Questões de Concurso Comentadas sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês

Foram encontradas 9.238 questões

Q4376569 Inglês

    The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet - Synopsis by William Shakespeare


    The prologue of Romeo and Juliet calls the title characters “star-crossed lovers”—and the stars do seem to conspire against these young lovers.


    Romeo is a Montague, and Juliet a Capulet. Their families are enmeshed in a feud, but the moment they meet—when Romeo and his friends attend a party at Juliet’s house in disguise—the two fall in love and quickly decide that they want to be married. 


    A friar secretly marries them, hoping to end the feud. Romeo and his companions almost immediately encounter Juliet’s cousin Tybalt, who challenges Romeo. When Romeo refuses to fight, Romeo’s friend Mercutio accepts the challenge and is killed. Romeo then kills Tybalt and is banished. He spends that night with Juliet and then leaves for Mantua.


    Juliet’s father forces her into a marriage with Count Paris. To avoid this marriage, Juliet takes a potion, given her by the friar, that makes her appear dead. The friar will send Romeo word to be at her family tomb when she awakes. The plan goes awry, and Romeo learns instead that she is dead. In the tomb, Romeo kills himself. Juliet wakes, sees his body, and commits suicide. Their deaths appear finally to end the feud.


SHAKESPEARE, William. Romeo and Juliet from The Folger Shakespeare. Eds. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, Accessed on: 27 Sept. 2026. Available at: https://www.folgerdigitaltexts.org/PDF/Rom.pdf 

According to the synopsis, what was the immediate consequence of Romeo and Juliet's secret marriage?
Alternativas
Q4375767 Inglês
READ TEXT I AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.

TEXT I


AI is getting better at writing. Humans must get better at editing.

Writing is hard. For Franz Kafka, putting words on the page was a process of “unending torments”. George Orwell said it felt like “a long bout of some painful illness”. Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist, saw it as the opposite of sex: “only good when it’s over”. Now AI has come to the rescue. Large language models (LLMs) eagerly offer reams of text without any pain or torment. Bots can spew out emails (excellently), longer prose (passably) and poetry (poorly). To them, writer’s block is a 500-sheet pack of paper: any user of an LLM can produce as many words in a day as Kafka did in his life.

For human writers this is a blessing and a curse. If you claim to be an author but use AI, you look like a fraud—bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at spotting when someone has had an AI helping hand. […]

If LLMs keep improving, in a few years they could be as good as professional wordsmiths. In the meantime, though, their baggy prose puts a premium on editing skills. After all, even the best writers need a good editor to keep them sharp. Editing is something The Economist deals with day in, day out, so here are our tips for rewriting AI prose.

First, commission well. George R.R. Martin once said the job of editors is to “clip the wings” of writers, and “tell them in which direction to fly”. When it comes to LLMs, that means giving clear instructions about exactly what you want, and asking them to refine their output as many times as necessary. You’ll get less pushback from machines than men. Mr Martin said editors were “the writer’s natural enemy”; AI would probably say “great observation!” and “love the enemy analogy!” 

Second, pay attention to detail. AI writers will make mistakes and offer phrases that sound good but mean nothing. They like to lavish their prose with Latinate words, talking about the “bidirectional flow” and how to “expedite grid enhancements”; remind them that Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier. They like clichéd metaphors: there are lots of “Achilles’ heels”. And AI tends to use the “rule of three” far more than humans. The Economist also likes this rhetorical trick. But whereas we try to group three sensible bits of advice, AI offers such redundant sentences as: “The mystery has been solved—not partially, not ambiguously, but definitively.” Such lines should be cut—definitively.

Finally, know your audience. The editor is an intermediary between writer and reader. LLMs are sycophants and their smarmy tone is often off-key. If you are writing an email to break some bad news to your boss, tell your bot to skip the exclamation marks. AI can be pretentious or pontificating (it was trained on human writing, after all). Most people are short of time, but a verbose AI pins you to the wall like a bore at a party.

“Write drunk, edit sober,” goes the old writers’ maxim. If that’s right, when the AI-human team gets down to work, the AIs will have all the fun.

Adapted from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/07/30/ai-is-gettingbetter-at-writing-humans-must-get-better-at-editing 
The action mentioned in “skip the exclamation marks” (6th paragraph) is semantically equivalent to  
Alternativas
Q4375766 Inglês
READ TEXT I AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.

TEXT I


AI is getting better at writing. Humans must get better at editing.

