Questões de Inglês - Pronome possessivo adjetivo | Possessive adjective para Concurso

Texto 04

Gottman, John. The Relationship Cure. New York: Three Rivers Press.

                                    Strengthening Relationships at Work

There is a number of things managers can do to strengthen relationships with workers. Strengthening connections with workers can lead to a win-win situation, in that workers may feel respected and valued, and can become much more engaged and productive in their work. And, managers may find that it is much easier to deal with a worker’s negative emotions or psychological health struggles when the foundation of their relationship with the worker is strong.

We can effectively build connections with workers by verbally or nonverbally seeking contact with them (i.e., making what psychologist Dr. John Gottman calls “connection bids”). A connection bid is an attempt to create connections between two people, and is essential for building, maintaining and improving relationships. A connection bid can be anything that we do to seek contact with another person:

- Asking for information: e.g., asking a worker how to solve a work problem. “Would you mind helping me with interpreting this spreadsheet? I’m struggling to get my head around the numbers.”

- Showing interest: e.g., asking workers about their hobbies or recent holidays. “Have you been doing any hiking lately?”

- Expressing affirmation and approval: e.g., complimenting a worker on his latest accomplishment. “Your presentation yesterday was excellent!”

- Expressing caring or support: e.g., demonstrating concern about a worker’s health condition. “Your cough sounds awful. You should think about going home to recover.”

- Offering assistance: e.g., offering support to a worker who is overloaded with tasks. “Would you like me to ask Jocelyn to help you with that project?”

- Making a humorous comment: e.g., lighthearted joking with a worker about a mistake you made. “Sometimes the hurrier I go, the behinder I get!”

- Sending non-verbal signals: e.g., a smile, a wink, a wave, a pat on the back or a thumbs up.

[…]

The way we respond to workers has a sizable impact on the nature of the relationships that result. If we repeatedly turn against or turn away from workers, they may eventually stop reaching out. On the contrary, if we turn toward a person as often as we can, the relationship can be strengthened and become more positive and supportive.

                       (Disponível em: www.workplacestrategiesformentalhealth.com/mmhm)

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

The Research Assignment

  Students today have access to so much information that they need to weigh the reliability of sources. Any resource – print, human, or electronic – used to support your research inquiry has to be evaluated for its credibility and reliability. In other words, you have to exercise some quality control over what you use. When you use the print and multimedia materials found in your college library, your evaluation task is not so complicated because librarians have already established the credibility and appropriateness of those materials for academic research. The marketplace forces publishers to be discriminating as well.

  Data collected in interviews of persons whose reliability is not always clearly established should be carefully screened, especially if you present this material as expert opinion or as based on knowledge of your topic. And you may have even more difficulty establishing trustworthiness for electronic sources, especially Web and Internet sources.

  Because the Internet and World Wide Web are easy to use and accessible, Web material is volatile – it changes, becomes outdated, or is deleted. Its lack of consistency and sometimes crude form make Web information suspect for people who use it for research. Because there is frequently no quality control over Web information, you must critically evaluate all the material you find there, text and graphics alike.

(http://www.umuc.edu/writingcenter/onlineguide/ chapter4-07.cfm-27.10.2013. Adaptado)

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016 

    The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

    That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

    A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

    Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever

    As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

    The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

    While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

    That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

    Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

    Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

    Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)