Questões de Concurso
Comentadas sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 8.692 questões
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are ‘eclectic’, and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive ‘method’ – as in the Direct Method or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a ‘post-method’ era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that ‘several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching’ (1983). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, ‘studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable’. …
Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the ‘postmethod condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method’. Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of ‘macrostrategies’. Two such macrostrategies are ‘Maximise learning opportunities’ and ‘Promote learner autonomy’. …
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. … This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded that ‘methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.’
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense: ‘The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach ... are now determined by textbooks’.
(by Scott Thornbury – http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ methods-post-method-metodos. Adaptado)
The expression “meet each other halfway” means:
“Aided by the rise of new digital communication technologies, as well as an Internet that allows messages and images to be distributed anonymously, episodes of cyberbullying have become much more common. According to a 2013 review of cyberbullying research, online harassment can take two primary forms: direct cyberbullying in which threatening or insulting messages or images are sent directly to the intended victim and indirect or relational cyberbullying, which involves the spread of rumours and/or demeaning content behind the victim's back. And there are a variety of ways for cyberbullying to happen, including texting, emails, or through posts relayed through social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.”
(What Makes Cyberbullying So Popular? By Romeo Vitelli. Psychology Today. Available in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mediaspotlight/201808/ what-makes-cyberbullying-so-popular.)
“Aided by the rise of new digital communication technologies, as well as an Internet that allows messages and images to be distributed anonymously, episodes of cyberbullying have become much more common. According to a 2013 review of cyberbullying research, online harassment can take two primary forms: direct cyberbullying in which threatening or insulting messages or images are sent directly to the intended victim and indirect or relational cyberbullying, which involves the spread of rumours and/or demeaning content behind the victim's back. And there are a variety of ways for cyberbullying to happen, including texting, emails, or through posts relayed through social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.”
(What Makes Cyberbullying So Popular? By Romeo Vitelli. Psychology Today. Available in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mediaspotlight/201808/ what-makes-cyberbullying-so-popular.)
“Aided by the rise of new digital communication technologies, as well as an Internet that allows messages and images to be distributed anonymously, episodes of cyberbullying have become much more common. According to a 2013 review of cyberbullying research, online harassment can take two primary forms: direct cyberbullying in which threatening or insulting messages or images are sent directly to the intended victim and indirect or relational cyberbullying, which involves the spread of rumours and/or demeaning content behind the victim's back. And there are a variety of ways for cyberbullying to happen, including texting, emails, or through posts relayed through social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.”
(What Makes Cyberbullying So Popular? By Romeo Vitelli. Psychology Today. Available in https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mediaspotlight/201808/ what-makes-cyberbullying-so-popular.)
“Marianne would have thought herself very inexcusable had she been able to sleep at all the first night after parting from Willoughby. She would have been ashamed to look her family in the face the next morning, had she not risen from her bed in more need of repose than when she lay down in it. But the feelings which made such composure a disgrace, left her in no danger of incurring it. She was awake the whole night, and she wept the greatest part of it. She got up with a headache, was unable to talk, and unwilling to take any nourishment; giving pain every moment to her mother and sisters, and forbidding all attempt at consolation from either. Her sensibility was potent enough!”
(Extract from Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen. First published in 1811)
“Marianne would have thought herself very inexcusable had she been able to sleep at all the first night after parting from Willoughby. She would have been ashamed to look her family in the face the next morning, had she not risen from her bed in more need of repose than when she lay down in it. But the feelings which made such composure a disgrace, left her in no danger of incurring it. She was awake the whole night, and she wept the greatest part of it. She got up with a headache, was unable to talk, and unwilling to take any nourishment; giving pain every moment to her mother and sisters, and forbidding all attempt at consolation from either. Her sensibility was potent enough!”
(Extract from Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen. First published in 1811)
“Marianne would have thought herself very inexcusable had she been able to sleep at all the first night after parting from Willoughby. She would have been ashamed to look her family in the face the next morning, had she not risen from her bed in more need of repose than when she lay down in it. But the feelings which made such composure a disgrace, left her in no danger of incurring it. She was awake the whole night, and she wept the greatest part of it. She got up with a headache, was unable to talk, and unwilling to take any nourishment; giving pain every moment to her mother and sisters, and forbidding all attempt at consolation from either. Her sensibility was potent enough!”
(Extract from Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen. First published in 1811)
Water, Water Everywhere
Approximately 70 percent of our planet is covered in water. In total, that’s approximately 1,260 million trillion liters, which sounds like an enormous amount, but less than one percent of it can easily be used as drinking water. A major amount, 97 percent, is salt water, and two percent is glacier ice. Scientists and politicians are becoming increasingly worried about the amount of water, and predict that there will be wars in the future to control our water supplies.
The world’s population is growing rapidly, and the need for water in industry and agriculture is enormous. Climate change also adds to the problem: droughts restrict access to water even further, and flooding can pollute supplies of drinking water. Furthermore, these threats to our environment are probably only going to get worse. Already 1.2 billion people live in areas with limited access to water, and the UN predicts that, by 2025, this figure will rise to 1.8 billion, or two thirds of the world’s population.
But the problem isn’t only how much water we need, it’s also how we clean and store it. In the US, for example, water facilities are old and inefficient, and it’s hugely expensive to improve them. In China, the government knows it will need to spend $850 billion to improve its water infrastructure. Currently, India can only clean about 30 percent of its wastewater, meaning that people risk disease when they drink from polluted sources. Some countries filter sea water to make their drinking water. But this process is also very expensive, so it isn’t viable in many countries.
We can’t give up on this problem, however, because without water we can’t survive. Thankfully, there are already some excellent water purification products operating on a small scale, which are already helping people whose access to water is limited.
The “Slingshot” is a new water purifier, about the size of a small refrigerator, and is the creation of American inventor Dean Kamen. The purifier works by heating the water, which kills anything harmful. It can purify even the dirtiest water, requires minimal electricity, and can clean up to 1,000 liters a day. The “Slingshot” is already helping communities in several countries, including South Africa and Mexico. It will soon provide a cheap and safe supply of water in many other places where poverty prevents access to clean water.
Dean Kamen believes that every human should
have the right to clean water every day. Hopefully,
with more devices like the “Slingshot”, there will soon
be more water to go around.
Conheça nossos planos