Questões de Concurso
Para outras
Foram encontradas 1.297.333 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
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:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383001
Português
Texto associado
ATENÇÃO: O texto a seguir refere-se à próxima questão.
Um Analista de Negócios de TI desempenha um papel crucial em
unir a tecnologia e os objetivos empresariais. Este profissional é
responsável por garantir que as soluções de TI estejam alinhadas
com as necessidades e objetivos empresariais, promovendo assim
eficiência e inovação. Dentro da categoria de alinhamento entre TI
e negócios, o Analista de Negócios de TI (IT BA) identifica áreas de
melhoria, documenta requisitos e garante que as soluções
tecnológicas sejam implementadas de forma eficaz para aprimorar
os processos estruturais das empresas modernas.
Entre os adjetivos que aparecem nas opções abaixo, assinale
aquele que mostra uma opinião do enunciador, indicando uma
qualidade.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4383000
Português
Texto associado
ATENÇÃO: O texto a seguir refere-se à próxima questão.
Um Analista de Negócios de TI desempenha um papel crucial em
unir a tecnologia e os objetivos empresariais. Este profissional é
responsável por garantir que as soluções de TI estejam alinhadas
com as necessidades e objetivos empresariais, promovendo assim
eficiência e inovação. Dentro da categoria de alinhamento entre TI
e negócios, o Analista de Negócios de TI (IT BA) identifica áreas de
melhoria, documenta requisitos e garante que as soluções
tecnológicas sejam implementadas de forma eficaz para aprimorar
os processos estruturais das empresas modernas.
Pela sua estrutura, esse pequeno texto deve ser classificado,
quanto ao seu tipo, como
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382999
Português
Texto associado
ATENÇÃO: O texto a seguir refere-se à próxima questão.
Leia o texto abaixo, sobre gestão e governança.
A governança não se confunde com gestão: enquanto
a gestão executa atividades e processos, a governança direciona,
define políticas, estabelece prioridades e supervisiona resultados,
garantindo que os objetivos organizacionais da empresa sejam
alcançados de forma ética e eficiente . Ela envolve a definição de
responsabilidades, a alocação de recursos e a criação de
mecanismos de controle de atividades e monitoramento.
Nas opções a seguir, assinale aquela que traz uma função diferente
do conectivo de.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382998
Português
Texto associado
ATENÇÃO: O texto a seguir refere-se à próxima questão.
Leia o texto abaixo, sobre gestão e governança.
A governança não se confunde com gestão: enquanto
a gestão executa atividades e processos, a governança direciona,
define políticas, estabelece prioridades e supervisiona resultados,
garantindo que os objetivos organizacionais da empresa sejam
alcançados de forma ética e eficiente . Ela envolve a definição de
responsabilidades, a alocação de recursos e a criação de
mecanismos de controle de atividades e monitoramento.
Sobre a estruturação desse texto, assinale a afirmativa correta.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382997
Português
As frases a seguir mostram um termo sublinhado que se refere a
um termo anterior, estabelecendo coesão na frase.
Assinale a opção em que a identificação do antecedente do termo sublinhado está correta
Assinale a opção em que a identificação do antecedente do termo sublinhado está correta
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382996
Português
As autoridades interviram nos problemas políticos surgidos na
semana passada.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382995
Português
Os que trabalham em espaços profissionais em que inserem textos
devem preocupar-se com a correção gramatical.
Entre as frases a seguir, assinale a que se mostra integralmente correta.
Entre as frases a seguir, assinale a que se mostra integralmente correta.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382994
Português
Leia o texto a seguir.
Quem governa uma instituição pública ou privada é sempre objeto do ódio e das queixas dos governados. Os homens estão sempre descontentes porque estão sempre infelizes. Por isso ficam descontentes com o próprio Estado, e também por isso ficam descontentes com quem o governa... Entretanto, no que concerne ao ato de governar, infelizmente existem apenas duas alternativas realmente sensatas: ou abster-se do governo, seja ele público ou privado, ou administrá-lo totalmente em vantagem própria e não dos governados.
Leopardi, Giácomo. Ensaísta italiano.
As opções a seguir apresentam observações de caráter linguístico sobre o texto.
Assinale a única observação incorreta.
