Questões de Concurso
Comentadas sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 8.692 questões
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. If the Fukushima disaster hadn’t happened, recent discussions about the safety of nuclear energy may not have taken place. 2. Germany may have problems in the future with their energy because of decisions they have taken now. 3. Brazil has absolutely no plans to use nuclear energy again.
Choose the alternative which indicates the correct statements.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
UNEARTHED: REMAINS OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN TSUNAMI VICTIM
By Charles Choi | October 25, 2017 1:00 pm
Paragraph 1 Tsunamis have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the past two decades. Now a new study finds that a 6,000-year-old skull may come from the earliest known victim of these killer waves.
Paragraph 2 The partial human skull was discovered in 1929 buried in a mangrove swamp outside the small town of Aitape Papua New Guinea, about 500 miles north of Australia. Scientists originally thought it belonged to an ancient extinct human species, Homo erectus. However, subsequent research dated it to about 5,000 or 6,000 years in age, suggesting that it instead belonged to a modern human.
A Rare Specimen
Paragraph 3 The skull is one of just two examples of ancient human remains found in Papua New Guinea after more than a century of work there. As such, archaeologists wanted to learn more about this skull to elucidate how people settled this region.
Paragraph 4 The scientists went back to where this skull was found and sampled the soil in which it was discovered. They focused on details such as sediment grain size and composition.
Paragraph 5 In the sediment, the researchers discovered a range of microscopic organisms from the ocean known as diatoms. These were similar to ones found in the soil after a 1998 tsunami killed more than 2,000 people in Papua New Guinea — for instance, their shells of silica were broken, likely by extremely powerful forces.
Paragraph 6 These diatom shells, combined with the chemical compositions and the size ranges of the grains, all suggest that a tsunami occurred when the skull was buried. The researchers suggested the catastrophe either directly killed the person or ripped open their grave.
Paragraph 7 Tsunamis, which are giant waves caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or underwater landslides, are some of the deadliest natural disasters known. The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed more than 230,000 people, a higher death toll than any fire or hurricane.
Paragraph 8 The site where the skull was found is currently about 7.5 miles away from the coast. Still, the researchers noted that back when whoever the skull belonged to was alive, sea levels were higher, and the area would have been just behind the shoreline.
Paragraph 9 The waves of the tsunami that hit Papua New Guinea in 1998 reached more than 50 feet high and penetrated up to three miles inland. “If the event we have identified resulted from a similar process, it could have also resulted in extremely high waves,” study co-lead author Mark Golitko, an archaeologist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and the Field Museum in Chicago.
Paragraph 10 These results show “that coastal populations have been vulnerable to such events for thousands of years,” Golitko said. “People have managed to live with such unpredictable and destructive occurrences, but it highlights how vulnerable people living near the sea can be. Given the far larger populations that live along coastlines today, the potential impacts are far more severe now.”
Paragraph 11 Golitko plans to return to the area over the next few years “to further study the frequency of such events, how the environment changed over time, and how people have coped with the environmental challenges of living in that environment.” He and his colleagues detailed their findings Wednesday in the journal PLOS O.
Retrieved and adapted from:
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/10/25/first-tsunami-victim/#.WfYiYmhSzIU>
De acordo com o autor, portanto, é FALSO afirmar:
Dear Mr. Thompson,
We would be grateful if you could send us the report from /ast month.
Yours sincere/y, Joe Peterson Human Resource Manager
Based on the message above and the given context, analyse the way(s) which can be used to reply to a request such as Joe Peterson's request.
l. "As you requested ... ". II. "As promised ... ". III. "ln answer to your enquiry ... ".
The correct ways(s) is(are):
A perfect office - Career in Office Administration
No office would be able to function effectively with the structural backbone - the administrative staff.
Sector overview
Technology can make the various jobs easier, but the fact remains, that there needs to be a person to run the technology effectively. The job in question here is one that you watch happening in every office in every city or town in every country. Whichever office you go to, one thing is common. Virtually every business needs office support personnel. This is needed and is not likely to change anytime soon. Many small businesses started out by working without support staff (admin or assistants), but with expansion, they had to give in and hire.
lt is understandable that when dealing with the employees internally and in dealing with other business parties externally, businesses need the services of such personnel, apart from the day-to-day office administration functions. Whatever the number of people working in the administrative capacity in an office, the role could mean looking after severa! functions. lt could all include handling the telephone, dealing with difficult phone calls from customers or other parties, handling challenging clients,maintaining reports, accounting for petty cash, mail management, banking work, and so on.
ln fact in severa! companies and professions, a trusted administrative assistant is looked upon as a confidant. Many managers prefer assistants who know everything about them, about their lives and especially about their style of work. There is something deeply comforting about having everything in office run smoothly, and meetings happening on time, with the correct coffee and snacks. And for that, you need personnel!
To getthere
Since a formal education may not be necessary to get a job, there is no single route to becoming an administrative assistant. There are severa! ways in which one can go about it. lt often happens that people get a job, and learn on it and develop expertise while working. Even then , there are certain soft and behavioural skills, apart from technical skills that assistants are supposed to have.
Aspirants should ideally think of taking a professional course, since the curriculum is designed to look into particular job descriptions and so training will be offered in those areas. This training provides an upper hand in many cases in terms of getting a good job. ln either case, the skills are essential. When hiring office support personnel, many companies look for employees with a combination of the types of technical skills that are needed in the particular job as well as a positive attitude and strong communication skills. With technology now ruling the roost, most positions look for personnel who not only display the soft skills to work on the job, but also have a fair knowledge of operating computers and the required software on them. Often, before recruitment, companies ask applicants to take severa! tests to gauge their abilities in handling the tasks that lie ahead.
( ... )
Whatever the designation or the title, the person in charge of office administration (management) carries a lot of responsibility. The diverse duties comprise those that must be performed on a daily basis, and some that need to be handled on a case-to-case basis. The role may vary with the business and the size of the office, but the primary duty is to ensure that the daily running of the office is smooth. Among other things, the office administrator is responsible for collecting and sending out mai l, for directing the calls to the appropriate offices or extensions, and making sure that the documentation is in place.
These job prospects are usually high for those who are qualified, since offices will always need administrative personnel, and with expansion, they tend to take on more and more people. Openings can be found at departments and offices in the public as well as private sectors, no matter the industry. A variety of positions are available depending upon the work and the kind of hours to be put in. Usually, the aftice administrators and assistants have fixed hour jobs. It is a good option for those looking for a little flexibility, or even a single shift, and they should be able to work something out with employers.
Salaries vary like night and day. They depend heavily on the size of the organization, the duties involved, the tasks assigned and most importantly, the experience the person has.
Available in: http://www.freepressjournal.in/education/a-
perfect-office-career-in-office-administration/656443. Adapted.
According to the text, analyse the assertions below.
I. Due to the technology, many companies do not call for office support personnel.
II . ln many companies, a reliable administrative assistant can be taken as a person you can share feelings and secrets.
IlI. The one and only responsibility that the office administrator carries is sending and receiving mails.
The correct assertion(s) is(are):
Read the statement and answer.
“Susan’s wife passed away one year ago.”
We can say that
Find the alternative that completes the blanks.
“Kylie ____ classical music, her friends ______.”
“Falisha and I had a horrible fight last night, but this morning we made it up with each other.”
We can say that
Read and answer.
“Petro made fun of Jonathan’s clothing style.”
We can assume that
Mark the alternative that completes the blank.
“Janice found a shirt ______ at her room.”
Read the text below and answer the following question based on it.
Is gene editing ethical?
Gene editing holds the key to preventing or treating debilitating genetic diseases, giving hope to millions of people around the world. Yet the same technology could unlock the path to designing our future children, enhancing their genome by selecting desirable traits such as height, eye color, and intelligence.
While this concept is not new, a real breakthrough came 5 years ago when several scientists saw the potential of a system called CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.
CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to target specific locations in the genome with much more precision than previous techniques. This process allows a faulty gene to be replaced with a non-faulty copy, making this technology attractive to those looking to cure genetic diseases.
The technology is not foolproof, however. Scientists have been modifying genes for decades, but there are always trade-offs. We have yet to develop a technique that works 100 percent and doesn't lead to unwanted and uncontrollable mutations in other locations in the genome.
In a laboratory experiment, these so-called off-target effects are not the end of the world. But when it comes to gene editing in humans, this is a major stumbling block.
The fact that gene editing is possible in human embryos has opened a Pandora's box of ethical issues.
Here, the ethical debate around gene editing really gets off the ground.
When gene editing is used in embryos — or earlier, on the sperm or egg of carriers of genetic mutations — it is called germline gene editing. The big issue here is that it affects both the individual receiving the treatment and their future children.
This is a potential game-changer as it implies that we may be able to change the genetic makeup of entire generations on a permanent basis.
Conheça nossos planos