Questões de Vestibular Comentadas sobre inglês

Foram encontradas 2.761 questões

Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular 2023 |
Q2076560 Inglês

This text refers to question

How to Stop Eating Sugar

By David Leonhardt

If you’re like most Americans, you eat more sugar than is good for you. But it’s entirely possible to eat less sugar without sacrificing much — if any — of the pleasures of eating. Surprising as it may sound, many people who have cut back on sugar say they find their new eating habits more pleasurable than their old ones. This guide will walk you through why sugar matters, how you can make smart food choices to reduce sugar consumption, and how you can keep your life sweet, even without so many sweets.

Here's why you eat more sugar than you realize, and why it's a problem. The first thing to know: Added sugars, of one kind or another, are almost everywhere in the modern diet. They’re in sandwich bread, chicken stock, pickles, salad dressing, crackers, yogurt and cereal, as well as in the obvious foods and drinks, like soda and desserts.

The biggest problem with added sweeteners is that they make it easy to overeat. They’re tasty and highly caloric but they often don’t make you feel full. Instead, they can trick you into wanting even more food. Because we’re surrounded by added sweeteners — in our kitchens, in restaurants, at schools and offices — most of us will eat too much of them unless we consciously set out to do otherwise.

It’s not an accident. The sugar industry has conducted an aggressive, decades-long campaign to blame the obesity epidemic on fats, not sugars. Fats, after all, seem as if they should cause obesity. Thanks partly to that campaign, sugar consumption soared in the United States even as people were trying to lose weight. But research increasingly indicates that an overabundance of simple carbohydrates, and sugar in particular, is the No. 1 problem in modern diets. Sugar is the driving force behind the diabetes and obesity epidemics. Fortunately, more people are realizing the harms of sugar and cutting back.

[...]

Changing your diet is hard. If your strategy involves thinking about sugar all the time — whenever you’re shopping or eating — you’ll likely fail. You’ll also be miserable in the process. It’s much more effective to come up with a few simple rules and habits that then become second nature. (One strategy to consider: Eliminate all added sugars for one month, and then add back only the ones you miss. It’s easier than it sounds.)

Above all, most people’s goal should be to find a few simple, lasting ways to cut back on sugar. Once you’re done reading this guide, we suggest you choose two or three of our ideas and try them for a few weeks.

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar (text adapted)

The terms “ones”, in highlighted, found in the first and fifth paragraphs, in the text How to Stop Eating Sugar, refer to
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular 2023 |
Q2076559 Inglês

This text refers to question

How to Stop Eating Sugar

By David Leonhardt

If you’re like most Americans, you eat more sugar than is good for you. But it’s entirely possible to eat less sugar without sacrificing much — if any — of the pleasures of eating. Surprising as it may sound, many people who have cut back on sugar say they find their new eating habits more pleasurable than their old ones. This guide will walk you through why sugar matters, how you can make smart food choices to reduce sugar consumption, and how you can keep your life sweet, even without so many sweets.

Here's why you eat more sugar than you realize, and why it's a problem. The first thing to know: Added sugars, of one kind or another, are almost everywhere in the modern diet. They’re in sandwich bread, chicken stock, pickles, salad dressing, crackers, yogurt and cereal, as well as in the obvious foods and drinks, like soda and desserts.

The biggest problem with added sweeteners is that they make it easy to overeat. They’re tasty and highly caloric but they often don’t make you feel full. Instead, they can trick you into wanting even more food. Because we’re surrounded by added sweeteners — in our kitchens, in restaurants, at schools and offices — most of us will eat too much of them unless we consciously set out to do otherwise.

It’s not an accident. The sugar industry has conducted an aggressive, decades-long campaign to blame the obesity epidemic on fats, not sugars. Fats, after all, seem as if they should cause obesity. Thanks partly to that campaign, sugar consumption soared in the United States even as people were trying to lose weight. But research increasingly indicates that an overabundance of simple carbohydrates, and sugar in particular, is the No. 1 problem in modern diets. Sugar is the driving force behind the diabetes and obesity epidemics. Fortunately, more people are realizing the harms of sugar and cutting back.

[...]

Changing your diet is hard. If your strategy involves thinking about sugar all the time — whenever you’re shopping or eating — you’ll likely fail. You’ll also be miserable in the process. It’s much more effective to come up with a few simple rules and habits that then become second nature. (One strategy to consider: Eliminate all added sugars for one month, and then add back only the ones you miss. It’s easier than it sounds.)

Above all, most people’s goal should be to find a few simple, lasting ways to cut back on sugar. Once you’re done reading this guide, we suggest you choose two or three of our ideas and try them for a few weeks.