Writing is hard. For Franz Kafka, putting words on the page was a process of “unending torments”. George Orwell said it felt like “a long bout of some painful illness”. Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist, saw it as the opposite of sex: “only good when it’s over”. Now AI has come to the rescue. Large language models (LLMs) eagerly offer reams of text without any pain or torment. Bots can spew out emails (excellently), longer prose (passably) and poetry (poorly). To them, writer’s block is a 500-sheet pack of paper: any user of an LLM can produce as many words in a day as Kafka did in his life.

For human writers this is a blessing and a curse. If you claim to be an author but use AI, you look like a fraud—bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at spotting when someone has had an AI helping hand. […]

If LLMs keep improving, in a few years they could be as good as professional wordsmiths. In the meantime, though, their baggy prose puts a premium on editing skills. After all, even the best writers need a good editor to keep them sharp. Editing is something The Economist deals with day in, day out, so here are our tips for rewriting AI prose.

First, commission well. George R.R. Martin once said the job of editors is to “clip the wings” of writers, and “tell them in which direction to fly”. When it comes to LLMs, that means giving clear instructions about exactly what you want, and asking them to refine their output as many times as necessary. You’ll get less pushback from machines than men. Mr Martin said editors were “the writer’s natural enemy”; AI would probably say “great observation!” and “love the enemy analogy!” 

Second, pay attention to detail. AI writers will make mistakes and offer phrases that sound good but mean nothing. They like to lavish their prose with Latinate words, talking about the “bidirectional flow” and how to “expedite grid enhancements”; remind them that Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier. They like clichéd metaphors: there are lots of “Achilles’ heels”. And AI tends to use the “rule of three” far more than humans. The Economist also likes this rhetorical trick. But whereas we try to group three sensible bits of advice, AI offers such redundant sentences as: “The mystery has been solved—not partially, not ambiguously, but definitively.” Such lines should be cut—definitively.

Finally, know your audience. The editor is an intermediary between writer and reader. LLMs are sycophants and their smarmy tone is often off-key. If you are writing an email to break some bad news to your boss, tell your bot to skip the exclamation marks. AI can be pretentious or pontificating (it was trained on human writing, after all). Most people are short of time, but a verbose AI pins you to the wall like a bore at a party.

“Write drunk, edit sober,” goes the old writers’ maxim. If that’s right, when the AI-human team gets down to work, the AIs will have all the fun.

Adapted from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/07/30/ai-is-gettingbetter-at-writing-humans-must-get-better-at-editing 
In the sentence “Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier” (5th paragraph), “punchier” indicates that these words tend to be more  
Alternativas
Q4375764 Inglês
READ TEXT I AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.

TEXT I


AI is getting better at writing. Humans must get better at editing.

Writing is hard. For Franz Kafka, putting words on the page was a process of “unending torments”. George Orwell said it felt like “a long bout of some painful illness”. Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist, saw it as the opposite of sex: “only good when it’s over”. Now AI has come to the rescue. Large language models (LLMs) eagerly offer reams of text without any pain or torment. Bots can spew out emails (excellently), longer prose (passably) and poetry (poorly). To them, writer’s block is a 500-sheet pack of paper: any user of an LLM can produce as many words in a day as Kafka did in his life.

For human writers this is a blessing and a curse. If you claim to be an author but use AI, you look like a fraud—bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at spotting when someone has had an AI helping hand. […]

If LLMs keep improving, in a few years they could be as good as professional wordsmiths. In the meantime, though, their baggy prose puts a premium on editing skills. After all, even the best writers need a good editor to keep them sharp. Editing is something The Economist deals with day in, day out, so here are our tips for rewriting AI prose.

First, commission well. George R.R. Martin once said the job of editors is to “clip the wings” of writers, and “tell them in which direction to fly”. When it comes to LLMs, that means giving clear instructions about exactly what you want, and asking them to refine their output as many times as necessary. You’ll get less pushback from machines than men. Mr Martin said editors were “the writer’s natural enemy”; AI would probably say “great observation!” and “love the enemy analogy!” 

Second, pay attention to detail. AI writers will make mistakes and offer phrases that sound good but mean nothing. They like to lavish their prose with Latinate words, talking about the “bidirectional flow” and how to “expedite grid enhancements”; remind them that Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier. They like clichéd metaphors: there are lots of “Achilles’ heels”. And AI tends to use the “rule of three” far more than humans. The Economist also likes this rhetorical trick. But whereas we try to group three sensible bits of advice, AI offers such redundant sentences as: “The mystery has been solved—not partially, not ambiguously, but definitively.” Such lines should be cut—definitively.

