Questões de Vestibular Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 6.365 questões
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:
Q228714
Inglês
The word "shuddered" in the text indicates that Case feels:
Q228713
Inglês
The Economist, December 19th ,2009.
According to the text, the point of view of the Fowler‘s Guide is that:
Q228634
Inglês
According to the text, it is INCORRECT to state that:
Q228633
Inglês
Considering meaning and standard English, in the text above the sentence “But until recently doctors had no diagnostic test that could „hear" the ticking” can be substituted by any of the following, EXCEPT:
Q228632
Inglês
Judge the statements below:
I. The sentences “There have been attempts to reform English spelling” and “She has never eaten Chinese food” are in the same verb tense.
II. The words “explains”, “differences” and “speakers” are, respectively, the plural forms of “explain”, “difference” and “speaker”.
III. The comparative form of the word “easy” is “easier” while the comparative form of the word “rational” is “more rational”.
IV. The sentences “The great American lexicographer Noah Webster (1758-1843) tried to create a more rational system” and “The first spelling bee was held in the USA in 1825…” are both in the past tense.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
I. The sentences “There have been attempts to reform English spelling” and “She has never eaten Chinese food” are in the same verb tense.
II. The words “explains”, “differences” and “speakers” are, respectively, the plural forms of “explain”, “difference” and “speaker”.
III. The comparative form of the word “easy” is “easier” while the comparative form of the word “rational” is “more rational”.
IV. The sentences “The great American lexicographer Noah Webster (1758-1843) tried to create a more rational system” and “The first spelling bee was held in the USA in 1825…” are both in the past tense.
Mark the CORRECT answer:
Conheça nossos planos