The action mentioned in “skip the exclamation marks” (6th
paragraph) is semantically equivalent to

Question

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   Alternativa A: bring in.   Ou Alternativa B: carry on.  Ou Alternativa C: put back.   Ou Alternativa D: leave out. Ou Alternativa E: move around.

Qconcursos · Accepted Answer

Alternativa [D] leave out. Gabarito: DFundamento decisivo: Como “skip” tem por objeto “the exclamation marks”, a alternativa deve expressar que esses sinais ficam fora da mensagem; isso leva a D.Tema central: Equivalência semântica contextualAnálise das alternativasAErrada“Bring in” significa trazer ou introduzir. Aplicada aos pontos de exclamação, a expressão indicaria introduzir os sinais, enquanto “skip” orienta a não incluí-los.BErrada“Carry on” significa continuar ou prosseguir. Expressa continuidade de uma ação, não a omissão dos pontos de exclamação solicitada no trecho.CErrada“Put back” significa recolocar ou devolver à posição anterior. Isso indicaria repor os sinais, mas a orientação do texto é deixá-los de fora, não restaurá-los.DCertaNo exemplo de um e-mail que comunica uma notícia ruim ao chefe, o texto recomenda adequar o tom ao destinatário; por isso, os pontos de exclamação devem ficar de fora. “Leave out” expressa essa orientação.EErrada“Move around” significa movimentar ou mudar de posição. Deslocar os pontos de exclamação não equivale a omiti-los: a instrução é não usá-los, e não colocá-los em outro lugar.Pegadinha da questãoA confusão está em interpretar “skip” como “pular” em sentido físico e procurar uma ideia de movimento. Como a ação recai sobre sinais de pontuação, o sentido contextual é omissão, não deslocamento.Dica para questões semelhantesEm questões de equivalência, identifique o objeto do verbo e a finalidade da orientação antes de escolher a tradução.Teste a substituição no trecho completo: a expressão escolhida deve preservar a ação solicitada, não apenas apresentar alguma proximidade de sentido isoladamente.

The action mentioned in “skip the exclamation marks” (6th p...

Gabarito comentado

Gabarito: D

Clique para visualizar este gabarito

Comentários

Clique para visualizar este comentário

Questões de assuntos semelhantes

Provas relacionadas