Texto III 
1. Rosendo Maqui y la comunidad 1 ¡Desgracia! Una culebra ágil y oscura cruzó el camino, dejando en el fino polvo removido por los viandantes la canaleta leve de 4 su huella. Pasó muy rápidamente, como una negra flecha disparada por la fatalidad, sin dar tiempo para que el indio Rosendo Maqui empleara su machete. Cuando la hoja de acero 7 fulguró en el aire, ya el largo y bruñido cuerpo de la serpiente ondulaba perdiéndose entre los arbustos de la vera. ¡Desgracia! 10 Rosendo guardó el machete en la vaina de cuero sujeta a un delgado cincho que negreaba sobre la coloreada faja de lana y se quedó, de pronto, sin saber qué hacer. Quiso 13 al fin proseguir su camino, pero los pies le pesaban. Se había asustado, pues. Entonces se fijó en que los arbustos formaban un matorral donde bien podía estar la culebra. Era necesario 16 terminar con la alimaña y su siniestra agorería. Es la forma de conjurar el presunto daño en los casos de la sierpe y el búho. Después de quitarse el poncho para maniobrar con más 19 desenvoltura en medio de las ramas, y las ojotas para no hacer bulla, dio un táctico rodeo y penetró blandamente, machete en mano, entre los arbustos. Si alguno de los comuneros lo 22 hubiera visto en esa hora, en mangas de camisa y husmeando con un aire de can inquieto, quizá habría dicho: «¿Qué hace ahí el anciano alcalde? No será que le falta el buen sentido». Los 25 arbustos eran úñicos de tallos retorcidos y hojas lustrosas, rodeando las cuales se arracimaban —había llegado el tiempo— unas moras lilas. A Rosendo Maqui le placían, pero 28 esa vez no intentó probarlas siquiera. Sus ojos de animal en acecho, brillantes de fiereza y deseo, recorrían todos los vericuetos alumbrando las secretas zonas en donde la hormiga 31 cercena y transporta su brizna, el moscardón ronronea su amor, germina la semilla que cayó en el fruto rendido de madurez o del vientre de un pájaro, y el gorgojo labra inacabablemente su 34 perfecto túnel. Nada había fuera de esa existencia escondida. De súbito, un gorrión echó a volar y Rosendo vio el nido, acomodado de un horcón, donde dos polluelos mostraban sus 37 picos triangulares y su desnudez friolenta. El reptil debía estar por allí, rondando en torno a esas inermes vidas. El gorrión fugitivo volvió con su pareja y ambos piaban saltando de rama 40 en rama, lo más cerca del nido que les permitía su miedo al hombre. Éste hurgó con renovado celo, pero, en definitiva, no pudo encontrar a la aviesa serpiente. Salió del matorral y 43 después de guardarse de nuevo el machete, se colocó las prendas momentáneamente abandonadas —los vivos colores del poncho solían, otras veces, ponerlo contento— y continuó 46 la marcha. ¡Desgracia!  Tenía la boca seca, las sienes ardientes y se sentía 49 cansado. Esa búsqueda no era tarea de fatigar y considerándolo tuvo miedo. Su corazón era el pesado, acaso. Él presentía, sabía y estaba agobiado de angustia. Encontró a poco un 52 muriente arroyo que arrastraba una diáfana agüita silenciosa y, ahuecando la falda de su sombrero de junco, recogió la suficiente para hartarse a largos tragos. El frescor lo reanimó 55 y reanudó su viaje con alivianado paso. Bien mirado —se decía—, la culebra oteó desde un punto elevado de la ladera el nido de gorriones y entonces bajó con la intención de 58 comérselos. Dio la casualidad de que él pasara por el camino en el momento en que ella lo cruzaba. Nada más. O quizá, previendo el encuentro, la muy ladina dijo: «Aprovecharé para 61 asustar a ese cristiano». Pero es verdad también que la condición del hombre es esperanzarse. Acaso únicamente la culebra sentenció: «Ahí va un cristiano desprevenido que no 64 quiere ver la desgracia próxima y voy a anunciársela». Seguramente era esto lo cierto, ya que no la pudo encontrar. La fatalidad es incontrastable.  