Finally, know your audience. The editor is an intermediary between writer and reader. LLMs are sycophants and their smarmy tone is often off-key. If you are writing an email to break some bad news to your boss, tell your bot to skip the exclamation marks. AI can be pretentious or pontificating (it was trained on human writing, after all). Most people are short of time, but a verbose AI pins you to the wall like a bore at a party.

“Write drunk, edit sober,” goes the old writers’ maxim. If that’s right, when the AI-human team gets down to work, the AIs will have all the fun.

Adapted from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/07/30/ai-is-gettingbetter-at-writing-humans-must-get-better-at-editing 
“For human writers this is a blessing and a curse” (2nd paragraph) contains a(n)  
Alternativas
Q4375763 Inglês
READ TEXT I AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.

TEXT I


AI is getting better at writing. Humans must get better at editing.

Writing is hard. For Franz Kafka, putting words on the page was a process of “unending torments”. George Orwell said it felt like “a long bout of some painful illness”. Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist, saw it as the opposite of sex: “only good when it’s over”. Now AI has come to the rescue. Large language models (LLMs) eagerly offer reams of text without any pain or torment. Bots can spew out emails (excellently), longer prose (passably) and poetry (poorly). To them, writer’s block is a 500-sheet pack of paper: any user of an LLM can produce as many words in a day as Kafka did in his life.

For human writers this is a blessing and a curse. If you claim to be an author but use AI, you look like a fraud—bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at spotting when someone has had an AI helping hand. […]

If LLMs keep improving, in a few years they could be as good as professional wordsmiths. In the meantime, though, their baggy prose puts a premium on editing skills. After all, even the best writers need a good editor to keep them sharp. Editing is something The Economist deals with day in, day out, so here are our tips for rewriting AI prose.

First, commission well. George R.R. Martin once said the job of editors is to “clip the wings” of writers, and “tell them in which direction to fly”. When it comes to LLMs, that means giving clear instructions about exactly what you want, and asking them to refine their output as many times as necessary. You’ll get less pushback from machines than men. Mr Martin said editors were “the writer’s natural enemy”; AI would probably say “great observation!” and “love the enemy analogy!” 

Second, pay attention to detail. AI writers will make mistakes and offer phrases that sound good but mean nothing. They like to lavish their prose with Latinate words, talking about the “bidirectional flow” and how to “expedite grid enhancements”; remind them that Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier. They like clichéd metaphors: there are lots of “Achilles’ heels”. And AI tends to use the “rule of three” far more than humans. The Economist also likes this rhetorical trick. But whereas we try to group three sensible bits of advice, AI offers such redundant sentences as: “The mystery has been solved—not partially, not ambiguously, but definitively.” Such lines should be cut—definitively.

Finally, know your audience. The editor is an intermediary between writer and reader. LLMs are sycophants and their smarmy tone is often off-key. If you are writing an email to break some bad news to your boss, tell your bot to skip the exclamation marks. AI can be pretentious or pontificating (it was trained on human writing, after all). Most people are short of time, but a verbose AI pins you to the wall like a bore at a party.

“Write drunk, edit sober,” goes the old writers’ maxim. If that’s right, when the AI-human team gets down to work, the AIs will have all the fun.

Adapted from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/07/30/ai-is-gettingbetter-at-writing-humans-must-get-better-at-editing 
In the first paragraph, the sentence “Now AI has come to the rescue” means that LLMs can  
Alternativas
Q4375761 Inglês
READ TEXT I AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.

TEXT I


AI is getting better at writing. Humans must get better at editing.

Writing is hard. For Franz Kafka, putting words on the page was a process of “unending torments”. George Orwell said it felt like “a long bout of some painful illness”. Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist, saw it as the opposite of sex: “only good when it’s over”. Now AI has come to the rescue. Large language models (LLMs) eagerly offer reams of text without any pain or torment. Bots can spew out emails (excellently), longer prose (passably) and poetry (poorly). To them, writer’s block is a 500-sheet pack of paper: any user of an LLM can produce as many words in a day as Kafka did in his life.

For human writers this is a blessing and a curse. If you claim to be an author but use AI, you look like a fraud—bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at spotting when someone has had an AI helping hand. […]

If LLMs keep improving, in a few years they could be as good as professional wordsmiths. In the meantime, though, their baggy prose puts a premium on editing skills. After all, even the best writers need a good editor to keep them sharp. Editing is something The Economist deals with day in, day out, so here are our tips for rewriting AI prose.

