Questões de Vestibular
Comentadas sobre advérbios e conjunções | adverbs and conjunctions em inglês
Foram encontradas 62 questões
Will human beings ever live on other planets?
(1) __________ we have become accustomed to the idea of space travel, and in films and fiction it seems as tough space travel is inevitable, it appears unlikely that human beings will ever get any further than Mars, our nearest neighbor. No matter how many films we make about space travel, the fact is that it remains technologically challenging, and extremely expensive. (2) __________ the distances involved are immense, any voyage outside the solar system would take hundreds of years using current technology. Wherever human beings went into space, they would have problems of how to eat and breathe, and their spaceship would have to carry vast amounts of fuel (3) __________ cover the distance. Even Mars is so far away that it would take about six months to get there. (4) __________ the distance between Earth and Mars varies, astronauts would have to wait for nearly two years before they could return using the shortest journey time. (5) __________ it could cost as much as $ 100 billion, a manned mission to Mars is planned for sometime between 2010 and 2020.
VINCE, M. Macmillan English grammar in context. Macmillan, London. 2008. p. 165.
Check the CORRECT alternative.
Your gut, your emotions
What controls our emotions? The same two people might see the same tragic newspaper headline, (1) __________ one is much more emotionally affected than the other. Why is that? According to an international team led by UCLA researchers, these emotions may be partially driven by an unlikely source: our gut bacteria. In fact, the bacteria that colonize our intestines may influence the architecture of the brain itself.
The experiment examining the relationship between brain development and the gut microbiome was conducted with mice. Specific strains of mice, one that lacked a complete gut microbiome and one that had a normal microbiome, were compared in terms of their brain development and behavior. The influence of microorganisms is not limited to brain development.
Interestingly, the mice with the ―normal‖ microbiome had more anxiety and moved less than the mice without the microbiome. (2) __________ exposed to a microbiome early in life, the active, calm mice began to act more anxious and reduced their movements. Microbiota evidently had this influence by affecting hormonal expression and building particular pathways in the brain associated with anxiety. The influence on brain development apparently occurred at a particular point early in the mouse‘s life, so it‘s possible early exposure to a proper microbiome is important for normal development. The researchers speculate that the microbiome helps the mice develop an appropriate sense of caution.
The influence of microorganisms is not limited to brain development. (3) __________ no conclusive link has been established, a few studies have detected abnormalities in the gut microbiomes of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders compared to non-affected children. Nor is microorganism influence limited to gut bacteria. A separate study in hyenas (also awaiting conclusive proof) suggests that individual hyenas use a specific cocktail of stinky bacteria in their scent markers left as a message to other hyenas.
(4) __________ some fungus can get in on the act, hijacking ants and forcing the unfortunate insects to relocate to a place favorable for a fungus to grow. The ant does not survive, but it makes great fungus food. (5) __________ a growing body of evidence from other animals, until the UCLA study there was not much direct research on how the microbiome affects humans. But given its potential importance, hopefully there will soon be more research along these lines. Going with your gut, indeed!
Disponível em:< https://daily.jstor.org/your-gut-youremotions/?utm_term=YOUR%20GUT%2C%20YOUR%20EMOTIONS&utm_campaign=jstordaily_08032017&utm_content=e mail&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email>. Acesso em: 15 Set. 2017.
Check the CORRECT alternative.
Drinking coffee could help you live longer Coffee not only helps you feel full of beans, it might add years to your life as well, two major studies have shown. Scientists in Europe and the US have uncovered the clearest evidence yet that drinking coffee reduces the risk of death.
One study of more than half a million people from 10 European countries found that men who downed at least three cups of coffee a day were 18% less likely to die from any cause than non-coffee drinkers. Women drinking the same amount benefited less, but still experienced an 8% reduction in mortality over the period measured.
Similar results were reported by American scientists who conducted a separate investigation, recruiting 185855 participants from different ethnic backgrounds. Irrespective of ethnicity, people who drank two to three cups of coffee daily had an 18% reduced risk of death.
Each of the studies, both published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, showed no advantage from drinking either caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee. Experts believe the antioxidant plant compounds in coffee rather than caffeine are responsible for the life-extending effect. Previous research has suggested that drinking coffee can reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, and some cancers.
Dr Marc Gunter, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, who led the European study with colleagues from Imperial College London, said: “We found that higher coffee consumption was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause and specifically for circulatory diseases and digestive diseases. Importantly, these results were similar across all of the 10 European countries, with variable coffee drinking habits and customs. Our study also offers important insights into the possible mechanisms for the beneficial health effects of coffee.”
