education Association, in a
statement.
The study estimates that in
2016, the United States contributed
between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
plastic waste to the oceans through a
combination of littering, dumping and
mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
that’s almost double the total estimated
waste in the team’s previous study. At the
high end, it would be a fivefold increase
over the earlier estimate.
Nicholas Mallos, a senior
director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
author of the study, said the upper
estimate would be equal to a pile of
plastic covering the area of the White
House Lawn and reaching as high as the
Empire State Building.
The ranges are wide partly
because “there’s no real standard for
being able to provide good quality data on
collection and disposal of waste in
general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
economist at DSM Environmental
Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
practices in countries around the world
and used their “best professional
judgment” to determine the lowest and
highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
escape into the environment. They settled
on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
Tony Walker, an associate
professor at the Dalhousie University
School for Resource and Environmental
Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
analyzing waste data can amount to a
“data minefield” because there are no
data standards across municipalities.
Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
overseas, he said, data is often not
recorded at all.
Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
was not involved in the study, said it
could offer a more accurate accounting of
plastic pollution than the previous study,
which likely underestimated the United
States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
best estimate, as accurate as they can be
with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
which underscores that the figures are
estimates.
Of the plastics that go into the
United States recycling system, about 9
percent of the country’s total plastic
waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
be remade into new consumer goods. New
plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
that only certain expensive, high-grade
plastics are profitable to recycle within the
United States, which is why roughly half
of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
which data is available.
Since 2016, however, the
recycling landscape has changed. China
and many countries in Southeast Asia
have stopped accepting plastic waste
imports. And lower oil prices have further
reduced the market for recycled plastic.
“What the new study really underscores is
we have to get a handle on source
reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
starts with eliminating unnecessary and
problematic single-use plastics.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
As to the use of plastic by Americans, the text
mentions that it
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021275
Português
Texto associado
O uso de novas marcas de gênero na língua portuguesa
como decorrência de um ativismo social aplicado à linguagem
nos convida a uma análise. Há registro de diversos movimentos
relacionados à busca de usos alternativos aos aceitos
oficialmente. Até recentemente, esses movimentos tinham como
foco principal a adoção de usos que conferissem à língua do
Brasil uma identidade própria. O ativismo atual preocupa-se
menos com estrangeirismos e mais com aspectos ligados às
questões de gênero.
Examinemos os usos de “@”, “x”, “e” como desinências
para identificar conjuntos de pessoas de diferentes gêneros, em
substituição ao plural masculino, previsto nas normas
gramaticais. Segundo essas normas, basta que haja um elemento
masculino para que o plural seja masculino. Ao nos referirmos a
um coletivo em que haja pelo menos uma pessoa do gênero
masculino, escrevemos: Nossas saudações a todos. Nos usos do
ativismo, temos: Nossas saudações a “tod@s”, “todxs”, “todes”
e, mais recentemente, “tods”. Do ponto de vista da
funcionalidade da língua, os dois primeiros, assim como o
último, não se mostram viáveis no caso de sua produção oral, fato
que nos leva a supor que seu uso, enquanto perdurar, continuará
restrito ao contexto da escrita. O terceiro (“e”) não apresenta essa
limitação. Para uso amplo, tanto na fala quanto na escrita, parecenos, então, que só ele tenha alguma perspectiva de incorporação à
língua portuguesa.
Marcelo Correia e Castro. TODAS, TODES, TODOS, TODS, TODXS,
TOD@S: ativismo social, gênero e usos da língua. In: Revista Ciência
Hoje, julho 2021. Internet:<www.cienciahoje.org.br> (com adaptações).
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos gramaticais do texto anterior, julgue o item.
No quinto período do segundo parágrafo, o pronome “seu” se refere a
“tod@s”, “todxs” e “tods”, apenas.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021274
Português
Texto associado
O uso de novas marcas de gênero na língua portuguesa
como decorrência de um ativismo social aplicado à linguagem
nos convida a uma análise. Há registro de diversos movimentos
relacionados à busca de usos alternativos aos aceitos
oficialmente. Até recentemente, esses movimentos tinham como
foco principal a adoção de usos que conferissem à língua do
Brasil uma identidade própria. O ativismo atual preocupa-se
menos com estrangeirismos e mais com aspectos ligados às
questões de gênero.
