Questões de Concurso Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 26.077 questões
Ano: 2026
Banca:
VUNESP
Órgão:
UENP
Prova:
VUNESP - 2026 - UENP - Agente de Assuntos Internacionais |
Q4385904
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
The discipline of International Relations (IR) has repeatedly discussed the problem of agency, though not always using the term.
A central preoccupation of IR since its inception is the question of whose actions shape international politics: who possesses agency. Starting from a rather state-centric perspective, IR initially considered only states and their leaders as relevant actors. Agency was thus closely linked to the notion of state sovereignty and the idea that “great” men (and occasionally women) make history. Over the years, and no doubt reflecting changes in the actual practices of international politics, IR has gradually considered more and more actors as possible agents: international organizations and their bureaucrats, corporations, NGOs, expert communities and professions, celebrities, insurgent groups and so on. The focus has for the most part been on demonstrating that the new actors actually make a difference rather than explaining how they acquired their agency.
A more explicit theorization of agency was initiated when Alexander Wendt introduced the agent-structure problem into IR and proposed a “structurationist” perspective that conceives of agents and structures as mutually constitutive but ontologically distinct entities. Other scholars working in the constructivist tradition have examined how the mastery of particular repertoires of politics, such as diplomacy, expert governance or advocacy and activism, can confer agency on different actors. They have also shown how agency depends on its recognition by other actors and can be undermined if such recognition is denied. Critical, feminist and postcolonial scholars have emphasized that agency is still unevenly distributed, with certain courses of action open to some actors but not to others, depending on their positioning within power relations. It then becomes clear not only that the question of agency is a highly political one, but that, in writing about agency, we cannot escape its politics.
(Tobias Wille. Elgar Encyclopedia of International Relations. March 2025. Adaptado)
In the third paragraph, according to scholars working in
the constructive tradition in IR,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
VUNESP
Órgão:
UENP
Prova:
VUNESP - 2026 - UENP - Agente de Assuntos Internacionais |
Q4385903
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
The discipline of International Relations (IR) has repeatedly discussed the problem of agency, though not always using the term.
A central preoccupation of IR since its inception is the question of whose actions shape international politics: who possesses agency. Starting from a rather state-centric perspective, IR initially considered only states and their leaders as relevant actors. Agency was thus closely linked to the notion of state sovereignty and the idea that “great” men (and occasionally women) make history. Over the years, and no doubt reflecting changes in the actual practices of international politics, IR has gradually considered more and more actors as possible agents: international organizations and their bureaucrats, corporations, NGOs, expert communities and professions, celebrities, insurgent groups and so on. The focus has for the most part been on demonstrating that the new actors actually make a difference rather than explaining how they acquired their agency.
A more explicit theorization of agency was initiated when Alexander Wendt introduced the agent-structure problem into IR and proposed a “structurationist” perspective that conceives of agents and structures as mutually constitutive but ontologically distinct entities. Other scholars working in the constructivist tradition have examined how the mastery of particular repertoires of politics, such as diplomacy, expert governance or advocacy and activism, can confer agency on different actors. They have also shown how agency depends on its recognition by other actors and can be undermined if such recognition is denied. Critical, feminist and postcolonial scholars have emphasized that agency is still unevenly distributed, with certain courses of action open to some actors but not to others, depending on their positioning within power relations. It then becomes clear not only that the question of agency is a highly political one, but that, in writing about agency, we cannot escape its politics.
(Tobias Wille. Elgar Encyclopedia of International Relations. March 2025. Adaptado)
The second paragraph is mainly about
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FUNDATEC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Tapera - RS
Prova:
FUNDATEC - 2026 - Prefeitura de Tapera - RS - Professor dos Anos Finais do Ensino Fundamental - Língua Inglesa |
Q4384489
Inglês
Texto associado
(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/expect-more-potholes-uk-roads-summer-
heatwaves-rac - text specially adapted for this test).
Analyze the excerpt below:
“[…] local authorities could lose up to a third of their road maintenance funding if they fail to demonstrate they are working to build these solutions.” (l. 34-36).
Considering the change of the subject “local authorities” to the singular form “the local authority”, mark the alternative that presents the necessary grammatical changes.
“[…] local authorities could lose up to a third of their road maintenance funding if they fail to demonstrate they are working to build these solutions.” (l. 34-36).
Considering the change of the subject “local authorities” to the singular form “the local authority”, mark the alternative that presents the necessary grammatical changes.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FUNDATEC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Tapera - RS
Prova:
FUNDATEC - 2026 - Prefeitura de Tapera - RS - Professor dos Anos Finais do Ensino Fundamental - Língua Inglesa |
Q4384488
Inglês
Texto associado
(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/expect-more-potholes-uk-roads-summer-
heatwaves-rac - text specially adapted for this test).