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar (text adapted)

The extract “If you’re like most Americans”, in the first paragraph, reflects, in the order of appearance:
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular 2023 |
Q2076558 Inglês

This text refers to question

How to Stop Eating Sugar

By David Leonhardt

If you’re like most Americans, you eat more sugar than is good for you. But it’s entirely possible to eat less sugar without sacrificing much — if any — of the pleasures of eating. Surprising as it may sound, many people who have cut back on sugar say they find their new eating habits more pleasurable than their old ones. This guide will walk you through why sugar matters, how you can make smart food choices to reduce sugar consumption, and how you can keep your life sweet, even without so many sweets.

Here's why you eat more sugar than you realize, and why it's a problem. The first thing to know: Added sugars, of one kind or another, are almost everywhere in the modern diet. They’re in sandwich bread, chicken stock, pickles, salad dressing, crackers, yogurt and cereal, as well as in the obvious foods and drinks, like soda and desserts.

The biggest problem with added sweeteners is that they make it easy to overeat. They’re tasty and highly caloric but they often don’t make you feel full. Instead, they can trick you into wanting even more food. Because we’re surrounded by added sweeteners — in our kitchens, in restaurants, at schools and offices — most of us will eat too much of them unless we consciously set out to do otherwise.

It’s not an accident. The sugar industry has conducted an aggressive, decades-long campaign to blame the obesity epidemic on fats, not sugars. Fats, after all, seem as if they should cause obesity. Thanks partly to that campaign, sugar consumption soared in the United States even as people were trying to lose weight. But research increasingly indicates that an overabundance of simple carbohydrates, and sugar in particular, is the No. 1 problem in modern diets. Sugar is the driving force behind the diabetes and obesity epidemics. Fortunately, more people are realizing the harms of sugar and cutting back.

[...]

Changing your diet is hard. If your strategy involves thinking about sugar all the time — whenever you’re shopping or eating — you’ll likely fail. You’ll also be miserable in the process. It’s much more effective to come up with a few simple rules and habits that then become second nature. (One strategy to consider: Eliminate all added sugars for one month, and then add back only the ones you miss. It’s easier than it sounds.)

Above all, most people’s goal should be to find a few simple, lasting ways to cut back on sugar. Once you’re done reading this guide, we suggest you choose two or three of our ideas and try them for a few weeks.

https://www.nytimes.com/guides/smarterliving/how-to-stop-eating-sugar (text adapted)

In the long run, eating too much sugar has become one of the biggest problems for people. In the text we can find points and counterpoints related to added sweeteners. In this question, the option in which there are one positive and one negative aspect in consuming sugar is
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular 2023 |
Q2076557 Inglês

This text refers to question


Science confirms: Dark chocolate and red wine helps keep you looking young


NEWSNER

Chocolate and wine, and not always together, are among life’s simple pleasures, but most of us think we should only indulge in these pleasures in moderation.

Granted chocolate and wine contain a high number of calories and I don’t need to explain what happens to our bodies and minds if we drink too much wine. But now scientists may have found a reason to indulge in these delicious things more often than we think.

A recent study found a powerful antioxidant present in dark chocolate and red wine; the effect of this antioxidant on our bodies could be a reason to celebrate. Scientists say the presence of resveratrol in these food items has a positive effect on the brain, heart, and lifespan. The most naturally abundant sources of resveratrol are plants, including the skin of red grapes, red wine, raw cocoa, and dark berries, like lingonberries and blueberries.

A team led by Professor Lorna Harries at the University of Exeter discovered that by treating worn-out human cells with a formulation of resveratrol the older cells started to divide. These older cells then developed longer telomeres – the protective tips on the ends of chromosomes which shorten as we age, according to Longevity Facts. It seemed a miracle that these old cells looked young again. The experiment was repeated several times and each time the result was rejuvenated cells.

According to scientists red wine, dark chocolate and some berries also help to reduce inflammation and strengthen the heart. This powerful antioxidant was also found to help ward off certain age-related diseases.

Certain metabolic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and heart disease, tend to occur as we age. In animal studies, severely restricting calories can help prevent some of these diseases.

Researchers found that resveratrol can mimic calorie restriction in some ways and found it to extend the lifespans of yeast, worms, flies and fish. To help avoid the excessive consumption of red wine, this antioxidant can also be found in dark chocolate, grapes, raspberries, plums, blueberries, cranberries, grape tomatoes, and pomegranate. These findings are fascinating and are a step to prolonging people’s life without affecting overall health.

Please share with all your friends and family so they know dark chocolate can finally be consumed guilt free!

https://en.stories.newsner.com/health/science-confirms-dark-chocolate-and-red-wine-helps-keep-you-looking-young/ Accessed on May, 7th. Slightly modified

Scientists have discovered resveratrol as a natural resource can be found in many fruits. The natural resource we can extract it from is
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular 2023 |
Q2076556 Inglês

This text refers to question


Science confirms: Dark chocolate and red wine helps keep you looking young


NEWSNER

Chocolate and wine, and not always together, are among life’s simple pleasures, but most of us think we should only indulge in these pleasures in moderation.