Examinemos os usos de “@”, “x”, “e” como desinências
para identificar conjuntos de pessoas de diferentes gêneros, em
substituição ao plural masculino, previsto nas normas
gramaticais. Segundo essas normas, basta que haja um elemento
masculino para que o plural seja masculino. Ao nos referirmos a
um coletivo em que haja pelo menos uma pessoa do gênero
masculino, escrevemos: Nossas saudações a todos. Nos usos do
ativismo, temos: Nossas saudações a “tod@s”, “todxs”, “todes”
e, mais recentemente, “tods”. Do ponto de vista da
funcionalidade da língua, os dois primeiros, assim como o
último, não se mostram viáveis no caso de sua produção oral, fato
que nos leva a supor que seu uso, enquanto perdurar, continuará
restrito ao contexto da escrita. O terceiro (“e”) não apresenta essa
limitação. Para uso amplo, tanto na fala quanto na escrita, parecenos, então, que só ele tenha alguma perspectiva de incorporação à
língua portuguesa.
Marcelo Correia e Castro. TODAS, TODES, TODOS, TODS, TODXS,
TOD@S: ativismo social, gênero e usos da língua. In: Revista Ciência
Hoje, julho 2021. Internet:<www.cienciahoje.org.br> (com adaptações).
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos gramaticais do texto anterior, julgue o item.
A correção gramatical seria mantida caso o período “O
ativismo atual preocupa-se menos com estrangeirismos e
mais com aspectos ligados às questões de gênero” (primeiro
parágrafo) fosse reescrito como: O ativismo que se vê
atualmente está menos preocupado com estrangeirismos e
mais preocupado com aspectos ligados a questões de gênero.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021273
Português
Texto associado
O uso de novas marcas de gênero na língua portuguesa
como decorrência de um ativismo social aplicado à linguagem
nos convida a uma análise. Há registro de diversos movimentos
relacionados à busca de usos alternativos aos aceitos
oficialmente. Até recentemente, esses movimentos tinham como
foco principal a adoção de usos que conferissem à língua do
Brasil uma identidade própria. O ativismo atual preocupa-se
menos com estrangeirismos e mais com aspectos ligados às
questões de gênero.
Examinemos os usos de “@”, “x”, “e” como desinências
para identificar conjuntos de pessoas de diferentes gêneros, em
substituição ao plural masculino, previsto nas normas
gramaticais. Segundo essas normas, basta que haja um elemento
masculino para que o plural seja masculino. Ao nos referirmos a
um coletivo em que haja pelo menos uma pessoa do gênero
masculino, escrevemos: Nossas saudações a todos. Nos usos do
ativismo, temos: Nossas saudações a “tod@s”, “todxs”, “todes”
e, mais recentemente, “tods”. Do ponto de vista da
funcionalidade da língua, os dois primeiros, assim como o
último, não se mostram viáveis no caso de sua produção oral, fato
que nos leva a supor que seu uso, enquanto perdurar, continuará
restrito ao contexto da escrita. O terceiro (“e”) não apresenta essa
limitação. Para uso amplo, tanto na fala quanto na escrita, parecenos, então, que só ele tenha alguma perspectiva de incorporação à
língua portuguesa.
Marcelo Correia e Castro. TODAS, TODES, TODOS, TODS, TODXS,
TOD@S: ativismo social, gênero e usos da língua. In: Revista Ciência
Hoje, julho 2021. Internet:<www.cienciahoje.org.br> (com adaptações).
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos gramaticais do texto anterior, julgue o item.
