Analise o título e o resumo do artigo científico abaixo para responder às questões 29 e 30

Effect of Ileal Release of palm oil and glutamine on intestinal peptides PYY and GLP-1 in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity

Abstract: The incretin based therapy constitutes one of the alternatives for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for weight reduction. For this purpose, functional foods such as palm oil and glutamine provide dietary strategies for the stimulation of intestinal peptides.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the capsules of palm oil and glutamine (both of ileal release) result in increased secretion of GLP-1 and PYY.

Atenção: As questões de números 26 a 28 referem-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever.

As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)

Brazil lmpeachment: The Process for Removing the President

ByTHE NEW YORKTIMES UPDATED May 12, 2016

Dilma Rousseff, the beleaguered president of Brazil, has been confronting an effort to remove her from office, accused of violating fiscal laws by using funds from state banks to cover budget shortfalls.

Her opponents claim this strategy eroded confidence among investors, raising the government's borrowing costs and disregarding measures designed to prevent a return of high inflation.

The president's supporters contend that Ms. Rousseff was seeking to maintain popular antipoverty projects, and that impeachment over the issue is politically motivated because Ms. Rousseff's predecessors carried out similar policies.

Here is a guide to the complicated process for impeaching and removing a president from office:

Step1

Congressional Panei Debates Charges

The process prescribed in Brazil's Constitution, adopted in 1988, shares similarities with impeachment proceedings in the United States.

First, the speaker of the lower chamber of Congress, Eduardo Cunha, a political opponent of Ms. Rousseff, had to accept a petition for impeachment.

Mr. Cunha then formed a 65-member congressional committee to investigate the accusations and decide if removal was warranted. The political composition of the committee was largely stacked against the president.

The committee was created in December, but its work was soon stopped by a court arder. Work resumed in March.

Jovair Arantes, the legislator in charge of preparing the committee report on the fate of Ms. Rousseff and an ally of Mr. Cunha, recommended on April 6 that proceedings move forward to remove her from office.

The full committee, in a 38-27 vote on April 11, agreed, clearing the way for a vote on her impeachment in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies.

Step2

Chamber of Deputies Votes

On April 17, the lower chamber voted for impeachment. At least two-thirds ofthe 513 deputies had to vote for impeachment forthe motion to pass. The decisiva 342nd vote was cast about five-anda-half hours afterthe floorvote started.

ln early May, Brazil's top court, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, removed Mr. Cunha from his speaker role on charges of obstructing a corruption investigation.

Step3

The Role ofthe Senate and Vice President

After the lower chamber vote, the process then moved to the Senate, which had to decide, with a sim pie majority vote, whether to accept the charges.

On May 12, the Senate voted 55 to 22 to begin the triai, resulting in Ms. Rousseff's suspension. The vice president then took over, with the authority to appoint ministers and enact policy.

Michel Temer, the vice president who assumed the president's office, is a member of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. His party had been a crucial part of Ms. Rousseff's governing coalition, but it recently voted to split with her Workers' Party, which significantly increased the odds of Ms. Rousseff's impeachment.

Mr. Temer, 75, was himself under scrutiny over claims that he was involved in an illegal ethanol purchasing scheme.

Step4

Removal or Reinstatement

The Senate triai will be overseen by the chief justice of the Suprema Federal Tribunal, Ricardo Lewandowski. Two-thirds of the 81 senators must vote in favor of removing the president from office. lf that happens, Mr. Temer would serve as president for the remainder of Ms. Rousseff's term through the end of 2018.

lf no decision is reached within 180 days, the suspension of the president ends.

Asked in a recent interview with The New York Times whether she would accept a vote to impeach her, Ms. Rousseff, 68, said, "We will appeal with every legal method available."

She has that option: "She can appeal at any moment she finds something legally questionable occurring in the process," said Brasílio Sallum Jr., a professor of sociology at the University of São Paulo and an expert in Brazil's political processes.

Com base na Leitura do texto "Brazil lmpeachment: The Process for Removing the President", responda a questão.

Leia as instruções a seguir e responda a questão.

Instructions for making sandwiches

    First decide what type of filling you would like and check to see if there is some available. Next take two slices of bread and butter each of them on one side only. Put your filling on one slice of bread, butter side up. You may choose two fillings. Place the other piece of bread, butter side down, on top of the filling. Now cut your sandwich carefully with a knife. Now sit down and enjoy your sandwich. Finally, clear away the things you have been using.

(http://www.drapersmillsprimary.co.uk/ lead-learner-key-stage-one-blog/ – Adaptado)

Para responder a questão, leia o artigo de jornal a seguir.

Trial with migrants

        The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is against migration there. He says that the EU risks losing another country if the migration is not stopped. Nine men were sentenced to nearly a year in jail; however, they were released at the judge’s discretion due to time already served. One of the group was kept behind bars after receiving a three-year sentence for issuing instructions to the rioters through a loudspeaker. After the trial, a United Nations spokesman said that he was worried that a country would criminalize people who are fleeing war zones.

(www.ondemandnews.com – Adaptado)

Atenção: Considere o texto para responder à questão.

Does an Email Hacking Software really Exist?

  With my experience of over 10 years in the field of ethical hacking and information security, all I can tell you is that there exists no such ready-made software program (as shown and advertised on many websites) that can break into the service provider’s database and hack email passwords. This is just a myth! This may seem a bit disappointing for many, but this is the fact. However, it is still possible to easily hack email passwords using some of the alternative programs and ways as discussed below:

  Working Ways to Hack an Email Password:

  Even though it is impossible to hack the database and instantly crack the email password, it is still possible to trick the users so that they give away the password by themselves. This can be done using a handful of methods like keylogging, social engineering or phishing. However, the easiest and most effective way is by using keyloggers.

  A keylogger is a small program that records each and every keystroke a user types on the keyboard of a specific computer. So when you install a keylogger on the computer from where the target person is likely to access his/her email, it is possible to capture the password. Though keyloggers are not designed to hack email passwords, they can still be used to accomplish the job. Here is a list of some of the interesting facts about keyloggers:

  EASY TO USE: A keylogger does not require any special skills. Anyone with basic computer knowledge should be able to use it.

  REMAINS UNDETECTED: A keylogger will remain undetected after installation and operates in a total stealth mode. So, you need not worry about being caught or traced back.

  REMOTE INSTALLATION: In addition to installation on a location computer, keyloggers also support remote installation. That means you can also install it even on those computers for which you do not have physical access.

(Adapted form: http://www.gohacking.com/email-hacking-software/) 

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016 

    The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

    That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

    A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

    Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever

    As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

    The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

    While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

    That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

    Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

    Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

    Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)