Questões de Vestibular Sobre sinônimos | synonyms em inglês
Foram encontradas 293 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Ano: 2019
Banca:
VUNESP
Órgão:
SÃO CAMILO
Prova:
VUNESP - 2019 - SÃO CAMILO - Processo Seletivo - 1º Semestre de 2020- Medicina Prova II |
Q1797673
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
The fantastic appeal of fantasy
The fantasy genre starts where science ends
Few things can brighten up a dark morning in a Scottish
seaside resort during an Atlantic storm. Yet while sheltering in
a bookshop from the rain, I had a moment of sunny revelation.
Stacked almost as high as my 11-year-old self were copies of
The Lord of the Rings, with a cover illustration that promised
mystery and magic. That chance discovery started a lifelong
love of the fantasy genre1
, both as reader and writer.
The fantasy genre has had more and more success, but
today we’re in the middle of an unprecedented fantasy boom.
Sales continue to rise and it is now the biggest genre in
publishing. The more rational the world gets, with super-science
all around us, the more we demand the irrational in our fiction.
Fantasy is not simply a case of swords2
and sorcery3
.
Yes, there is that by the shelf. But the genre is as broad as the
imagination. The genre starts where science ends.
“In these modern times, where most of us sit at computers,
fantasy books offer a chance to break out of mundane
moments,” says Mark Newton, an editor with the genre.
“People like to explore themes that go beyond the limited
palette that literary fiction claims to offer.”
A search for the origins of fantasy will usually have
academics muttering about Beowulf or Homer’s The Iliad, but
they come from a time when all stories were fantasy: gods and
monsters and supernatural artefacts with humanity caught in
the middle. The first modern fantasy writer is usually considered
to be William Morris, in the late 19th Century. But it was the
early 20th Century where fantasy really started to gain status.
Fantasy fiction has always been about visionary ideas.
You can get artful words in plenty of literary fiction, but being
able to see beyond the boundaries4
of the world around us —
now that’s a special skill.
I don’t write fantasy fiction simply to provide a trapdoor5
from the real world. For me, the genre is about the reality. But
instead of coming up against it, fantasy maps the unconscious
aspirations of our modern society through allegory in story-
-forms as old as humanity. It’s about turning off the mobile
phone and the computer and remembering who we are in the
deepest parts of ourselves.
(Mark Chadbourn. www.telegraph.co.uk, 12.04.2008. Adaptado.)
1genre: gênero. Categoria distintiva de composição literária, como romance,
poesia etc.
2sword: espada.
3sorcery: feitiçaria.
4boundary: fronteira.
5trapdoor: alçapão
In the excerpt “that’s a special skill” (6th paragraph), the
underlined word can be replaced, without changing the
meaning of the sentence, by
Q1797182
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text below and answer the following question.
Can Cellular Agriculture Feed the World?
Within 20 years, there will be 2 billion more people than today — over 9 billion people in total. The impact to the environment could be severe. Just feeding that population using current methods is problematic.
On average, cattle ranchers need 100 times more land than corn growers to produce a gram of food. So, if that hungry world continues to eat meat like we do, the demand for land — and fresh water — will be alarming, not to mention the environmental impact of raising so many animals. Meat production aside, the large-scale monoculture of crops like corn usually results in damaging terrestrial pollution from pesticides and soil depletion. The impact to the oceans is equally perilous.
Instead of farming animals, fish and plants, cellular agriculture grows the proteins and nutrients we consume from a culture, cell by cell. With this alternative approach, the consumable meat and plant tissues produced don’t need to be harvested from animals or plants. It’s food production on an industrial scale.
The technology to do this is not new. Growing meat from a scaffold embedded in growth culture is no different in theory than making bread from yeast. The vast majority of insulin for diabetics is already manufactured by genetically engineered bacteria, as is the rennet used to culture cheese. In the past 10 years, this approach has been pioneered with a variety of foodstuffs: milk, eggs, beef, chicken, fish — even coffee.
To succeed, cellular agriculture must overcome 6,000 years of established dependence on traditional agriculture, and it has to do so via one of the most finicky human senses: taste. No one will eat manufactured meat or fish if it doesn’t have the same sensual satisfaction generated by the grown version. So, in addition to all the technical challenges in creating edible tissues from cultures, the startups pioneering this approach are working diligently to make their products tasty.
The possibilities for cellular agriculture are seemingly limitless; it may be possible to grow human organs for transplant using the method. But it is still early days.
Adaptado de: <https://earth911.com/business-policy/cellular-agriculture/>
All of the following are synonyms of perilous except for
Ano: 2020
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
FGV
Prova:
FGV - 2020 - FGV - Graduação em Economia - Inglês e Física - 1° Dia |
Q1796824
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text to answer question.
The aliens among us
Humans think of themselves as the world’s apex predators. Hence the silence of sabre-tooth tigers,
the absence of moas from New Zealand and the long list of endangered megafauna. But sars-cov-2
shows how people can also end up as prey. Viruses have caused a litany of modern pandemics, from
Covid-19, to hiv/aids to the influenza outbreak in 1918-20, which killed many more people than the first
world war. Before that, the colonisation of the Americas by Europeans was abetted – and perhaps made
possible – by epidemics of smallpox, measles and influenza brought unwittingly by the invaders, which
annihilated many of the original inhabitants.
(www.economist.com, 22.08.2020. Adapted.)