Granted chocolate and wine contain a high number of calories and I don’t need to explain what happens to our bodies and minds if we drink too much wine. But now scientists may have found a reason to indulge in these delicious things more often than we think.

A recent study found a powerful antioxidant present in dark chocolate and red wine; the effect of this antioxidant on our bodies could be a reason to celebrate. Scientists say the presence of resveratrol in these food items has a positive effect on the brain, heart, and lifespan. The most naturally abundant sources of resveratrol are plants, including the skin of red grapes, red wine, raw cocoa, and dark berries, like lingonberries and blueberries.

A team led by Professor Lorna Harries at the University of Exeter discovered that by treating worn-out human cells with a formulation of resveratrol the older cells started to divide. These older cells then developed longer telomeres – the protective tips on the ends of chromosomes which shorten as we age, according to Longevity Facts. It seemed a miracle that these old cells looked young again. The experiment was repeated several times and each time the result was rejuvenated cells.

According to scientists red wine, dark chocolate and some berries also help to reduce inflammation and strengthen the heart. This powerful antioxidant was also found to help ward off certain age-related diseases.

Certain metabolic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and heart disease, tend to occur as we age. In animal studies, severely restricting calories can help prevent some of these diseases.

Researchers found that resveratrol can mimic calorie restriction in some ways and found it to extend the lifespans of yeast, worms, flies and fish. To help avoid the excessive consumption of red wine, this antioxidant can also be found in dark chocolate, grapes, raspberries, plums, blueberries, cranberries, grape tomatoes, and pomegranate. These findings are fascinating and are a step to prolonging people’s life without affecting overall health.

Please share with all your friends and family so they know dark chocolate can finally be consumed guilt free!

https://en.stories.newsner.com/health/science-confirms-dark-chocolate-and-red-wine-helps-keep-you-looking-young/ Accessed on May, 7th. Slightly modified

Some research led by Professor Lorna Harries from the University of Exeter has discovered resveratrol present in red wine as well as in dark chocolate has an antioxidant effect in the human body. Besides this effect the option which points out another positive one is 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular |
Q2076450 Inglês
The sentence in which contrasting ideas can be reflected by one of the linking words in it is
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular |
Q2076449 Inglês

Low-Context Versus High-Context Cultures


    If you have traveled much, perhaps you have noticed that people in various parts of the world differ in how direct and explicit their language is. You may have spent time in both low- and high-context cultures in your travels, with context here referring to the broad range of factors surrounding every act of communication.

    In a low-context culture, people are expected to be direct and to say what they mean. Individuals in lowcontext cultures prefer precise, concrete language for sending and receiving messages, and are unlikely to rely on the context of a message to determine its meaning. The United States is an example of a low-context society, as are Canada, Israel, and most northern European countries.

    In contrast, people in a high-context culture — such as Korea and the cultures of Native Americans and the Maori of New Zealand — are taught to speak in a much less direct way. In such cultures, maintaining harmony and avoiding offense are more important than expressing true feelings. Speech is more ambiguous and people convey much more of their meaning through subtle behaviors and contextual cues, such as their facial expressions and tone of voice.

    The difference between low-context and high-context cultures is evident in the ways in which people handle criticism and disagreement. In a low-context culture, a supervisor might reprimand an irresponsible employee openly, to make an example of the individual. The supervisor would probably be direct and explicit about the employee’s shortcomings, the company’s expectations for improvement, and the consequences of the employee’s failing to meet those expectations.

    In a high-context culture, however, the supervisor probably wouldn’t reprimand the employee publicly for fear that it would put the employee to shame and cause the worker to “lose face.” Criticism in high-context cultures is more likely to take place in private. The supervisor would also likely use more ambiguous language to convey what the employee was doing wrong, “talking around” the issue instead of confronting it directly. To reprimand an employee for repeated absences, for example, a supervisor might point out that responsibility to coworkers is important and that letting down the team would be cause for shame. The supervisor may never actually say that the employee needs to improve his or her attendance record. Instead, the employee would be expected to understand that message by listening to what the supervisor says and paying attention to the supervisor’s body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions.

    When people from low- and high-context cultures communicate with one another, the potential for misunderstanding is great. To appreciate that point, imagine that you’ve asked two of your friends to meet you tomorrow evening for a coffee tasting at a popular bookstore cafe. Tina, an American, says, “No, I’ve got a lot of studying to do, but thanks anyway.” Lee, who grew up in South Korea, nods his head and says, “That sounds like fun.” Thus, you’re surprised later when Lee doesn’t show up.