A oração “que haja um elemento masculino” (segundo
período do segundo parágrafo) funciona como o
complemento direto da forma verbal “basta”.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021272
Português
Texto associado
O uso de novas marcas de gênero na língua portuguesa
como decorrência de um ativismo social aplicado à linguagem
nos convida a uma análise. Há registro de diversos movimentos
relacionados à busca de usos alternativos aos aceitos
oficialmente. Até recentemente, esses movimentos tinham como
foco principal a adoção de usos que conferissem à língua do
Brasil uma identidade própria. O ativismo atual preocupa-se
menos com estrangeirismos e mais com aspectos ligados às
questões de gênero.
Examinemos os usos de “@”, “x”, “e” como desinências
para identificar conjuntos de pessoas de diferentes gêneros, em
substituição ao plural masculino, previsto nas normas
gramaticais. Segundo essas normas, basta que haja um elemento
masculino para que o plural seja masculino. Ao nos referirmos a
um coletivo em que haja pelo menos uma pessoa do gênero
masculino, escrevemos: Nossas saudações a todos. Nos usos do
ativismo, temos: Nossas saudações a “tod@s”, “todxs”, “todes”
e, mais recentemente, “tods”. Do ponto de vista da
funcionalidade da língua, os dois primeiros, assim como o
último, não se mostram viáveis no caso de sua produção oral, fato
que nos leva a supor que seu uso, enquanto perdurar, continuará
restrito ao contexto da escrita. O terceiro (“e”) não apresenta essa
limitação. Para uso amplo, tanto na fala quanto na escrita, parecenos, então, que só ele tenha alguma perspectiva de incorporação à
língua portuguesa.
Marcelo Correia e Castro. TODAS, TODES, TODOS, TODS, TODXS,
TOD@S: ativismo social, gênero e usos da língua. In: Revista Ciência
Hoje, julho 2021. Internet:<www.cienciahoje.org.br> (com adaptações).
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos gramaticais do texto anterior, julgue o item.
Em “nos convida” (primeiro período do texto) e
“parece-nos” (último período do texto), o pronome “nos”
poderia aparecer indiferentemente em próclise ou ênclise,
sem prejuízo da correção gramatical do texto.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021271
Português
Texto associado
O uso de novas marcas de gênero na língua portuguesa
como decorrência de um ativismo social aplicado à linguagem
nos convida a uma análise. Há registro de diversos movimentos
relacionados à busca de usos alternativos aos aceitos
oficialmente. Até recentemente, esses movimentos tinham como
foco principal a adoção de usos que conferissem à língua do
Brasil uma identidade própria. O ativismo atual preocupa-se
menos com estrangeirismos e mais com aspectos ligados às
questões de gênero.
Examinemos os usos de “@”, “x”, “e” como desinências
para identificar conjuntos de pessoas de diferentes gêneros, em
substituição ao plural masculino, previsto nas normas
gramaticais. Segundo essas normas, basta que haja um elemento
masculino para que o plural seja masculino. Ao nos referirmos a
um coletivo em que haja pelo menos uma pessoa do gênero
masculino, escrevemos: Nossas saudações a todos. Nos usos do
ativismo, temos: Nossas saudações a “tod@s”, “todxs”, “todes”
e, mais recentemente, “tods”. Do ponto de vista da
funcionalidade da língua, os dois primeiros, assim como o
último, não se mostram viáveis no caso de sua produção oral, fato
que nos leva a supor que seu uso, enquanto perdurar, continuará
restrito ao contexto da escrita. O terceiro (“e”) não apresenta essa
limitação. Para uso amplo, tanto na fala quanto na escrita, parecenos, então, que só ele tenha alguma perspectiva de incorporação à
língua portuguesa.
Marcelo Correia e Castro. TODAS, TODES, TODOS, TODS, TODXS,
TOD@S: ativismo social, gênero e usos da língua. In: Revista Ciência
Hoje, julho 2021. Internet:<www.cienciahoje.org.br> (com adaptações).
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos gramaticais do texto anterior, julgue o item.