In the fragment “epidemics of smallpox, measles and influenza brought unwittingly by the invaders”,
the underlined word can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by
Ano: 2020
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
FGV
Prova:
FGV - 2020 - FGV - Graduação em Economia - Inglês e Física - 1° Dia |
Q1796822
Inglês
Texto associado
Read the text to answer question.
The aliens among us
Humans think of themselves as the world’s apex predators. Hence the silence of sabre-tooth tigers,
the absence of moas from New Zealand and the long list of endangered megafauna. But sars-cov-2
shows how people can also end up as prey. Viruses have caused a litany of modern pandemics, from
Covid-19, to hiv/aids to the influenza outbreak in 1918-20, which killed many more people than the first
world war. Before that, the colonisation of the Americas by Europeans was abetted – and perhaps made
possible – by epidemics of smallpox, measles and influenza brought unwittingly by the invaders, which
annihilated many of the original inhabitants.
(www.economist.com, 22.08.2020. Adapted.)
In the second sentence in the text, the term “hence” can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by
Ano: 2019
Banca:
ESPM
Órgão:
ESPM
Provas:
ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RS
|
ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795058
Inglês
Texto associado
Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular
By Noah Berlatsky
The film Yesterday has an intriguing
premise: What if the Beatles never existed?
Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day
and is the only one who remembers the
Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the
creator of the greatest music ever written.
As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.
Jack is successful because the Beatles’
songs, removed from their original context,
still maintain the universal, instant appeal
that has canonized them in our non-fictional
world, offscreen. Label execs, other
musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all
won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades
after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back
in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
But would “Back in the USSR” really be
an automatic, surefire hit if it were released
today, into a music scene whose interests
have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is
quality in the arts so transcendent that it can
overcome all differences of era, culture, and
happenstance? Is music a meritocracy
— an art form that privileges natural talent
over everything else?
There’s good reason to believe that
the answer to all three of those questions
is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits;
talented musicians don’t always achieve
success commensurate with their abilities.
And sometimes a twist of fate lands the
less talented in a position to reap massive
rewards.
We tend to expect that good things
don’t always come to the most deserving
people. Sometimes the most successful
people get that way because they’re in the
right place at the right time, or know the
right people, or were even born into it. And
art is no exception.
There’s research to back up the notion
that fame and fortune come from more than
pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik
of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft
have conducted a number of studies to
determine what makes a song popular. They
discovered that when someone approaches
a song knowing only that it’s popular and
well-liked within the cultural mass, that
person is more inclined to come away
liking the song too. This can create a ripple
effect, with songs becoming more and more
popular because they already are popular.
Salganik and Watts’s research suggests
that the more visible something is the more
highly regarded it is, and the more popular it
is likely to become.
Social influence has a powerful effect
on which songs become popular. As art is a
form of communication we often share and
experience socially, it makes sense that we
like art that we believe will connect us to
others.
Our instincts to spread what we like,
and to like what others like, mean that what
seem like small advantages for a song —
perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify,
or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix
show — can lead to a big chart presence. A
good review at the right time or being used
in a viral meme on a slow news day could
help more people discover a song just out
of happenstance. Songs that get an initial
bump can ride that wave, so more people
seek them out, buy them, and boost their
popularity. This cycle can lead to one song,
good or not, becoming a hit, while another
disappears into obscurity.
The Beatles were very good by
most qualitative metrics. But the band’s
quantitative achievements don’t mean
they are indisputably the most meritorious
musicians of all time, or even of their day.
More likely, the band also managed to be
in the right place at the right time, on top of
everything else.
Western racial inequalities also
stymied many homegrown artists.
Influential African American singers and
girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have
much opportunity to turn their Billboard
hits into widespread celebrity and lasting
cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and
John Lennon are household names, but
there aren’t many casual music fans who
know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer,
Shirley Owens.
The Beatles were white, male English
speakers who were able to tour and didn’t
die young. But they had other advantages
as well. Perhaps most obviously, they
were working in a genre that was broadly
popular.
By contrast, today’s most popular
music is split between contemporary
hip-hop and dance music that relies on
synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on
a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass,
drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant
genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it
would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host
of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me.
“There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all
live drumming. Plus, so much of their music
is blues-based, and blues-based music just
isn’t popular right now.”
At their height, the Beatles famously
pushed boundaries in the studio, creating
psychedelic effects and soundscapes that
no one at the time had ever heard before.
But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of
what the Beatles did and more in your room
with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
The problem is that people often don’t
see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they
really believe in it. And when they do, it can
have some unfortunate effects. The myth
of meritocracy can make us less willing to
invest in the collective good.
If we convince ourselves that
talented artists like the Beatles will be
successful no matter what, we can also
convince ourselves that we don’t really
need to provide people with safety nets
or resources. After all, the best will win
out anyway. Why invest in school arts
programs, or fund arts grants, if great
musicians will be just fine on their own?
The Beatles made wonderful,
undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday
weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly
unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music,
it might be able to see that there are great
songs being written by people like Jack
Malik too. The film believes that songs
like “Yesterday” are just so good, they
would become mega-popular under any
circumstances. And yet many people
who think “Yesterday” is the best song
ever have been inevitably swayed by the
Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s
quality aside.
Maybe instead, the best song ever is
one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the
one you’re going to write. Part of what
happens when we abandon the myth of
meritocracy is that we’re better able to
see the merit all around us. And that gives
everyone a greater chance at success.
(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)
The word happenstance, boldface in
paragraph 4, can be replaced by all words
below, except: