Text CB1A2-I  

   Although an oft-cited poll showed that 85% of Americans approve of organ donation, less than half had made a decision about donating, and fewer still (28%) had granted permission by signing a donor card, a pattern also observed in Germany, Spain, and Sweden. Given the shortage of donors, the gap between approval and action is a matter of life and death. 

    What drives the decision to become a potential donor? Within the European Union, donation rates vary by nearly an order of magnitude across countries and these differences are stable from year to year. Even when controlling for variables such as transplant infrastructure, economic and educational status, and religion, large differences in donation rates persist. Why?

   Most public policy choices have a no-action default, that is, a condition is imposed when an individual fails to make a decision. In the case of organ donation, European countries have one of two default policies. In presumed-consent states, people are organ donors unless they register not to be, and in explicitconsent countries, nobody is an organ donor without registering to be one.

   We examined the rate of agreement to become a donor across European countries with explicit and presumed consent laws. If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, defaults appear to make a large difference: the four opt-in countries (Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany) had lower rates than the six opt-out countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Sweden). The two distributions have no overlap, and nearly 60 percentage points separate the two groups

    Our data suggest changes in defaults could increase donations in the United States of additional thousands of donors a year. Because each donor can donate for about three transplants, the consequences are substantial in lives saved. Our results stand in contrast with the suggestion that defaults do not matter. Policy-makers performing analysis in this and other domains should consider that defaults make a difference.

Eric J. Johnson; Daniel Goldstein. Do Defaults Save Lives?

Internet: <www.dangoldstein.com> (adapted). 

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

English as a Lingua Franca

        A number of researchers have studied conversations in English as a Lingua Franca and have noted a number of somewhat surprising characteristics, including:

•  Non-use of third person present simple tense -s (She look very sad).

•  Interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (a book who, a boy which).

•  Omission of articles where they are mandatory in native-speaker English.

•  Increasing of redundancy by adding “inexistent” prepositions (We have to study about…, The article treats of…).

•  Pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in native-speaker English (informations, staffs).

        The evidence suggests that non-native speakers are not conforming to a native English standard. Indeed they seem to get along perfectly well despite the fact that they miss things out and put things in which they ‘should not do’. Not only this, but they are actually better at ‘accommodating’ - that is, negotiating shared meaning through helping each other in a more cooperative way - than, it is suggested, native speakers are when talking to second language speakers (Jenkins 2004). In other words, non-native speakers seem to be better at ELF communication than native speakers are.

(Jeremy Harmer, The practice of English language teaching. Adaptado) 

Leia o texto 1 para responder a questão que se segue.

Answers the question according to the text below.

Organ Donation and Transplant  

Leia os quadrinhos para responder à questão.

(www.magoosh.com)