O autor do texto mostra-se contrário à incorporação das
formas “tod@s”, “todxs” e “tods” como marcas de gênero na
língua portuguesa, por serem formas restritas à língua
escrita.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021270
Português
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos linguísticos da charge precedente, julgue o item seguinte.
Comparando-se os quadrinhos “Quem acha” e “Quem se
informa”, no primeiro, verificam-se características de um
nível de linguagem mais coloquial, ao passo que, no
segundo, identificam-se termos técnicos característicos de
uma área do conhecimento.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021269
Português
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos linguísticos da charge precedente, julgue o item seguinte.
O texto ilustra como um mesmo objeto do mundo pode ser
percebido de maneiras diferentes a partir dos conhecimentos
das pessoas e de seu nível socioeconômico.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021268
Português
Com relação às ideias e aos aspectos linguísticos da charge precedente, julgue o item seguinte.
Para o entendimento pleno do texto, é necessária a
articulação dos elementos verbais com os elementos não
verbais apresentados.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021267
Português
Texto associado
Não se deveria dizer “consumir cultura”. Em vez de
“consumir música” ou “consumir teatro”, deveríamos voltar a
dizer “ouvir música”, “assistir ao teatro”, e assim por diante.
Na Roma antiga, “consumir” tinha o sentido exclusivo de
gastar e destruir. Com o tempo, passou-se a empregar o termo
referindo-se ao consumo de alimentos, o que não deixa de ser
uma destruição: destruímos os alimentos ao comê-los, para nos
mantermos vivos e saudáveis. Já que, para comê-los, é preciso
primeiro comprá-los, consumir tornou-se sinônimo de comprar,
adquirir. E, na sociedade em que vivemos, em que tudo, inclusive
a cultura, virou produto, não é estranho pensar em consumir
música, teatro, dança, livros etc.
Em tempos em que o consumismo domina as relações
sociais e em que há uma forte reação contra ele por parte de
setores mais esclarecidos da sociedade, falar em consumir cultura
pode soar mercantilista. Quem consome não frui, e a cultura
deveria ser, antes de tudo, fruição.
Aldo Bizzocchi. Cultura é artigo de consumo?
Internet:<www.diariodeumlinguista.com> (com adaptações).
No que se refere aos sentidos e aos aspectos linguísticos do texto precedente, julgue o item.
Em relação à tipologia textual, o segundo parágrafo do texto é predominantemente
informativo.
Ano: 2022
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
UNB
Prova:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - 1º Dia |
Q2021266
Português
Texto associado
Não se deveria dizer “consumir cultura”. Em vez de
“consumir música” ou “consumir teatro”, deveríamos voltar a
dizer “ouvir música”, “assistir ao teatro”, e assim por diante.
Na Roma antiga, “consumir” tinha o sentido exclusivo de
gastar e destruir. Com o tempo, passou-se a empregar o termo
referindo-se ao consumo de alimentos, o que não deixa de ser
uma destruição: destruímos os alimentos ao comê-los, para nos
mantermos vivos e saudáveis. Já que, para comê-los, é preciso
primeiro comprá-los, consumir tornou-se sinônimo de comprar,
adquirir. E, na sociedade em que vivemos, em que tudo, inclusive
a cultura, virou produto, não é estranho pensar em consumir
música, teatro, dança, livros etc.
Em tempos em que o consumismo domina as relações
sociais e em que há uma forte reação contra ele por parte de
setores mais esclarecidos da sociedade, falar em consumir cultura
pode soar mercantilista. Quem consome não frui, e a cultura
deveria ser, antes de tudo, fruição.
Aldo Bizzocchi. Cultura é artigo de consumo?
Internet:<www.diariodeumlinguista.com> (com adaptações).
No que se refere aos sentidos e aos aspectos linguísticos do texto precedente, julgue o item.
No primeiro período do último parágrafo, a substituição da
expressão “em que”, em ambas as ocorrências, por no qual
prejudicaria o sentido e a correção gramatical do texto.
Conheça nossos planos