Quem governa uma instituição pública ou privada é sempre objeto do ódio e das queixas dos governados. Os homens estão sempre descontentes porque estão sempre infelizes. Por isso ficam descontentes com o próprio Estado, e também por isso ficam descontentes com quem o governa... Entretanto, no que concerne ao ato de governar, infelizmente existem apenas duas alternativas realmente sensatas: ou abster-se do governo, seja ele público ou privado, ou administrá-lo totalmente em vantagem própria e não dos governados.
Leopardi, Giácomo. Ensaísta italiano.
As opções a seguir apresentam observações de caráter linguístico sobre o texto.
Assinale a única observação incorreta.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382993
Português
No texto a seguir, os pronomes demonstrativos sublinhados estão
bem empregados.
Se os navios geralmente vão melhor do que os Estados, isso ocorre pela única razão de que naqueles cada um aceita a parte que lhe compete, enquanto nestes, na maioria das vezes, quanto menos se sabe, mais se tem o desejo de comandar.
Assinale a opção que mostra a frase em que o demonstrativo está erradamente empregado.
Se os navios geralmente vão melhor do que os Estados, isso ocorre pela única razão de que naqueles cada um aceita a parte que lhe compete, enquanto nestes, na maioria das vezes, quanto menos se sabe, mais se tem o desejo de comandar.
Assinale a opção que mostra a frase em que o demonstrativo está erradamente empregado.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382992
Português
Leia com atenção o trecho a seguir.
“Se os navios geralmente vão melhor do que os Estados, isso ocorre pela única razão de que naqueles cada um aceita a parte que lhe compete, enquanto nestes, na maioria das vezes, quanto menos se sabe, mais se tem o desejo de comandar.”
Sobre esse trecho, assinale a afirmativa correta.
“Se os navios geralmente vão melhor do que os Estados, isso ocorre pela única razão de que naqueles cada um aceita a parte que lhe compete, enquanto nestes, na maioria das vezes, quanto menos se sabe, mais se tem o desejo de comandar.”
Sobre esse trecho, assinale a afirmativa correta.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382991
Português
Leia com atenção o texto a seguir.
Processamento de dados é a conversão de dados brutos em informações úteis por meio de etapas estruturadas, como coleta, preparação, análise e armazenamento de dados . As organizações podem ter insights praticáveis e informar a tomada de decisão processando dados de forma eficaz.
Historicamente, as empresas dependiam de processamento de dados e calculadoras para gerenciar conjuntos de dados menores. Como as empresas geravam volumes cada vez maiores de dados, tornaram-se essenciais os métodos avançados de processamento de dados.
KRANTZ, Tom. JONKER, Alexandra. O que é processamento de dados? IBM.2025.
As opções a seguir apresentam observações corretas sobre esse pequeno texto, à exceção de uma. Assinale-a.
Processamento de dados é a conversão de dados brutos em informações úteis por meio de etapas estruturadas, como coleta, preparação, análise e armazenamento de dados . As organizações podem ter insights praticáveis e informar a tomada de decisão processando dados de forma eficaz.
Historicamente, as empresas dependiam de processamento de dados e calculadoras para gerenciar conjuntos de dados menores. Como as empresas geravam volumes cada vez maiores de dados, tornaram-se essenciais os métodos avançados de processamento de dados.
KRANTZ, Tom. JONKER, Alexandra. O que é processamento de dados? IBM.2025.
As opções a seguir apresentam observações corretas sobre esse pequeno texto, à exceção de uma. Assinale-a.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
DATAPREV
Prova:
FGV - 2026 - DATAPREV - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação – Segurança Cibernética e Proteção de Dados |
Q4382990
Português
As opções a seguir apresentam frases em que há a repetição de
uma mesma palavra.
Assinale aquela em que as palavras mostram sentidos diferentes.
Assinale aquela em que as palavras mostram sentidos diferentes.
Ano: 2026
Banca:
Ibest
Órgão:
SENAR - GO
Prova:
Ibest - 2026 - SENAR - GO - Especialista 2 - Especialista Jurídico 2 |
Q4378991
Direito Processual do Trabalho
De acordo com a CLT, assinale a alternativa correta.
Conheça nossos planos