First, commission well. George R.R. Martin once said the job of editors is to “clip the wings” of writers, and “tell them in which direction to fly”. When it comes to LLMs, that means giving clear instructions about exactly what you want, and asking them to refine their output as many times as necessary. You’ll get less pushback from machines than men. Mr Martin said editors were “the writer’s natural enemy”; AI would probably say “great observation!” and “love the enemy analogy!” 

Second, pay attention to detail. AI writers will make mistakes and offer phrases that sound good but mean nothing. They like to lavish their prose with Latinate words, talking about the “bidirectional flow” and how to “expedite grid enhancements”; remind them that Anglo-Saxon words are often punchier. They like clichéd metaphors: there are lots of “Achilles’ heels”. And AI tends to use the “rule of three” far more than humans. The Economist also likes this rhetorical trick. But whereas we try to group three sensible bits of advice, AI offers such redundant sentences as: “The mystery has been solved—not partially, not ambiguously, but definitively.” Such lines should be cut—definitively.

Finally, know your audience. The editor is an intermediary between writer and reader. LLMs are sycophants and their smarmy tone is often off-key. If you are writing an email to break some bad news to your boss, tell your bot to skip the exclamation marks. AI can be pretentious or pontificating (it was trained on human writing, after all). Most people are short of time, but a verbose AI pins you to the wall like a bore at a party.

“Write drunk, edit sober,” goes the old writers’ maxim. If that’s right, when the AI-human team gets down to work, the AIs will have all the fun.

Adapted from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/07/30/ai-is-gettingbetter-at-writing-humans-must-get-better-at-editing 
Based on Text I, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).

( ) The first paragraph refers to authors who assert that writing is an easy task.
( ) At times, the tone of LLM-generated prose can be rather inappropriate.
( ) It is argued that nowadays editing has lost its relevance.

The statements are, respectively,  
Alternativas
Q4369714 Inglês

Leia o texto a seguir:


How Teachers Feel About Adapting Instruction for Students

With Disabilities


    School leadership and teaching experience strongly infl uence educators’ confi dence in their ability to adapt instruction for students with disabilities, according to a new survey. But most teachers, regardless of tenure, don’t feel prepared to diff erentiate lessons.


    General education teachers were markedly less likely to feel confi dent in their ability to diff erentiate instruction than special educators. This confi dence gap exists despite most students with learning disabilities spending the majority of their school day in general education classrooms, according to a new nationally representative survey of 1,654 general and special educators by the National Center for Learning Disabilities and West Ed. 


    The State of Learning Disabilities survey explored educators’ confi dence in adapting instruction and the school-level factors that shape that confi dence.


    Less than half of all general educators (42%) felt completely confi dent in their ability to adapt instruction for students with learning disabilities. That number drops to 17% for novice teachers with fewer than three years of experience, compared with 60% of novice special education teachers who felt completely confi dent in their abilities.


Fonte: Revista Education Week. Disponível em: https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-learning/how-teachers-feel-about-adapting-instruction-for-students-with-disabilities/2026/08. Excerto Adaptado. Acesso em: 25 de agosto de 2026. 

O verbo destacado no fragmento “60% of novice special education teachers who felt completely confi dent in their abilities.” (3º parágrafo) está flexionado no:
Alternativas
Q4369713 Inglês

Leia o texto a seguir:


How Teachers Feel About Adapting Instruction for Students

With Disabilities


    School leadership and teaching experience strongly infl uence educators’ confi dence in their ability to adapt instruction for students with disabilities, according to a new survey. But most teachers, regardless of tenure, don’t feel prepared to diff erentiate lessons.


    General education teachers were markedly less likely to feel confi dent in their ability to diff erentiate instruction than special educators. This confi dence gap exists despite most students with learning disabilities spending the majority of their school day in general education classrooms, according to a new nationally representative survey of 1,654 general and special educators by the National Center for Learning Disabilities and West Ed. 


    The State of Learning Disabilities survey explored educators’ confi dence in adapting instruction and the school-level factors that shape that confi dence.


    Less than half of all general educators (42%) felt completely confi dent in their ability to adapt instruction for students with learning disabilities. That number drops to 17% for novice teachers with fewer than three years of experience, compared with 60% of novice special education teachers who felt completely confi dent in their abilities.


Fonte: Revista Education Week. Disponível em: https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-learning/how-teachers-feel-about-adapting-instruction-for-students-with-disabilities/2026/08. Excerto Adaptado. Acesso em: 25 de agosto de 2026. 