Considering the standard pronunciation rules for the -ed suffix, mark the alternative in which the -ed ending has the same pronunciation as the word “assumed” (l. 03) used in the text.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FUNDATEC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Tapera - RS
Prova:
FUNDATEC - 2026 - Prefeitura de Tapera - RS - Professor dos Anos Finais do Ensino Fundamental - Língua Inglesa |
Q4384487
Inglês
Texto associado
(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/expect-more-potholes-uk-roads-summer-
heatwaves-rac - text specially adapted for this test).
In the excerpt “making surfaces more brittle and prone to cracking” (l. 05-06), the underlined expression could be replaced, without a significant change in meaning and with the necessary grammatical changes, by:
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FUNDATEC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Tapera - RS
Prova:
FUNDATEC - 2026 - Prefeitura de Tapera - RS - Professor dos Anos Finais do Ensino Fundamental - Língua Inglesa |
Q4384486
Inglês
Texto associado
(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/expect-more-potholes-uk-roads-summer-
heatwaves-rac - text specially adapted for this test).
Mark the INCORRECT statement about the text.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FUNDATEC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Tapera - RS
Prova:
FUNDATEC - 2026 - Prefeitura de Tapera - RS - Professor dos Anos Finais do Ensino Fundamental - Língua Inglesa |
Q4384485
Inglês
Texto associado
(Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/expect-more-potholes-uk-roads-summer-
heatwaves-rac - text specially adapted for this test).
According to the text, which of the following statements is correct?
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383013
Inglês
Texto associado
READ TEXT III AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.
TEXT III
From: https://images.cartoonstock.com/lowres/computers-file_cabinet-filepaperwork-unhackable-security-CS630961_low.jpg
In the cartoon, the adjective “non-hackable” refers to a system
that cannot be
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383012
Inglês
Texto associado
READ TEXT III AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.
TEXT III
From: https://images.cartoonstock.com/lowres/computers-file_cabinet-filepaperwork-unhackable-security-CS630961_low.jpg
The phrasal verb “looking for” can be replaced, without significant
change of meaning, by
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383011
Inglês
Texto associado
READ TEXT III AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.
TEXT III
From: https://images.cartoonstock.com/lowres/computers-file_cabinet-filepaperwork-unhackable-security-CS630961_low.jpg
The saying that best expresses the point of this cartoon is
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383010
Inglês
Texto associado
READ TEXT II AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.
TEXT II
From: https://www.rishabhsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Blog\Pros-andCons-of-Cloud-Computing_Image.jpg
The term “vendor lock-in” indicates the customer is in a situation
that is
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383009
Inglês
Texto associado
READ TEXT II AND ANSWER NEXT QUESTION.
TEXT II
From: https://www.rishabhsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Blog\Pros-andCons-of-Cloud-Computing_Image.jpg
As regards the pros and cons of cloud computing, analyse the assertions below:
I. It may adjust resources depending on the needs.
II. It can reduce spending according to usage.
III. It is immune to all types of cyberattacks.
Choose the correct answer.
I. It may adjust resources depending on the needs.
II. It can reduce spending according to usage.
III. It is immune to all types of cyberattacks.
Choose the correct answer.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383008
Inglês
Texto associado
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
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383007
Inglês
Texto associado
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
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383006
Inglês
Texto associado
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 word “like” in “bot-busting tools like Pangram are good at
spotting” (2nd paragraph) is used in the same way as in
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383005
Inglês
Texto associado
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)
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383004
Inglês
Texto associado
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
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383003
Inglês
Texto associado
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 expression “bout of some painful illness” (1st paragraph),
“bout” can be replaced, without significant change in meaning, by
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383002
Inglês
Texto associado
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,
( ) 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,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
IGEDUC
Órgão:
Prefeitura de São Bento do Una - PE
Prova:
IGEDUC - 2026 - Prefeitura de São Bento do Una - PE - Professor II - Língua Inglesa |
Q4379799
Inglês
Read the passage.
A public library introduced a "silent hour" every Wednesday afternoon. During that period, announcements are suspended, lights are dimmed, and visitors are encouraged to keep conversations brief. The initiative was originally designed for people who experience sensory overload, but librarians soon noticed that other visitors also began choosing that time for reading and concentrated work.
Which interpretation is CORRECTLY supported by the passage?
A public library introduced a "silent hour" every Wednesday afternoon. During that period, announcements are suspended, lights are dimmed, and visitors are encouraged to keep conversations brief. The initiative was originally designed for people who experience sensory overload, but librarians soon noticed that other visitors also began choosing that time for reading and concentrated work.
Which interpretation is CORRECTLY supported by the passage?
Conheça nossos planos