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk, 11.07.2017. Adaptado.)
Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.
TEXT 1
Fruit Juice, in Moderation, Not Tied to Obesity in Children
…………………….experts believe that drinking fruit juice may lead to obesity in children, but a new review has found that juice in moderation does not cause excess weight gain in children under 18.
Researchers pooled data……………… eight prospective observational studies of the association between regular 100 percent fruit juice consumption and weight gain. The analysis, published in Pediatrics, includes 34,470 boys and girls under 18.
The studies used something called the B.M.I. z score, …………………….statistically adjusts body mass index according to age. Changes in these scores of 0.25 to 0.50 are generally considered to put the child at risk for obesity.
After controlling for total energy intake, birth weight, ethnicity and other factors, a 6- to 8-ounce daily serving of 100 percent fruit juice was associated with a 0.087 unit average increase in B.M.I. z score in children 1 to 6 — equivalent to about 0.3 pounds. In those 7 to 18, there was no link ……………….. all between drinking fruit juice and weight gain.
The lead author, Dr. Brandon J. Auerbach, an acting instructor in medicine at the University of Washington, said that based ……………………. the current evidence, “consuming one daily serving of fruit juice is not associated with weight gain in children. So fruit juice in moderation, not more than a serving a day, is safe.”
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR. Avaiable at: www.nytimes.com/section/health. (accessed on March 27th, 2017)
Answer the question, according to Text 1
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Patience is needed for Brazil to come good again
Michael Hasenstab
Dr. Michael Hasenstab is executive
vice-president, portfolio manager
and chief investment officer of
Templeton Global Macro
The Olympic Games in Rio drew global interest to Brazil, but the country and the rest of South America has been in sharp focus for investors all year. They have flocked to the region as part of a broader migration into emerging market debt, following record low valuations and the hunt for yield in a low interest rate environment. While investors have been presented with a rarely seen buying opportunity in emerging markets like South America, it is a mistake to regard these countries as a homogenous group.
That leaves the challenge of working out which are the most attractive opportunities – some of our best known investments were not obvious choices.
We have devised a formula to help us evaluate the fundamental strength of different emerging market countries. It scores a country’s current and projected strength on five factors: how well it has learnt the lessons from past crises; the quality of its policy mix; the structural reform being undertaken to boost productivity; the level of domestic demand; and its ability to resist external shocks. The aim is to pick nations that are fundamentally strong but, for one reason or another, are out of favour with investors. It can take time for the market to catch up to reality. But if you are a long-term investor – and we are certainly in that camp – you have the luxury of being able to wait.
Brazil, for example, is known as a vulnerable market due to the commodities downturn, the ongoing corruption crisis and ensuing political turmoil, but our work suggests to us that it is poised for a potentially significant rebound in the long term. Its current score is low, but its projected future score tells a different story.
We believe the country has learnt the lessons from the most recent crisis, which brought home the importance of having a sustainable fiscal policy. It has already adopted a flexible exchange rate, has strong foreign exchange reserves and has limited short-term debt. This is also reflected in the country’s improving resilience to external shocks, with a reliance on commodities, at 60 per cent of exports, being the largest remaining negative.
It is perhaps no surprise, given Brazil’s deep recession and political instability, that there is much work required in terms of improving policy mix, making structural reforms and boosting domestic demand. However, there are signs things are being turned around, with monetary policy already being tightened aggressively to bring inflation expectations back under control, and the previously excessive levels of governmentsubsidised lending being cut. Once political stability returns, the government will be empowered to do even more.
Work on structural reform should accelerate too, as Brazil’s middle class has made it clear it wants greater transparency and an economic policy framework that can both boost living standards and improve the environment for businesses.
(www.ft.com. 01.09.2016. Adaptado)
Published in 1981, Todd Strasser’s The Wave recounts a true incident that took place in a history class at a Palo Alto, California, high school in 1969. The teacher of the class, Ron Jones, (1)__________ is fictionally renamed Ben Ross in the book, actually formulated the experiment described in the narrative in an effort to help his students understand how the Holocaust could have happened without the mass condemnation of the German people. What begins as a simple class project quickly takes on a life of its own, (2) __________, as students conform mindlessly to the experimental system, and others are pressured ruthlessly to join in. Group dynamics and peer influence bordering on coercion create a sinister atmosphere of fear and mistrust, The Wave spontaneously takes on the characteristics of a cult. The event disrupts an entire school (3) __________ raises a plethora of dark questions concerning responsibility, freedom, and group dynamics. Ron Jones calls it “one of the most frightening events ever experienced in the classroom.” As a novelization of a teleplay by Johnny Dawkins, based on a short story by Ron Jones, Strasser’s book (4) __________ not have attracted an abundance of criticism as a literary entity in itself, (5) __________ The Wave clearly holds an important place in the canon of young adult literature. (…) Available at: <http://www.enotes.com/topics/the-wave/critical-essays>. Accessed on: 20 set. 2016
Choose the CORRECT alternative..
