Questões Militares
Para apmbb
Foram encontradas 440 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
[Foi] uma das revoltas que evidenciaram, no período regencial, as crises que marcaram a organização do país independente, mobilizando a província do Rio Grande de São Pedro e alcançando Santa Catarina, entre 1835 e 1845.
(...)
À diferença da repressão da maioria das rebeliões do período regencial, nas quais a participação popular e dos grupos médios urbanos foi expressiva, o governo imperial assumiu, nesse caso, postura que aliou negociação e repressão.
(Ronaldo Vainfas (org). Dicionário do Brasil Imperial, 2002.)
O fragmento apresenta a
O principal motivo da criação da capitania de Mato Grosso, em 1748, foi impedir que os espanhóis tomassem a região e chegassem a Goiás e Minas Gerais. Era a época em que Portugal e Espanha discutiam as cláusulas do Tratado de Madri, finalmente assinado em 1750, que fixou os contornos aproximados da atual fronteira brasileira, substituindo o Tratado de Tordesilhas (1494).
(Masilia Aparecida da Silva Gomes. Comer, beber, governar. In Revista de
História da Biblioteca Nacional, setembro de 2010, n.º 60.)
A expansão territorial da América portuguesa teve relação com
Em 1962 foi oficializada a independência da Argélia, que passou a ser governada por Ahmed Ben Bella.
(...)
Em 15 de agosto de 1947, a Índia foi declarada independente e dividida em dois Estados soberanos: Índia e Paquistão. Destinado aos muçulmanos, este último era formado por dois territórios, separados um do outro por 2 mil quilômetros de distância: o Paquistão Ocidental (atual Paquistão) e o Paquistão Oriental (atual Bangladesh).
(Alceu L. Pazzinato e Maria Helena V. Senise. História moderna e
contemporânea, 2002. Adaptado.)
A Argélia e a Índia foram, respectivamente, colônias
A Revolução Industrial inglesa foi precedida por aproximadamente duzentos anos de desenvolvimento econômico e político em que se elaboraram as condições para a implantação de uma sociedade capitalista contemporânea. Fatores políticos e condições históricas se combinaram, detonando o processo pioneiro de industrialização acelerada na Inglaterra (e não em qualquer outro país mercantilista).
(Carlos Guilherme Mota. História moderna e contemporânea, 1986.)
Podem ser apontadas como condições para o pioneirismo britânico nesse processo
Esse movimento intelectual – que atingiu sua maturidade e maior expressão na França do século XVIII – tinha como fundamentos a crença inabalável na razão e a ideia de que o progresso do homem pode ser infinito, desde que o espírito humano, através do livre exercício de suas faculdades, se liberte do emaranhado de superstições, tolices, misticismo, ignorância, etc, a que até então estivera subordinado.
(Ricardo de Moura Faria et al. História, vol. 1, 1989. Adaptado.)
O fragmento faz referência
Leia o registro de um contemporâneo da peste negra.
Eis que, em outubro do ano de 1347 da Encarnação do Senhor, (...) muitos genoveses, em doze galeras, fugindo à cólera divina que se abatera sobre eles em razão da sua iniquidade, acostaram no porto da cidade de Messina. Os genoveses transportavam consigo (...) uma doença tal que quem quer que tivesse falado com um deles era atingido por essa enfermidade mortal (...). As pessoas odiavam-se umas às outras a ponto de, se um filho fosse atingido pelo mal, o pai se recusar terminantemente a ficar do seu lado; e se ousasse aproximar-se dele, seria de tal modo atingido pelo mal que não haveria modo de escapar à morte (...).
(Michel de Piazza. Historia secula ab anno 1337 ad annum 1361.
Apud Georges Duby. A Europa na Idade Média, 1988.)
A partir do trecho, pode-se afirmar que a peste negra era encarada
como
No tempo de Péricles, a população de Atenas era de, aproximadamente, 400 mil habitantes. Mas os cidadãos com direitos plenos não passavam de 40 mil. (...)
(Luiz Koshiba. História: origens, estruturas e processos, 2000.)
Na época tratada no fragmento, eram considerados cidadãos em Atenas apenas os
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
No trecho do quinto parágrafo – Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. – a palavra they refere-se a
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe
Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010
The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.
Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.
Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.
“Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.
Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.
Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.
(www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)
Instrução: Leia o artigo 11 da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, em inglês, para responder a questão, assinalando a alternativa que completa corretamente as respectivas lacunas.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent —— 71 proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he —— 72 all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission — 73 — did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
(www.un.org. Adaptado.)
Instrução: Leia o artigo 11 da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, em inglês, para responder a questão, assinalando a alternativa que completa corretamente as respectivas lacunas.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent —— 71 proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he —— 72 all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission — 73 — did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
(www.un.org. Adaptado.)
Instrução: Leia o artigo 11 da Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, em inglês, para responder a questão, assinalando a alternativa que completa corretamente as respectivas lacunas.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent —— 71 proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he —— 72 all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission — 73 — did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
(www.un.org. Adaptado.)
Leia os versos de Ricardo Reis, heterônimo de Fernando Pessoa.
Quando, Lídia, vier o nosso Outono
Com o Inverno que há nele, reservemos
Um pensamento, não para a futura
Primavera, que é de outrem,
Nem para o estio, de quem somos mortos,
Senão para o que fica do que passa –
O amarelo atual que as folhas vivem
E as torna diferentes.
Nesses versos, as estações do ano constituem metáforas pelas
quais o eu lírico
Assinale a alternativa em que os termos preenchem corretamente as lacunas do texto:
A Lei da Ficha Limpa é uma prova da evolução do processo democrático no país. As coisas estão andando na direção correta e numa velocidade até razoável.
O movimento contra a corrupção tomou corpo. A Lei da Ficha Limpa teve o apoio de 1,6________ de assinaturas. Ayres Britto, chamado de ingênuo________ quatro anos, ontem comemorava: “Como disse Victor Hugo, ‘não há nada mais poderoso do que a força de uma ideia_________ tempo chegou’ ”.
(Folha de S.Paulo, 12.06.2010. Adaptado.)
Não é possível idear nada mais puro e harmonioso do que o perfil dessa estátua de moça.
Era alta e esbelta. Tinha um desses talhes flexíveis e lançados, que são hastes de lírio para o rosto gentil; porém na mesma delicadeza do porte esculpiam-se os contornos mais graciosos com firme nitidez das linhas e uma deliciosa suavidade nos relevos.
Não era alva, também não era morena. Tinha sua tez a cor das pétalas da magnólia, quando vão desfalecendo ao beijo do sol. Mimosa cor de mulher, se a aveluda a pubescência* juvenil, e a luz coa pelo fino tecido, e um sangue puro a escumilha** de róseo matiz. A dela era assim.
Uma altivez de rainha cingia-lhe a fronte, como diadema cintilando na cabeça de um anjo. Havia em toda a sua pessoa um quer que fosse de sublime e excelso que a abstraía da terra. Contemplando-a naquele instante de enlevo, dir-se-ia que ela se preparava para sua celeste ascensão.
(José de Alencar, Diva.)
* Pubescência: puberdade.
** Escumilha: borda sobre escumilha (tecido).
Conheça nossos planos