67 ¡Desgracia! ¡Desgracia! Rosendo Maqui volvía de las alturas, a donde fue con el objeto de buscar algunas yerbas que la curandera había 70 recetado a su vieja mujer. En realidad, subió también porque le gustaba probar la gozosa fuerza de sus músculos en la lucha con las escarpadas cumbres y luego, al dominarlas, llenarse los 73 ojos de horizontes. Amaba los amplios espacios y la magnífica grandeza de los Andes. Gozaba viendo el nevado Urpillau, canoso y sabio como un antiguo amauta; el arisco y violento 76 Huarca, guerrero en perenne lucha con la niebla y el viento; el aristado Huilloc, en el cual un indio dormía eternamente de cara al cielo; el agazapado Puma, justamente dispuesto como 79 un león americano en trance de dar el salto; el rechoncho Suni, de hábitos pacíficos y un poco a disgusto entre sus vecinos; el eglógico Mamay, que prefería prodigarse en faldas coloreadas 82 de múltiples sembríos y apenas hacía asomar una arista de piedra para atisbar las lejanías; éste y ése y aquél y esotro… El indio Rosendo los animaba de todas las formas e intenciones 85 imaginables y se dejaba estar mucho tiempo mirándolos. En el fondo de sí mismo, creía que los Andes conocían el emocionante secreto de la vida.
Ciro Alegría. El mundo es ancho y ajeno.
A partir del fragmento expuesto, la cumbre
Suni vivía en armonía con sus homólogas.

1 Distingo, no português histórico, dois períodos principais: o português antigo, que se escreveu até os primeiros anos do século XVI, e o português moderno. Robustecida e 4 enriquecida de expressões novas, a linguagem usada nas crônicas desse segundo período, que relatam os descobrimentos em África e Ásia e os feitos das armas 7 lusitanas no Oriente, culmina no apuro e no gosto do português moderno d’Os Lusíadas (1572). É o século da Renascença literária, e tudo quanto ao depois se escreve é a continuação da 10 linguagem desse período. E como não ficou estacionário o português moderno, denominou-se quinhentista, seiscentista, setecentista a linguagem própria a cada era. Reservo a 13 denominação de português hodierno para as mudanças características do falar atual criadas ou fixadas recentemente, ou recebidas do século XIX, ou que por ventura remontam ao 16 século XVIII.  Limites entre os diversos períodos não podem ser traçados com rigor. Ignoram-se a data ou o momento exato do 19 aparecimento de qualquer alteração linguística. Neste ponto, nunca será a linguagem escrita, dada a sua tendência conservadora, espelho fiel do que se passa na linguagem 22 falada. Surge a inovação, formulada acaso por um ou poucos indivíduos; se tem a dita de agradar, não tarda a generalizar-se o seu uso no falar do povo. A gente culta e de fina casta 25 repele-a, a princípio, mas, com o tempo, sucumbe ao contágio. Imita o vulgo, se não escrevendo com meditação, em todo o caso no trato familiar e falando espontaneamente. Decorrem 28 muitos anos, até que por fim a linguagem literária, não vendo razão para enjeitar o que todo o mundo diz, se decide a aceitar a mudança também. Tal é, a meu ver, a explicação não 31 somente de fatos isolados, mas ainda do aparecimento de todo o português moderno.  Não é de crer que poucos anos depois de 1500, quase 34 que bruscamente e sem influxo de idioma estranho, cessassem em Portugal inveterados hábitos de falar e se trocasse o português antigo em português moderno. Nem podemos 37 atribuir a escritores, por muito engenho artístico que tivessem, aptidões e autoridade para reformarem, a seu sabor, o idioma pátrio e sua gramática. Consistiria a sua obra antes em elevar 40 à categoria de linguagem literária o falar comum, principalmente o das pessoas educadas, tornando-o mais elegante e desterrando locuções que lhe dessem aspecto menos 43 nobre. Mas os escritores antigos evitavam afastar-se da prática recebida de seus avós e, posto que muitas concessões tivessem de fazer ao uso para serem entendidos, propendiam mais a 46 utilizar-se de recursos artificiais que dessem ao estilo certo ar de gravidade e acima do vulgar.  O século XVI, descerradas as cortinas que encobriam 49 o espetáculo de novos mundos, e dada a facilidade de pôr a leitura das obras literárias ao alcance de todos, graças ao desenvolvimento da imprensa, devia fazer cessar a superstição 52 do passado, mostrar o caminho do futuro e ditar a necessidade de se exprimirem os escritores em linguagem que todos entendessem. Resolveram-se a fazê-lo. Serviram-se da 55 linguagem viva de fato, como o demonstram os diálogos das comédias de então, que reproduzem o falar tradicional da gente do povo. Trariam estes diálogos os característicos gramaticais 58 do português antigo, se fosse este ainda o idioma corrente. 