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing
Sabrina Tavernise
February 12, 2016
Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply.
The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart.
New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. “There has been this huge spreading out,” said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study.
The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. “This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion,” said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference.
Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure – life expectancy at age 50 – and included data from 1984 to 2012.)
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing
Sabrina Tavernise
February 12, 2016
Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply.
The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart.
New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. “There has been this huge spreading out,” said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study.
The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. “This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion,” said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference.
Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure – life expectancy at age 50 – and included data from 1984 to 2012.)
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
Leia a charge para responder à questão.
Considere o excerto a seguir, retirado do site do jornal britânico The Guardian, para responder à questão.
Homeopaths believe that illness-causing substances can, in minute doses, treat people who are unwell. By diluting these substances in water or alcohol, homeopaths claim the resulting mixture retains a “memory” of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.
These claims have been widely disproven by multiple studies, but the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday: Homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition.
(Adaptado de www.theguardian.com - acesso em 12/03/2015)
Oliver Burkeman
“Why is it so hard to take your own advice?” the psychology writer Melissa Dahl asked in a New York magazine essay some months ago, and the question’s been bugging me ever since. I have the arrogance to imagine that if you followed some of the suggestions made each week in this column, you might be a little happier or more productive, with a little less relationship drama, a little more inner calm. (From my email inbox, I know this happens at least occasionally.) But were you to infer from this that I follow such advice flawlessly myself, you’d be mistaken. When friends mention their difficulties with partners or bosses, Dahl wrote, she always tells them to talk to the person involved. Just say something! “And probably, this is good advice,” she mused. “I wouldn’t know, as it’s something I rarely do myself.” I can understand. I suspect most of us can. As the old wisecrack has it: “Take my advice – I’m not using it.”
The cynical take on this is that we ignore our own advice because it’s rubbish: we give it to seem wise, when in fact it’s nonsense. (All advice to “try harder” or “snap out of it” or “look on the bright side” fall into this category: if the recipient could do so, he or she already would have, without your so-called help.)
But a more interesting notion is that the advice is often good – yet something prevents us applying it to ourselves. One such obstacle is simply too much information: inside our own heads, we have access to all manner of details, making us believe that this relationship problem, this job dilemma, is special, so the advice doesn’t apply. Dahl cites work by the psychologist Dan Ariely, showing that when a friend gets a serious medical diagnosis, most people would urge them to get a second opinion. But were it to happen to themselves, they’d be more likely not to do so, for fear of offending their doctor. The fear of offence is something you’d think of only in your own case – and it’s totally unhelpful.
But there’s another big reason I don’t follow my own advice: the huge gulf between grasping something intellectually and really feeling it in your bones. For example, it was years ago that I first encountered the insight that anxiety and insecurity aren’t reduced by trying to exert more control over the world; in fact, that usually makes them worse. I know this. But apparently I have to keep learning it, over and over. Its correctness isn’t sufficient for it to get into my brain once and for all; that takes repeated experience. As a result, I continue to “suddenly realise” things I already wrote an entire book about.
If nothing else, this should be a caution against getting too frustrated with that one friend of yours who keeps getting into the same kind of pickle, time and again, deaf to the obviously good advice that everyone keeps offering. You know the type. We’ve all got a friend like that. The scary thought is that, for some of your friends, it’s probably you.
Adapted from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/11/ taking-your-own-advice-oliver-burkeman. Accessed on: 22 out. 2015.
Glossary
Genetically modified foods
Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides.
In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food.
(www.who.int)
Machiavellianism" is a ...... used negative term to characterize unscrupulous politicians of the sort Machiavelli described in The Prince. The book itself gained enormous notoriety and wide readership because most readers assumed the author was teaching and endorsing evil and immoral behavior. Because of this, the term "Machiavellian" is often associated with deceit, deviousness, ambition, and brutality. However that was Machiavelli's stylistic device to gain the reader's attention for his close analysis of the actual techniques used by rulers.
(Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3% B2_Machiavelli)
The word that correctly fills in the blank is
Conheça nossos planos