Questões de Concurso
Para vestibular
Foram encontradas 3.269 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Considere que a execução de processos deste escritório seja modelado de acordo com um sistema de filas do tipo M/M/1, ou seja, as distribuições dos intervalos de tempo entre chegadas e entre saídas é exponencial, o sistema tem fila única e os processos são atendidos de acordo com a política FIFO, ou seja, o primeiro a chegar é o primeiro a ser atendido.
Se a taxa média de chegada de processos é de 20 processos/hora e a taxa média de execução de um processo é igual a 2 minutos, pode-se dizer que o percentual do tempo em que o sistema está ocupado é, em média, de aproximadamente:
1. É uma metodologia utilizada pela ergonomia para atingir seus objetivos; 2. Foi desenvolvida na França; 3. Tem como uma das etapas a análise da demanda que trata da definição do problema a ser estudado; 4. Tem como uma das etapas a avaliação da qualidade dos produtos fabricados; 5. Não contempla o diagnóstico e recomendações.
Assinale a alternativa que indica todas as afirmativas corretas.
Figura 1 Rede de estradas conectando as cidades de A a G Neste caso, a aplicação do algoritmo de Dijkstra é capaz de determinar a rota mais curta entre duas cidades quaisquer.
Levando-se em consideração o procedimento de Dijkstra, pode-se afirmar que o número total de rotas de menor comprimento conectando as cidades A e G é igual a:
Ambos os produtos usam uma matéria-prima cuja disponibilidade máxima diária é 240 m² . As taxas de utilização da matéria-prima são 2 m² por unidade de P1 e 4 m² por unidade de P2. Os lucros unitários para P1 e P2 são R$ 20,00 e R$ 50,00, respectivamente.
O mix de produto ótimo para a empresa é dado pela produção de A unidades de P1 e B unidades de P2, de forma que:
A empresa pode produzir mais que o necessário em qualquer mês e transferir o excedente de produção para um mês posterior a um dado custo.
Considere que a quantidade produzida num determinado mês t seja representada pela variável de decisão x(t) e que a quantidade armazenada em estoque ao final do mês t seja representada pela variável E(t), de forma que E(0) seja o estoque disponível no início do período de produção.
A alternativa que representa corretamente a restrição de equilíbrio entre a demanda, o estoque e o número de itens produzidos num determinado mês t é dada por:
Com base nestes dados, indique os custos unitários considerando o custeio por absorção integral e ideal do produto (em R$/par), nesta sequência.
1. O método do valor presente consiste em encontrar o valor presente equivalente do fluxo de caixa, considerando a Taxa Interna de Retorno do investimento. 2. Se a Taxa Interna de Retorno de um investimento é maior do que a Taxa Mínima de Atratividade, o mesmo é vantajoso. 3. Comparando dois investimentos, o que apresentar a maior Taxa Interna de Retorno é a melhor opção. 4. O método “Payback” é tecnicamente incorreto, pois desconsidera o fluxo de caixa após o período de recuperação do capital investido. 5. A Taxa Mínima de Atratividade é a menor taxa de juros que proporciona um valor presente positivo ao investimento.
Assinale a alternativa que indica todas as afirmativas corretas.
Assinale a alternativa que indica a melhor definição para o termo “desperdícios”.
Em qual das situações abaixo o diagrama pode ser usado para determinar uma solução para o problema em questão?
Os elementos que compõem esta trilogia são:
Uma destas abordagens evidencia o impacto da marca de produtos e da imagem da empresa junto ao mercado e à sociedade. Indique-a.
Dos itens abaixo listados, qual deles não é considerado uma das lacunas do modelo?
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. They say we should continue using it… 2.…which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. 3. While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed… 4. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy…
Choose the alternative which presents the correct uses according to their meanings:
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. 2. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain… 3. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown… 4. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because…
Choose the alternative that presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
Column 1 Words 1. power plant 2. damage 3. improve 4. waste 5. supply
Column 2 Definitions ( ) make better ( ) harm ( ) provide for ( ) an electric utility generating station ( ) rejected material
Choose the alternative that presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?
Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.
But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.
While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power.
This approach seems to be working because by May
2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed
by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a
potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth
largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and
improve its economy without much nuclear power,
maybe others can do so, too.
1. “Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from…” 2. “Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany…”
The underlined words in the sentences above, have their correct meanings in which alternative:
Conheça nossos planos