M. Said Ali. Prólogo da Lexeologia do português histórico, 1.ª ed. 1921. In: Gramática histórica da língua portuguesa. 8.ª ed. rev. e atual. por Mário Eduardo Viaro. São Paulo: Companhia Melhoramentos; Brasília, DF: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2001, p. 17-8 (com adaptações)
Julgue (C ou E) o item a seguir, a respeito de elementos coesivos e do vocabulário do texto de M. Said Ali.
As formas verbais “sucumbe” (linha 25) e “desterrando” (linha 42), que poderiam ser corretamente substituídas, respectivamente, por não resiste e livrando-se de, foram assim empregadas no texto: a primeira, em sentido denotativo, e a segunda, em sentido conotativo.

1 Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and 4 otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage 7 involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of 10 International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very 13 definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than 16 ever before. Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the 19 stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, 22 agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an 25 open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric. To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to 28 suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with 31 domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow 34 deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena. 37 In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club 40 diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are 43 involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic 46 dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate 49 at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results. 
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
As far as textual unity is concerned, “Yet” provides a transition from the first to the second paragraphs, and establishes a contrast between the ideas in each of them.

   1 Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and 4 otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage 7 involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of 10 International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very 13 definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than 16 ever before.
     Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the 19 stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, 22 agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an 25 open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
    To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to 28 suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with 31 domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow 34 deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
   37   In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club 40 diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are 43 involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic 46 dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate 49 at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results. 

Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
From the third paragraph, it is correct to infer that the more complex the diplomatic scenario, the more necessary the presence of leaders is.

       1 Barbara Dawson, director of the Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin, remembers very clearly the day in 1997 when she climbed the steep stairs and entered Francis Bacon’s studio at 4 7 Reece Mews, South Kensington. It had been left the way it was when he passed away, on April 28 1992, and it was a chaos of slashed canvases, paint-splashed walls, cloths, 7 brushes, champagne boxes, and a large mirror. She stood and stared for a long time, in a kind of incredulity, “and actually it became quite beautiful.” She began to see “paths cut through 10 it,” and details. “The last unfinished painting was on the easel when I went in there, and on the floor underneath the easel was a short article on George Michael, the singer, about how he 13 liked to be photographed from one side. It was like looking into somebody’s mind”. 
       7 Reece Mews was tiny, and apart from the studio 16 consisted of two rooms — a kitchen that contained a bath, and a living room that doubled as a bedroom. The studio had one skylight, and Bacon usually worked there in the mornings. He 19 tried to paint elsewhere — in South Africa, for example, when he was visiting family, but couldn’t. (Too much light, was the rather surprising objection.) He liked the size and general 22 frugality, too. 
      Dawson recognised that the studio was the making of Bacon’s art in a more profound sense than just being a 25 comfortable space to paint in, and determined that it should not be dismantled. John Edwards, to whom Bacon had bequeathed Reece Mews, felt similarly, and after months of painstaking 28 cataloguing by archaeologists, conservators and photographers, the Hugh Lane Gallery took delivery of the studio, in 1998. It was opened to the public in 2001. 