Depreende- se do texto acima que:
Alternativas
Q4369712 Inglês

Leia o texto a seguir:


How Teachers Feel About Adapting Instruction for Students

With Disabilities


    School leadership and teaching experience strongly infl uence educators’ confi dence in their ability to adapt instruction for students with disabilities, according to a new survey. But most teachers, regardless of tenure, don’t feel prepared to diff erentiate lessons.


    General education teachers were markedly less likely to feel confi dent in their ability to diff erentiate instruction than special educators. This confi dence gap exists despite most students with learning disabilities spending the majority of their school day in general education classrooms, according to a new nationally representative survey of 1,654 general and special educators by the National Center for Learning Disabilities and West Ed. 


    The State of Learning Disabilities survey explored educators’ confi dence in adapting instruction and the school-level factors that shape that confi dence.


    Less than half of all general educators (42%) felt completely confi dent in their ability to adapt instruction for students with learning disabilities. That number drops to 17% for novice teachers with fewer than three years of experience, compared with 60% of novice special education teachers who felt completely confi dent in their abilities.


Fonte: Revista Education Week. Disponível em: https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-learning/how-teachers-feel-about-adapting-instruction-for-students-with-disabilities/2026/08. Excerto Adaptado. Acesso em: 25 de agosto de 2026. 

A partir da análise do texto acima, observa-se um antagonismo enfático presente na pesquisa entre professores:
Alternativas
Q4361873 Inglês
Read the text and answer question.

What's worth measuring? The future of assessment in the AI age

The rise of AI tools disrupts traditional ideas of assessment, and urges a shift toward promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning.

By Hrishikesh Desai

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT have fundamentally disrupted traditional notions of assessment in education. When a machine can generate essays, solve complex problems, and even mimic creative writing, educators are forced to ask: What skills should we assess, and how do we evaluate learning in a world where AI can perform tasks once thought uniquely human? This think piece explores the implications of AI for assessment and argues that we must shift from measuring rote knowledge to promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning. 

    Historically, educational assessment has relied on measurable outputs, such as essays, exams, and problem sets that test memorization, comprehension, and technical proficiency. However, AI’s ability to generate these outputs undermines their reliability as indicators of individual effort or understanding. For example, a student can prompt ChatGPT or DeepSeek to write a 1000-word essay on climate change in minutes, complete with citations, which leaves educators grappling with how to distinguish human work from machinegenerated content. This disruption extends beyond writing to mathematics, coding, and even creative tasks, where AI tools like GitHub Copilot and DALL-E provide solutions or artifacts that mimic human ingenuity. As AI becomes a ubiquitous resource, the traditional metrics of learning are no longer fit for purpose. The emergence of generative AI has precipitated what can only be described as an assessment crisis.

    This technological disruption to learning has arrived at a critical juncture. For decades, faculty have critiqued assessment methods that prioritize memorization and formulaic responses over deeper learning. The emergence of sophisticated AI tools has transformed this critique from a theoretical ideal into an immediate practical necessity. We can no longer rely on conventional assessment methods that AI can bypass with ease. I argue that generative AI is not merely challenging our assessment techniques but providing an opportunity to fundamentally realign educational evaluation with more authentic demonstrations of human learning, thinking, and creation.

Source: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/whats-worth-measuring-future-assessment-ai-age
What opportunity does the author associate with the rise of generative AI? 
Alternativas
Q4361872 Inglês
Read the text and answer question.

What's worth measuring? The future of assessment in the AI age

The rise of AI tools disrupts traditional ideas of assessment, and urges a shift toward promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning.

By Hrishikesh Desai

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT have fundamentally disrupted traditional notions of assessment in education. When a machine can generate essays, solve complex problems, and even mimic creative writing, educators are forced to ask: What skills should we assess, and how do we evaluate learning in a world where AI can perform tasks once thought uniquely human? This think piece explores the implications of AI for assessment and argues that we must shift from measuring rote knowledge to promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning. 

    Historically, educational assessment has relied on measurable outputs, such as essays, exams, and problem sets that test memorization, comprehension, and technical proficiency. However, AI’s ability to generate these outputs undermines their reliability as indicators of individual effort or understanding. For example, a student can prompt ChatGPT or DeepSeek to write a 1000-word essay on climate change in minutes, complete with citations, which leaves educators grappling with how to distinguish human work from machinegenerated content. This disruption extends beyond writing to mathematics, coding, and even creative tasks, where AI tools like GitHub Copilot and DALL-E provide solutions or artifacts that mimic human ingenuity. As AI becomes a ubiquitous resource, the traditional metrics of learning are no longer fit for purpose. The emergence of generative AI has precipitated what can only be described as an assessment crisis.

