Consider the sentence "We kill 100 million sharks every year, […]”, said by the British director Hayley Easton Street (12th§)
The pronoun “we” refers to:

Question

Something in the water? Why we love shark films
From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films.
Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror.
There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine
in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark.
Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the
actual president.
I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine
inside leisure centres.
Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a
group of women stranded at sea.
She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie.
So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News.
“Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could
happen.”
But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers.
“We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes.
The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had
been portrayed as merciless killers.
“As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.”
“I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which
they are not.”
She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are
sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.”
Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of
the book and the film”.
Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have.
US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving
with them.
She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media.
Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed.
“Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.”
“So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming
at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.”
“But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and
they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.”
“If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.”
Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation.
“It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.”
“The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a
huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually
protect them.”
“It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.”
“We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.”
It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them.
But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims
of humans.
(Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in:<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckmmgxvp7dgo>. Adapted.) Consider the sentence "We kill 100 million sharks every year, […]”, said by the British director Hayley Easton Street (12th§)
The pronoun “we” refers to: Alternativa A: Divers. Ou Alternativa B: Humans. Ou Alternativa C: Marine biologists. Ou Alternativa D: Shark films’ production teams.

Qconcursos · Accepted Answer

Alternativa [B] Humans. Alternativa correta: B – Humans

Tema central: A questão avalia referência pronominal em leitura (reading comprehension), isto é, identificar a quem o pronome “we” se refere no contexto.

Resumo teórico: Em inglês, pronomes como “we” precisam de um referente definido pelo contexto. “We” pode ser:
- Genérico (a humanidade em geral).
- Inclusivo (inclui o falante e o ouvinte).
- Autorais/grupais (nós de um grupo específico).

Para resolver, observe: tema do trecho, verbos usados, dados numéricos e o propósito comunicativo. Referências úteis: Huddleston & Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), e Swan, Practical English Usage (Oxford, 2016), que tratam do uso de pronomes e do “generic we”.

Justificativa da correta (B): No contexto, a diretora fala contra retratar tubarões como “serial killers” e, em seguida, afirma: “We kill 100 million sharks every year”. Esse “we” é genérico, referindo-se a nós, seres humanos, responsáveis pela pesca e outras práticas que matam tubarões em larga escala. O texto reforça essa leitura mais adiante ao comparar: “100 milhões de tubarões são mortos por ano” versus “menos de 10 pessoas mortas por tubarões” — contrastando humanos como agentes principais das mortes.

Análise das incorretas:
A – Divers (mergulhadores): Muito específico e incompatível com o número “100 milhões”. Mergulhadores recreativos não são os agentes de matança em massa; trata-se de atividade humana ampla (pesca industrial, comércio de barbatanas etc.).
C – Marine biologists (biólogos marinhos): O texto apresenta biólogos como educadores e defensores da conservação, não como responsáveis por matar tubarões. Logo, não faz sentido que “we” os designe.
D – Shark films’ production teams (equipes de filmes): O enunciado trata de mortes reais, não de ficção cinematográfica. Equipes de produção não são o sujeito plausível para “matar 100 milhões de tubarões”.

Estratégias de interpretação e pegadinhas:
- Não se prenda ao substantivo mais próximo (ex.: “diretora”, “biólogos”) para decidir o referente; olhe a ideia global do parágrafo.
- Verifique o valor genérico de “we”: quando há dados globais e crítica comportamental, costuma significar “nós, humanos”.
- Observe contrastes numéricos e de agência: grandes números associados a práticas humanas indicam “we = humans”.
- Considere o propósito: a diretora busca desfazer o estereótipo de tubarões como monstros; logo, atribui a responsabilidade aos humanos.

Conclusão: O pronome “we” é usado de forma genérica para representar a humanidade, portanto, a resposta correta é B – Humans.

Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!

🚀 Mais performance?

🚀 Mais performance?

Consider the sentence "We kill 100 million sharks every year...

Gabarito comentado

Clique para visualizar este gabarito

Comentários

Clique para visualizar este comentário

Resumos relacionados

Advérbios e conjunções em inglês para concursos públicos

Artigos (Articles) em inglês: uso em concursos públicos

Questões de assuntos semelhantes

Provas relacionadas