      31 What is visible now, in a climate-controlled corner of the gallery, a gracious neo-classical building on Parnell Square in Dublin, is in fact a kind of faithful “skin” of objects; the 34 tables and chairs have all been returned to their original places, the work surfaces seem as cluttered as they were — but the deep stuff, the bedrock, has been removed and is kept in 37 climate-controlled archival areas. In the end, there were 7,500 items — samples of painting materials, photographs, slashed canvasses, umpteen handwritten notes, drawings, books, 40 champagne boxes. 
      Bacon was homosexual at a time when it was still illegal, and while he was open about his sexuality, his notes for 43 prospective paintings refer to “bed[s] of crime]”, and his homosexuality was felt as an affliction, says Dawson. It wasn’t easy. The sense of guilt is apparent in his work, as well as his 46 fascination with violence. “His collections of pictures, dead bodies, or depictions of violence — he’s not looking at violence from the classic liberal position”. It was all, concedes 49 Dawson, accompanied by intellectual rigour, and an insistent attempt at objectivity — “he’s trying to detach from himself as well.” 
      52 Everything was grist, and in his studio even his own art fed other art. He returned to his own work obsessively, repeating and augmenting. And of course, he responded 55 negatively — and violently — as well as positively; a hundred is a lot of slashed canvasses to keep around you when you’re working, especially when they are so deliberately slashed. In 58 a way, all this might serve as a metaphor for the importance of our understanding of his studio as a whole. 
Aida Edemarian. Francis Bacon: box of tricks. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the statements below are right (C) or wrong (E) according to the ideas and facts mentioned in the text.
Bacon believed that his inability to work in South Africa was due to the visits of his relatives.

1 Barbara Dawson, director of the Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin, remembers very clearly the day in 1997 when she climbed the steep stairs and entered Francis Bacon’s studio at 4 7 Reece Mews, South Kensington. It had been left the way it was when he passed away, on April 28 1992, and it was a chaos of slashed canvases, paint-splashed walls, cloths, 7 brushes, champagne boxes, and a large mirror. She stood and stared for a long time, in a kind of incredulity, “and actually it became quite beautiful.” She began to see “paths cut through 10 it,” and details. “The last unfinished painting was on the easel when I went in there, and on the floor underneath the easel was a short article on George Michael, the singer, about how he 13 liked to be photographed from one side. It was like looking into somebody’s mind”.  7 Reece Mews was tiny, and apart from the studio 16 consisted of two rooms — a kitchen that contained a bath, and a living room that doubled as a bedroom. The studio had one skylight, and Bacon usually worked there in the mornings. He 19 tried to paint elsewhere — in South Africa, for example, when he was visiting family, but couldn’t. (Too much light, was the rather surprising objection.) He liked the size and general 22 frugality, too.  Dawson recognised that the studio was the making of Bacon’s art in a more profound sense than just being a 25 comfortable space to paint in, and determined that it should not be dismantled. John Edwards, to whom Bacon had bequeathed Reece Mews, felt similarly, and after months of painstaking 28 cataloguing by archaeologists, conservators and photographers, the Hugh Lane Gallery took delivery of the studio, in 1998. It was opened to the public in 2001.  31 What is visible now, in a climate-controlled corner of the gallery, a gracious neo-classical building on Parnell Square in Dublin, is in fact a kind of faithful “skin” of objects; the 34 tables and chairs have all been returned to their original places, the work surfaces seem as cluttered as they were — but the deep stuff, the bedrock, has been removed and is kept in 37 climate-controlled archival areas. In the end, there were 7,500 items — samples of painting materials, photographs, slashed canvasses, umpteen handwritten notes, drawings, books, 40 champagne boxes.  Bacon was homosexual at a time when it was still illegal, and while he was open about his sexuality, his notes for 43 prospective paintings refer to “bed[s] of crime]”, and his homosexuality was felt as an affliction, says Dawson. It wasn’t easy. The sense of guilt is apparent in his work, as well as his 46 fascination with violence. “His collections of pictures, dead bodies, or depictions of violence — he’s not looking at violence from the classic liberal position”. It was all, concedes 49 Dawson, accompanied by intellectual rigour, and an insistent attempt at objectivity — “he’s trying to detach from himself as well.”  52 Everything was grist, and in his studio even his own art fed other art. He returned to his own work obsessively, repeating and augmenting. And of course, he responded 55 negatively — and violently — as well as positively; a hundred is a lot of slashed canvasses to keep around you when you’re working, especially when they are so deliberately slashed. In 58 a way, all this might serve as a metaphor for the importance of our understanding of his studio as a whole. 