    This technological disruption to learning has arrived at a critical juncture. For decades, faculty have critiqued assessment methods that prioritize memorization and formulaic responses over deeper learning. The emergence of sophisticated AI tools has transformed this critique from a theoretical ideal into an immediate practical necessity. We can no longer rely on conventional assessment methods that AI can bypass with ease. I argue that generative AI is not merely challenging our assessment techniques but providing an opportunity to fundamentally realign educational evaluation with more authentic demonstrations of human learning, thinking, and creation.

Source: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/whats-worth-measuring-future-assessment-ai-age
What criticism of traditional assessment existed before the widespread use of generative AI? 
Alternativas
Q4361871 Inglês
Read the text and answer question.

What's worth measuring? The future of assessment in the AI age

The rise of AI tools disrupts traditional ideas of assessment, and urges a shift toward promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning.

By Hrishikesh Desai

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT have fundamentally disrupted traditional notions of assessment in education. When a machine can generate essays, solve complex problems, and even mimic creative writing, educators are forced to ask: What skills should we assess, and how do we evaluate learning in a world where AI can perform tasks once thought uniquely human? This think piece explores the implications of AI for assessment and argues that we must shift from measuring rote knowledge to promoting and evaluating higher-order thinking, creativity, and ethical reasoning. 

    Historically, educational assessment has relied on measurable outputs, such as essays, exams, and problem sets that test memorization, comprehension, and technical proficiency. However, AI’s ability to generate these outputs undermines their reliability as indicators of individual effort or understanding. For example, a student can prompt ChatGPT or DeepSeek to write a 1000-word essay on climate change in minutes, complete with citations, which leaves educators grappling with how to distinguish human work from machinegenerated content. This disruption extends beyond writing to mathematics, coding, and even creative tasks, where AI tools like GitHub Copilot and DALL-E provide solutions or artifacts that mimic human ingenuity. As AI becomes a ubiquitous resource, the traditional metrics of learning are no longer fit for purpose. The emergence of generative AI has precipitated what can only be described as an assessment crisis.

    This technological disruption to learning has arrived at a critical juncture. For decades, faculty have critiqued assessment methods that prioritize memorization and formulaic responses over deeper learning. The emergence of sophisticated AI tools has transformed this critique from a theoretical ideal into an immediate practical necessity. We can no longer rely on conventional assessment methods that AI can bypass with ease. I argue that generative AI is not merely challenging our assessment techniques but providing an opportunity to fundamentally realign educational evaluation with more authentic demonstrations of human learning, thinking, and creation.

Source: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/whats-worth-measuring-future-assessment-ai-age
Why does the author believe traditional assessment outputs have become less reliable?
Alternativas
Q4361862 Inglês
Read the text and answer question

‘Our children are less cognitively capable,’ says neuroscientist who wants to cut screen use in schools

Jared Cooney Horvath argues that educational technology undermines how children learn and develop

    Jared Cooney Horvath is on a mission. In the wake of global campaigns for smartphone bans in schools and social media restrictions for under-16s, the neuroscientist wants to raise the alarm about educational technology in classrooms.

    A former teacher, Horvath believes the use of screens and digital tools in schools is undermining how children learn and develop. “This might be one of the hardest truths our generation has to face,” he writes in his book, The Digital Delusion.
    
    “Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age,” he says. “For nearly two centuries, the west experienced steady generational progress. Each new cohort of children grew up, on average, healthier, happier, and better educated than the last. Until now.”

    Starting around the year 2000, something changed. “Across the west, IQ scores began to fall – even as time spent in school kept rising,” writes Horvath. Scores in international tests started to drop. Why? “The answer lies in the meteoric rise of educational technology.”

    According to a recent Department for Education report, the UK educational technology – or edtech – market generated an annual turnover of about £6.5bn. In the US, Horvath says it is a $400bn (£295bn) mega-industry, woven into every aspect of schooling.