    How can you account for those different behaviors? The answer is that people raised in a high-context culture (such as that of South Korea) are often reluctant to say no—even when they mean no—for fear of causing offense. Another person raised in the South Korean culture might have understood from Lee’s facial expression or tone of voice that he didn’t intend to go to the coffee tasting. If you, like Tina, grew up in a low-context society, however, then you probably interpreted his answer and his nods to mean he was accepting your invitation.


Referência Bibliográfica FLOYD, KORY. Communication Matters. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. 2018.


The traits of a person who’s grown up in a low-context culture country is

Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMA Órgão: UEMA Prova: UEMA - 2022 - UEMA - Vestibular |
Q2076446 Inglês

Imagem associada para resolução da questão

MALLOTE, Stan. The Painless Path to Proper English Usage: the basics of law, New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1986. 

The option which reflects CORRECTLY the humor approach of the text “The Basics of Law” is

Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054670 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
Considering Damian Carrington’s opinion on the movie Don’t look up, mark the INCORRECT option.
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054669 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
The climate expert Nina Lakhani thinks that “Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists”. Mark the option which best describes the meaning of Nina’s statement.
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054668 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
Consider the following excerpt: “The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord”. Taking into account the context the excerpt was taken from, mark the option which best defines the expression “to strike a chord”. 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054667 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
Consider the following excerpts taken from the text and mark the option which presents a verb form in the passive voice. 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054666 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
Concerning the excerpt: “Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it”, and the context it was taken from, mark the correct option regarding the usage of the pronoun “it”.
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: UEMG Órgão: UEMG Prova: UEMG - 2022 - UEMG - Vestibular |
Q2054665 Inglês
Don’t Look Up: four climate experts on the polarising disaster film

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views
     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.
     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      Ketan Joshi: ‘The main character of the climate crisis is absent’
      […]
    Fiona Harvey: ‘The role of the technoloon, played by Mark Rylance, struck a chord’
       […]
      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.
      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 
     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.
       […]
    Nina Lakhani: ‘Jennifer Lawrence’s character will resonate with many female climate scientists’
       […]
    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.
        […]
     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’
      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.
      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.
    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.
        […] 
The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.
The text talks about Netflix climate satire Don’t look up. Mark the correct option concerning how the movie was received by critics.
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032752 Inglês

Read the following infographic.

    

                               


                                                                                                          Internet: <www.vricares.com> (adapted)

Based on the infographic presented, judge the follow item. 

The text suggests that both professional help and changes at home are important to have better health and keep one’s independence. 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032751 Inglês

Read the following infographic.

    

                               


                                                                                                          Internet: <www.vricares.com> (adapted)

Based on the infographic presented, judge the follow item. 

In section 1, it would be correct to use Exercising instead of “Exercise”, which, despite causing a slight difference in meaning, would not change the message conveyed.
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032747 Inglês

Read the following infographic.

    

                               


                                                                                                          Internet: <www.vricares.com> (adapted)

Based on the infographic presented, judge the follow item. 


In the expression “As we age”, in the title of the infographic, “As” is used to present a reason or a justification.

Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032746 Inglês
  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.
  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.
  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be
free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 

Judge the follow item concerning the ideas and linguistic features of the previous text.


The last paragraph points out that a geopolitically construed notion of freedom has become a universally accepted one through international law.

Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032745 Inglês
  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.
  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.
  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be
free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 
Judge the follow item concerning the ideas and linguistic features of the previous text.


In the excerpt “as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness” (in the last sentence of the second paragraph), the presence of “the” indicates that people’s happiness depends on them having their civil and political rights respected and guaranteed. 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE Órgão: UNB Prova: CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2022 - UNB - Vestibular - Inglês |
Q2032744 Inglês
  Freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality. In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, for example, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others, which necessarily limits yours.
  Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as the means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.
  The international justification for your freedom is by reference to human rights, those due to you as a human being and object of international conventions. The most basic of all these rights are those defining what governments cannot do to you. In effect, these human rights define what many mean by democratic freedom. Your freedom of thought, expression, religion, association, is basic, as are the secret ballot, periodic elections, and the right to representation. In short, these rights say that you have a right to be free. This is universal: we all have internationally defined and protected human rights.

Rudolph Joseph Rummel. Why should you be
free?.Internet:<www.hawaii.edu> (adapted). 
Judge the follow item concerning the ideas and linguistic features of the previous text.

According to the ideas expressed in the text, “democratic freedom” (in the third sentence of the third paragraph) could be correctly understood as a situation in which people are free of unjustified governmental actions. 
Alternativas
Respostas
281: C
282: A
283: C
284: D
285: E
286: C
287: A
288: B
289: C
290: A
291: D
292: B
293: B
294: C
295: C
296: C
297: E
298: C
299: C
300: C