Read the text below to answer the question.

How octopuses ‘taste’ things by touching

   Octopus arms have minds of their own. Each of these eight supple yet powerful limbs can explore the seafloor in search of prey, snatching crabs from hiding spots without direction from the octopus’ brain. But how each arm can tell what it’s grasping has remained a mystery.

   Now, researchers have identified specialized cells not seen in other animals that allow octopuses to “taste” with their arms. Embedded in the suckers, these cells enable the arms to do double duty of touch and taste by detecting chemicals produced by many aquatic creatures. This may help an arm quickly distinguish food from rocks or poisonous prey, Harvard University molecular biologist Nicholas Bellono and his colleagues report online October 29 in Cell.

   The findings provide another clue about the unique evolutionary path octopuses have taken toward intelligence. Instead of being concentrated in the brain, two-thirds of the nerve cells in an octopus are distributed among the arms, allowing the flexible appendages to operate semiindependently.

(Adapted from: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/octopus-taste-touch-arm-suckers). 

Text 1:

How being bilingual can boost your career

Whether you’re fresh out of college or a seasoned executive, insiders agree that fluency in a second language can not only help you stand out among prospective employers, it can also open doors to opportunities that those without foreign language skills might miss. 

In today’s global economy, the ability to communicate in another language has become a significant advantage in the workforce. Research has found that people who speak at least one foreign language have an average annual household income that’s $10,000 higher than the household income of those who only speak English. And about 17 percent of those who speak at least one foreign language earn more than $100,000 a year. 

A recent survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 headhunters in Europe, Latin America, and Asia say that being at least bilingual is critical for success in today’s business environment. And 66 percent of North American recruiters agreed that being bilingual will be increasingly important in the next 10 years. 

“In today’s global economy you really have to understand the way business is done overseas to maximize your potential. A second language equips you for that,” says Alister Wellesley, managing partner of a Connecticut-based recruiting firm. “If you’re doing business overseas, or with someone from overseas, you obtain a certain degree of respect if you’re able to talk in their native language.” 

Language skills can also be key for service industries. At the Willard InterContinental Washington, a luxury hotel a few blocks from the White House, a staff of about 570 represents 42 nations, speaking 19 languages. The Willard’s front-of-house employees such as the concierge speak at least two languages. Bilingualism is not an absolute requirement, but it is desirable, according to Wendi Colby, director of human resources. 

Workers with skills in a second language may have an edge when it comes to climbing Willard’s professional ladder. “The individual that spoke more languages would have a better chance for a managerial role, whatever the next level would be,” Colby says. “They are able to deal with a wide array of clients, employees.” 

So which languages can give you a leg up on the job market? Insiders agree the most popular – and marketable – languages are Spanish, German, French, Italian, Russian and Japanese, with a growing emphasis on Mandarin, given China’s booming economy. So let’s learn Mandarin!

“We see demand from a full range of industries,” says Wellesley. “Actually it depends on which company you’re working for and the country in which they’re located.” 

Adapted from: LATHAM-KOENIG, Christina & OXENDEN, Clive. American English File 5. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP, 2018. 

TEXT 1

School for sexism

By Deborah Cameron (Oxford University)

      This week, it was announced that schools in England are being issued with new guidelines on combatting sexism and gender stereotyping. This initiative follows research conducted for the Institute of Physics (IoP), which found that most schools took sexism less seriously than other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. […]

      The IoP’s main concern—one it shares with the government, which co-funded the research—is that girls are being deterred from studying science subjects by the sexist attitudes they encounter in school. Language is only one of the issues the report urges schools to tackle. […] But language was the main theme picked up in media reporting on the new guidelines, with many news outlets dramatically proclaiming that children ‘as young as five’ were going to be ‘banned’ from using certain words.

      […] I think we can guess why these newspapers were so keen on the language angle. They’ve known since the heyday of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that nothing stirs up the wrath of Middle England like a story about someone trying to ban words. Never mind that no sane parent permits total free expression for the under-fives […].

      This reporting only underlined the point that sexism isn’t taken as seriously as other forms of prejudice. […] Rather than being outraged by the idea of telling primary school children to watch their words, shouldn’t we be asking why ‘children as young as five’ are using sexist language in the first place?

      We may not want to think that this is happening among children still at primary school, but unfortunately the evidence says it is. […] Girl Guiding UK publishes an annual survey of girls’ attitudes: the 2015 survey, conducted with a sample of nearly 1600 girls and young women aged between 7 and 21, found that in the week before they were questioned, over 80% of respondents had experienced or witnessed some form of sexism, much of which was perpetrated by boys of their own age, and some of which undoubtedly occurred in school. 39% of respondents had been subjected to demeaning comments on their appearance, and 58% had heard comments or jokes belittling women and girls. […]

      By the time they go to secondary school, girls are conscious of this everyday sexism as a factor which restricts their freedom, affecting where they feel they can go, what they feel able to wear and how much they are willing to talk in front of boys. In the Girl Guiding UK survey, a quarter of respondents aged 11-16 reported that they avoided speaking in lessons because of their fear of attracting sexist comments.

      So, the Institute of Physics isn’t just being perverse when it identifies sexist ‘banter’ as a problem that affects girls’ education. It’s to the organization’s credit that it’s saying this shouldn’t be tolerated—and it’s also to its credit that it’s offering practical advice. Its recommendations are sensible, and its report contains many good ideas for teachers to consider. […]

      When the Sunday Times talks about ‘boys and girls cheerfully baiting each other in the playground’, the implication is that we’re dealing with something reciprocal, a ‘battle of the sexes’ in which the two sides are evenly matched. But they’re not evenly matched. What can a girl say to a boy that will make him feel like a commodity, a piece of meat? What popular catchphrase can she fling at him that has the same dismissive force as ‘make me a sandwich’? […]

      The IoP report does not seem to grasp that there is more to sexism than gender stereotyping. It falls back on the liberal argument that stereotyping harms both sexes equally: it’s as bad for the boy who wants to be a ballet dancer as it is for the girl who dreams of becoming an astrophysicist. But sexism doesn’t harm boys and girls equally, just as racism doesn’t harm white people and people of colour equally. It is the ideology of a system based on structural sexual inequality: male dominance and female subordination. You can’t address the problem of gender stereotyping effectively if you don’t acknowledge the larger power structure it is part of.

                               Disponível em: https://debuk.wordpress.com. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019. 

Cow Threat

Cows are walking machines. They transform materials (grass, hay, water, and feed) into finished products (milk, beef, leather, and so on).

As any factory, cows produce waste. Solid waste is eliminated through the rear end of these ‘complex machines’, and it is used as fertilizer.

The fermentation process in their four stomachs produces gas. These walking machines have two chimneys: one in the front end, and other in the rear end. Gaseous emissions through the front end chimney are called burps. Cows burp a lot. Every minute and half these burps release methane gas. Methane is dangerous to the planet because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

The world population is growing very fast. That means there are more people eating beef. Consequently, there is more cattle – more walking machines – producing more methane gas.

This is the problem, but very few people want to change their eating habits. What about you?