    “We’ve been making some incredible strides on the screenbased childhood stuff which even two years ago, I did not think was going to happen as fast as it did,” he said. “But it’s not just about getting rid of screens for entertainment. It’s about reducing them as much as possible for academic learning as well if we want our kids to have deep transferrable knowledge in our heads.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/aug/16/neuroscientistscreen-use-schools-educational-technology-jared-cooney-horvath
According to the text, why does Horvath consider the decline in IQ scores particularly significant?
Alternativas
Q4361861 Inglês
Read the text and answer question

‘Our children are less cognitively capable,’ says neuroscientist who wants to cut screen use in schools

Jared Cooney Horvath argues that educational technology undermines how children learn and develop

    Jared Cooney Horvath is on a mission. In the wake of global campaigns for smartphone bans in schools and social media restrictions for under-16s, the neuroscientist wants to raise the alarm about educational technology in classrooms.

    A former teacher, Horvath believes the use of screens and digital tools in schools is undermining how children learn and develop. “This might be one of the hardest truths our generation has to face,” he writes in his book, The Digital Delusion.
    
    “Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age,” he says. “For nearly two centuries, the west experienced steady generational progress. Each new cohort of children grew up, on average, healthier, happier, and better educated than the last. Until now.”

    Starting around the year 2000, something changed. “Across the west, IQ scores began to fall – even as time spent in school kept rising,” writes Horvath. Scores in international tests started to drop. Why? “The answer lies in the meteoric rise of educational technology.”

    According to a recent Department for Education report, the UK educational technology – or edtech – market generated an annual turnover of about £6.5bn. In the US, Horvath says it is a $400bn (£295bn) mega-industry, woven into every aspect of schooling.

    “We’ve been making some incredible strides on the screenbased childhood stuff which even two years ago, I did not think was going to happen as fast as it did,” he said. “But it’s not just about getting rid of screens for entertainment. It’s about reducing them as much as possible for academic learning as well if we want our kids to have deep transferrable knowledge in our heads.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/aug/16/neuroscientistscreen-use-schools-educational-technology-jared-cooney-horvath
Based on the text, classify the statements below as True (T) or False (F).

I. Horvath believes that concern about children's screen use should extend beyond entertainment to the use of digital tools for academic purposes.
II. Horvath claims that generational improvements in health, happiness, and education had continued consistently in the West after the year 2000.
III. Horvath suggests that reducing academic screen use could help children develop deeper knowledge that can be transferred to different contexts.
IV. Horvath states that he expected progress in reducing screenbased childhood to occur as rapidly as it has.

Choose the correct sequence. 
Alternativas
Q4361860 Inglês
Read the text and answer question

‘Our children are less cognitively capable,’ says neuroscientist who wants to cut screen use in schools

Jared Cooney Horvath argues that educational technology undermines how children learn and develop

    Jared Cooney Horvath is on a mission. In the wake of global campaigns for smartphone bans in schools and social media restrictions for under-16s, the neuroscientist wants to raise the alarm about educational technology in classrooms.

    A former teacher, Horvath believes the use of screens and digital tools in schools is undermining how children learn and develop. “This might be one of the hardest truths our generation has to face,” he writes in his book, The Digital Delusion.
    
    “Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age,” he says. “For nearly two centuries, the west experienced steady generational progress. Each new cohort of children grew up, on average, healthier, happier, and better educated than the last. Until now.”

    Starting around the year 2000, something changed. “Across the west, IQ scores began to fall – even as time spent in school kept rising,” writes Horvath. Scores in international tests started to drop. Why? “The answer lies in the meteoric rise of educational technology.”

    According to a recent Department for Education report, the UK educational technology – or edtech – market generated an annual turnover of about £6.5bn. In the US, Horvath says it is a $400bn (£295bn) mega-industry, woven into every aspect of schooling.

    “We’ve been making some incredible strides on the screenbased childhood stuff which even two years ago, I did not think was going to happen as fast as it did,” he said. “But it’s not just about getting rid of screens for entertainment. It’s about reducing them as much as possible for academic learning as well if we want our kids to have deep transferrable knowledge in our heads.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/aug/16/neuroscientistscreen-use-schools-educational-technology-jared-cooney-horvath
What is the main argument presented in the text?
Alternativas
Q4358828 Inglês
Students were asked to perform the following sequence of activities: (a) analyse the systemic organization of the text’s components, for example, intentionality, informativeness; (b) perform the guessing of unknown word meaning through text clues; (c) distinguish among core information and detail by applying inference strategies; (d) identify some of the cohesive connections that integrate the net of information. The actions developed indicate skills and competencies belonging in:
Alternativas
Q4358821 Inglês

        Trump gave what was billed as a “Christmas speech” in rural Pennsylvania this past week that began with his “wishing each and everyone one of you a very merry Christmas, happy New Year, all of that stuff” and boasting that now, under his presidency: “Everybody’s saying ‘merry Christmas’ again.” He then claimed – contrary to the experience of nearly everyone in the crowd – that he had gotten them “lower prices” and “bigger paychecks”.