Aida Edemarian. Francis Bacon: box of tricks. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the statements below are right (C) or wrong (E) according to the ideas and facts mentioned in the text.
Bacon left part of his properties to Edwards.

1 Barbara Dawson, director of the Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin, remembers very clearly the day in 1997 when she climbed the steep stairs and entered Francis Bacon’s studio at 4 7 Reece Mews, South Kensington. It had been left the way it was when he passed away, on April 28 1992, and it was a chaos of slashed canvases, paint-splashed walls, cloths, 7 brushes, champagne boxes, and a large mirror. She stood and stared for a long time, in a kind of incredulity, “and actually it became quite beautiful.” She began to see “paths cut through 10 it,” and details. “The last unfinished painting was on the easel when I went in there, and on the floor underneath the easel was a short article on George Michael, the singer, about how he 13 liked to be photographed from one side. It was like looking into somebody’s mind”.  7 Reece Mews was tiny, and apart from the studio 16 consisted of two rooms — a kitchen that contained a bath, and a living room that doubled as a bedroom. The studio had one skylight, and Bacon usually worked there in the mornings. He 19 tried to paint elsewhere — in South Africa, for example, when he was visiting family, but couldn’t. (Too much light, was the rather surprising objection.) He liked the size and general 22 frugality, too.  Dawson recognised that the studio was the making of Bacon’s art in a more profound sense than just being a 25 comfortable space to paint in, and determined that it should not be dismantled. John Edwards, to whom Bacon had bequeathed Reece Mews, felt similarly, and after months of painstaking 28 cataloguing by archaeologists, conservators and photographers, the Hugh Lane Gallery took delivery of the studio, in 1998. It was opened to the public in 2001.  31 What is visible now, in a climate-controlled corner of the gallery, a gracious neo-classical building on Parnell Square in Dublin, is in fact a kind of faithful “skin” of objects; the 34 tables and chairs have all been returned to their original places, the work surfaces seem as cluttered as they were — but the deep stuff, the bedrock, has been removed and is kept in 37 climate-controlled archival areas. In the end, there were 7,500 items — samples of painting materials, photographs, slashed canvasses, umpteen handwritten notes, drawings, books, 40 champagne boxes.  Bacon was homosexual at a time when it was still illegal, and while he was open about his sexuality, his notes for 43 prospective paintings refer to “bed[s] of crime]”, and his homosexuality was felt as an affliction, says Dawson. It wasn’t easy. The sense of guilt is apparent in his work, as well as his 46 fascination with violence. “His collections of pictures, dead bodies, or depictions of violence — he’s not looking at violence from the classic liberal position”. It was all, concedes 49 Dawson, accompanied by intellectual rigour, and an insistent attempt at objectivity — “he’s trying to detach from himself as well.”  52 Everything was grist, and in his studio even his own art fed other art. He returned to his own work obsessively, repeating and augmenting. And of course, he responded 55 negatively — and violently — as well as positively; a hundred is a lot of slashed canvasses to keep around you when you’re working, especially when they are so deliberately slashed. In 58 a way, all this might serve as a metaphor for the importance of our understanding of his studio as a whole. 
Aida Edemarian. Francis Bacon: box of tricks. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the statements below are right (C) or wrong (E) according to the ideas and facts mentioned in the text.
The author of the text claims that the fact that George Michael liked having his profile photographed revealed a lot about his personality.