The verbs of the sentences “In the first
task, the children sorted the shapes by color.”,
“…since studies have shown that bilinguals…” and
“Why does the tussle between two simultaneously
active language systems improve these aspects of
cognition?” are respectively in the

Question

T E X T     SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.      This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century. Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child’s academic and intellectual development.     They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual’s brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other. But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn’t so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.     Bilinguals, for instance, seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles. In a 2004 study by the psychologists Ellen Bialystok and Michelle MartinRhee, bilingual and monolingual preschoolers were asked to sort blue circles and red squares presented on a computer screen into two digital bins — one marked with a blue square and the other marked with a red circle.     In the first task, the children had to sort the shapes by color, placing blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square and red squares in the bin marked with the red circle. Both groups did this with comparable ease. Next, the children were asked to sort by shape, which was more challenging because it required placing the images in a bin marked with a conflicting color. The bilinguals were quicker at performing this task.     The collective evidence from a number of such studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain’s so-called executive function — a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind — like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.    Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition? Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts. But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.    The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment. “Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often — you may talk to your father in one language and to your mother in another language,” says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of PompeuFabra in Spain. “It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving.” In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only performed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.     The bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age (and there is reason to believe that it may also apply to those who learn a second language later in life).     In a 2009 study led by Agnes Kovacs of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, 7-month-old babies exposed to two languages from birth were compared with peers raised with one language. In an initial set of trials, the infants were presented with an audio cue and then shown a puppet on one side of a screen. Both infant groups learned to look at that side of the screen in anticipation of the puppet. But in a later set of trials, when the puppet began appearing on the opposite side of the screen, the babies exposed to a bilingual environment quickly learned to switch their anticipatory gaze in the new direction while the other babies did not.     Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.
    Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint? Source: www.nytimes.com
In the following question, some sentences
from the text have been modified to fit certain
grammatical structures.  The verbs of the sentences “In the first
task, the children sorted the shapes by color.”,
“…since studies have shown that bilinguals…” and
“Why does the tussle between two simultaneously
active language systems improve these aspects of
cognition?” are respectively in the Alternativa A: simple past, present perfect, simple present. Ou Alternativa B: present perfect, simple past, past perfect. Ou Alternativa C: simple present, present perfect, present
perfect. Ou Alternativa D: simple past, past perfect, past perfect.

Qconcursos · Accepted Answer

Alternativa [A] simple past, present perfect, simple present. Gabarito: AFundamento decisivo: A resolução depende da classificação formal das três estruturas destacadas no enunciado: “the children sorted the shapes by color”, “since studies have shown that bilinguals” e “Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition?”. Os critérios decisivos são a forma verbal “sorted” como simple past, a combinação have + particípio em “have shown” como present perfect e a estrutura auxiliar do presente com verbo na base em “does ... improve” como simple present. Essa combinação corresponde apenas à alternativa A.Tema central: identificação de tempos verbaisAnálise das alternativasACertaA alternativa A está correta porque corresponde exatamente às formas verbais presentes nas sentenças citadas. Em “the children sorted the shapes by color”, “sorted” está no simple past. Em “studies have shown that bilinguals”, a estrutura have + particípio passado (“have shown”) caracteriza present perfect. Em “Why does the tussle ... improve ...?”, o padrão does + verbo na forma base (“improve”) caracteriza simple present em interrogativa.BErradaEstá errada porque a primeira sentença não está no present perfect: “sorted” não tem a estrutura have/has + particípio, mas forma de simple past. Também erra a terceira, pois past perfect exigiria had + particípio, estrutura inexistente em “does ... improve”.CErradaEstá errada porque a primeira sentença não está no simple present, e sim no simple past, marcado por “sorted”. A terceira também está errada: “does + verbo na base” forma interrogativa do simple present, não present perfect, que exigiria has/have + particípio.DErradaEstá errada porque, embora a primeira classificação esteja correta, a segunda e a terceira não estão. “Have shown” é present perfect, não past perfect; e “does ... improve” é simple present, não past perfect. O past perfect requer had + particípio, o que não aparece em nenhuma dessas duas sentenças.Pegadinha da questãoA confusão real está em tomar qualquer auxiliar como sinal de tempo composto: “have shown” pode ser confundido com simple past pelo sentido de passado, e “does ... improve” pode ser confundido com outro tempo verbal, quando “does” apenas marca a interrogativa do simple present.Dica para questões semelhantesClassifique o tempo verbal pela forma da estrutura, não pela ideia geral de passado ou presente da frase.Verifique o auxiliar: have/has + particípio indica present perfect; had + particípio indicaria past perfect.Em perguntas no simple present, a marca de tempo pode estar no auxiliar “does”, enquanto o verbo principal fica na forma base.Quando o comando disser “respectively”, confira a ordem exata de cada tempo verbal antes de marcar a alternativa.

🚀 Quer mais performance?

🚀 Quer mais performance?

The verbs of the sentences “In the first task, the children...

Gabarito comentado

Gabarito: A

Clique para visualizar este gabarito

Resumos relacionados

Advérbios e conjunções em inglês para concursos públicos

Artigos (Articles) em inglês: uso em concursos públicos

Questões de assuntos semelhantes

Provas relacionadas