Questões de Vestibular
Foram encontradas 75.429 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Q1687747
Matemática
Um comerciante adotou como forma de pagamento uma
máquina de cartões, cuja operadora cobra uma taxa de 6% em
cada venda. Para continuar recebendo exatamente o mesmo
valor por cada produto, ele resolveu aplicar um reajuste nos
preços de todos os produtos da loja. Se P era o valor de uma
mercadoria antes da adoção da máquina, o novo valor V deve
ser calculado por
Q1687746
Matemática
Três triângulos equiláteros e dois quadrados formam uma
figura plana, como ilustrado. Seus centros são os vértices de um
pentágono irregular, que está destacado na figura. Se T é a área
de cada um dos triângulos e Q a área de cada um dos
quadrados, a área desse pentágono é
Q1687745
Matemática
O quadrinho aborda o tema de números primos, sobre os quais
é correto afirmar:
Q1687744
Matemática
Qual dos gráficos representa uma relação entre as grandezas x
e y em que y sempre diminui na medida em que x aumenta?
Q1687743
Matemática
A figura ilustra graficamente uma região de um bairro, com ruas
ortogonais entre si. O ponto X indica um condomínio
residencial, e o ponto Y indica a entrada de um parque. Três
moradores realizam caminhos diferentes para chegar ao ponto Y,
partindo do ponto X, ilustrados com cores diferentes. Se a, b e
c representam as distâncias percorridas por esses moradores
nesses caminhos, é correto afirmar que
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682921
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682920
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
It is an explicit opinion by the author of the text:
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682919
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
No trecho do último parágrafo “we will all be inclined to be”, o
termo sublinhado indica uma
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682918
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The subtitle that most closely represents the content of the
fifth and sixth paragraphs is:
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682917
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
No trecho do quarto parágrafo “whereas those more
predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in
isolation”, o termo sublinhado introduz
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682916
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
In the fragment from the fourth paragraph “Those of us
more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to
a broader matrix of factors”, the underlined term refers most
specifically to
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682915
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The expression “Before you know it” (3rd paragraph) can be
correctly interpreted as
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682914
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
In the fragment from the third paragraph “when you see that
one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives
matter”, the underlined word can be replaced, with no change
in meaning, by
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682913
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
Os trechos “when your colleague pronounces that wearing a
face mask in public is a threat to his liberty” e “when you see
that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives
matter”, no terceiro parágrafo,
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682912
Inglês
Texto associado
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The first and second paragraphs mainly illustrate
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682911
Literatura
Este movimento surge como momento de negação profunda e revolucionária, porque visava a redefinir não só a atitude poética, mas o próprio lugar do homem no mundo e na
sociedade. Concebe de maneira nova o papel do artista e o
sentido da obra de arte, pretendendo liquidar a convenção
universalista dos herdeiros de Grécia e Roma em benefício
de um sentimento novo, embebido de inspirações locais, procurando o único em lugar do perene.
(Antonio Candido. Formação da literatura brasileira, 2013. Adaptado.)
O texto refere-se ao movimento
(Antonio Candido. Formação da literatura brasileira, 2013. Adaptado.)
O texto refere-se ao movimento
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682910
Português
Texto associado
Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
(Obra poética, 1997.)
O eu lírico recorre a um sinal de pontuação para indicar a
supressão de um verbo em
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682909
Português
Texto associado
Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
(Obra poética, 1997.)
Sempre que haja necessidade expressiva de reforço, de
ênfase, pode o objeto direto vir repetido. Essa reiteração recebe o nome de objeto direto pleonástico.
(Adriano da Gama Kury. Novas lições de análise sintática, 1997. Adaptado.)
O eu lírico lança mão desse recurso expressivo no verso
(Adriano da Gama Kury. Novas lições de análise sintática, 1997. Adaptado.)
O eu lírico lança mão desse recurso expressivo no verso
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682908
Português
Texto associado
Cruz na porta da tabacaria!
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem morreu? O próprio Alves? Dou
Ao diabo o bem-’star que trazia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Quem era? Ora, era quem eu via.
Todos os dias o via. Estou
Agora sem essa monotonia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Ele era o dono da tabacaria.
Um ponto de referência de quem sou.
Eu passava ali de noite e de dia.
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Meu coração tem pouca alegria,
E isto diz que é morte aquilo onde estou.
Horror fechado da tabacaria!
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
Mas ao menos a ele alguém o via,
Ele era fixo, eu, o que vou,
Se morrer, não falto, e ninguém diria:
Desde ontem a cidade mudou.
(Obra poética, 1997.)
No poema, o eu lírico sente-se
Ano: 2021
Banca:
UNIFESP
Órgão:
UNIFESP
Prova:
UNIFESP - 2021 - UNIFESP - Vestibular - 1º Dia - Língua Portuguesa/ Língua Inglesa / Redação |
Q1682907
Português
Examine o cartum de Quino.
Contribui para o efeito de humor do cartum o recurso
Contribui para o efeito de humor do cartum o recurso
Conheça nossos planos