        He was supposed to talk about affordability, but Trump’s narcissistic brain seemed incapable of the minimal empathy to recognize the public’s angst over the cost of living. So he veered far off the affordability script to attack Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota congresswoman, ridicule windmills. Small wonder that most voters have had it with Trump.


        In Indiana this past week, Republican senators rejected a redistricting plan that Trump had tried to bully them into accepting. Twenty-one senators from the Republican majority in the Indiana senate and all 10 senate Democrats voted it down. Even congressional Republicans are starting to desert him as they see that the wannabe emperor has no clothes. They’ve rejected his demand to end the filibuster, rebuked his incipient healthcare plan, forced him to cave on the Epstein files, won’t approve his bonkers $2,000 tariff checks for Americans, fret about his boat strikes off the coasts of Central and South America, and are in open rebellion against his hand-picked speaker of the House. Trump won’t steal Christmas, but it’s looking increasingly likely that Christmas will steal Trump.


(Available in: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/. Adapted. Accessed on: January 2026.)



The study of text genres helps readers understand why a text is written and how it's structured, improving comprehension and writing skills. The previous text was introduced for examination, and students led to identify its purpose and structural features, having their guide in the text’s general idea which is:

Alternativas
Q4357882 Inglês

TEXT V

Turn on your light

by Ben Okri

[…]

Will you be at the harvest,

Among the gatherers of new fruits?

Then you must begin today to remake

Your mental and spiritual world,

And join the warriors and celebrants

Of freedom, realisers of great dreams.

You can't remake the world

Without remaking yourself.

Each new era begins within.

It is an inward event,

With unsuspected possibilities

For inner liberation.

We could use it to turn on

Our inward lights.

We could use it to use even the dark

And negative things positively.

We could use the new era

To clean our eyes,

To see the world differently,

To see ourselves more clearly.

Only free people can make a free world.

Infect the world with your light.

Help fulfill the golden prophecies.

Press forward the human genius.

Our future is greater than our past.

Adapted from https://greatturning.net/turn-on-your-light-by-ben-okri/

Scanning is a useful reading strategy that helps answer specific questions. In this sense, the question that asks the student to scan is: 
Alternativas
Q4357881 Inglês

TEXT V

Turn on your light

by Ben Okri

[…]

Will you be at the harvest,

Among the gatherers of new fruits?

Then you must begin today to remake

Your mental and spiritual world,

And join the warriors and celebrants

Of freedom, realisers of great dreams.

You can't remake the world

Without remaking yourself.

Each new era begins within.

It is an inward event,

With unsuspected possibilities

For inner liberation.

We could use it to turn on

Our inward lights.

We could use it to use even the dark

And negative things positively.

We could use the new era

To clean our eyes,

To see the world differently,

To see ourselves more clearly.

Only free people can make a free world.

Infect the world with your light.

Help fulfill the golden prophecies.

Press forward the human genius.

Our future is greater than our past.

Adapted from https://greatturning.net/turn-on-your-light-by-ben-okri/

The poem ends with a note of 
Alternativas
Q4357880 Inglês

TEXT V

Turn on your light

by Ben Okri

[…]

Will you be at the harvest,

Among the gatherers of new fruits?

Then you must begin today to remake

Your mental and spiritual world,

And join the warriors and celebrants

Of freedom, realisers of great dreams.

You can't remake the world

Without remaking yourself.

Each new era begins within.

It is an inward event,

With unsuspected possibilities

For inner liberation.

We could use it to turn on

Our inward lights.

We could use it to use even the dark

And negative things positively.

We could use the new era

To clean our eyes,

To see the world differently,

To see ourselves more clearly.

Only free people can make a free world.

Infect the world with your light.

Help fulfill the golden prophecies.

Press forward the human genius.

Our future is greater than our past.

Adapted from https://greatturning.net/turn-on-your-light-by-ben-okri/

The modal verb in “Then you must begin today” (3rd line) expresses  
Alternativas
Respostas
41: B
42: D
43: B
44: D
45: D
46: E
47: B
48: A
49: D
50: D
51: C
52: A
53: A
54: E
55: B
56: B
57: B
58: C
59: A
60: D