Questões de Vestibular Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 6.368 questões
Q230424
Inglês
The words: “dun” (line 3), “reeks” (line 8), “hath” (line 10), “treads” (line 12) are used in the text as:
Q230423
Inglês
In the sentence “My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:” (line 12), Shakespeare expresses that:
Q229469
Inglês
Texto associado
As questões de 4 a 6 referem-se às imagens e aos textos abaixo.
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Tendo-se por base a estrutura das partes verbais das imagens e dos textos utilizados, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229468
Inglês
Texto associado
As questões de 4 a 6 referem-se às imagens e aos textos abaixo.
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
De acordo com as ideias expressas pelas imagens e pelos textos acima, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229467
Inglês
Texto associado
As questões de 4 a 6 referem-se às imagens e aos textos abaixo.
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Texto A
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has
the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and
that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of
incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Texto B
Before I get into comedic related issues, a quick statement on the death penalty (due to some Facebook chatter
on my page). I am against the death penalty in all cases. The recent revelation in Texas that an innocent man
was executed for arson and capital murder in 2004 for allegedly setting fire to his home, which killed his two
young children should be huge news. Can you imagine the man’s anguish (he never pleaded guilty)? But I am
against it even when the person is actually guilty (yes even if DNA and videotape corroborate it). I think it is
barbaric. China, parts of the Middle East and the U.S. are the world’s executors. No one else I believe.
Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Levando-se em conta as imagens e os textos acima, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229466
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Considerando os aspectos estruturais do texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229465
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Com base nas ideias e opiniões expressas no texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q229464
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
De acordo com o conteúdo do texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Q228774
Inglês
Considerando as ideias presentes no texto e os aspectos da língua inglesa, é CORRETO afirmar que
Q228773
Inglês
Levando-se em conta os aspectos linguísticos do texto, assinale a alternativa CORRETA:
Q228772
Inglês
De acordo com as afirmações do texto, é CORRETO afirmar que
Q228771
Inglês
Considerando os aspectos estruturais do texto, é CORRETO afirmar que
Q228770
Inglês
Assinale a alternativa que resume corretamente o conteúdo veiculado no texto:
Q228769
Inglês
De acordo com o conteúdo do texto, é CORRETO afirmar que o turismo sexual
Q228720
Inglês
According to the text:
Q228719
Inglês
In the text, the author claims that:
Q228718
Inglês
According to the text:
I. Lady Gaga‘s genes are being disputed by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Myriad Genetics (MYGN).
II. II. The U.S. Patent Office is prosecuting ACLU.
III. III. The notion of patenting genes seems as absurd as patenting the air we breath.
IV. IV. The author suggests that the policy of DNA codes patenting must be changed to something similar to what happens to the radio stations.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
I. Lady Gaga‘s genes are being disputed by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Myriad Genetics (MYGN).
II. II. The U.S. Patent Office is prosecuting ACLU.
III. III. The notion of patenting genes seems as absurd as patenting the air we breath.
IV. IV. The author suggests that the policy of DNA codes patenting must be changed to something similar to what happens to the radio stations.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
Q228717
Inglês
Read the comics below to answer question 29
Considering the sentence "They said the good news is that only 36,000 lost their jobs last month", if we change the pronoun they for he, the word their in the same sentence must:
Considering the sentence "They said the good news is that only 36,000 lost their jobs last month", if we change the pronoun they for he, the word their in the same sentence must:
Q228716
Inglês
The words deep, sheer and perilous in "deep gullies, sheer cliffs and perilous ledges", mean respectively:
Q228715
Inglês
According to the text:
I. Tahiti can be seen from the shores of Peru.
II. The access to the outer part of Tahiti is not difficult.
III. The inner part of Tahiti presents a sharp contrast to its shores.
IV. The natives of Tahiti are hostile and dangerous.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
I. Tahiti can be seen from the shores of Peru.
II. The access to the outer part of Tahiti is not difficult.
III. The inner part of Tahiti presents a sharp contrast to its shores.
IV. The natives of Tahiti are hostile and dangerous.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
Conheça nossos planos