Questões Militares de Inglês - Sinônimos | Synonyms

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

        While plastic refuse littering beaches and oceans draws high-profile attention, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Assessment of agricultural plastics and their sustainability: a call for action suggests that the land we use to grow our food is contaminated with even larger quantities of plastic pollutants. “Soils are one of the main receptors of agricultural plastics and are known to contain larger quantities of microplastics than oceans”, FAO Deputy Director-General Maria Helena Semedo said in the report’s foreword.

        According to data collated by FAO experts, agricultural value chains each year use 12.5 million tonnes of plastic products while another 37.3 million are used in food packaging. Crop production and livestock accounted for 10.2 million tonnes per year collectively, followed by fisheries and aquaculture with 2.1 million, and forestry with 0.2 million tonnes. Asia was estimated to be the largest user of plastics in agricultural production, accounting for almost half of global usage. Moreover, without viable alternatives, plastic demand in agriculture is only set to increase. As the demand for agricultural plastic continues surge, Ms. Semedo underscored the need to better monitor the quantities that “leak into the environment from agriculture”.

        Since their widespread introduction in the 1950s, plastics have become ubiquitous. In agriculture, plastic products greatly help productivity, such as in covering soil to reduce weeds; nets to protect and boost plant growth, extend cropping seasons and increase yields; and tree guards, which protect young plants and trees from animals and help provide a growth-enhancing microclimate. However, of the estimated 6.3 billion tonnes of plastics produced before 2015, almost 80 per cent had never been properly disposed of. While the effects of large plastic items on marine fauna have been well documented, the impacts unleashed during their disintegration potentially affect entire ecosystems.

(https://news.un.org, 07.12.2021. Adaptado.)

Chinese Woman Opens Plane’s Emergency Exit for Some Fresh Air

     A flight was delayed for an hour and a woman detained by police after she opened the emergency exit for “a breath of fresh air” before the flight took off in central China’s Hubei province, mainland media reported. The incident happened on Xiamen Air Flight MF8215 from Wuhan to Lanzhou, which was scheduled to take off at 3.45 p.m. on September 23.

    Cabin crew had briefed the woman, who was in her 50s, about the rules when sitting next to the emergency exit and reminded her not to touch the button that opened the emergency exit. However, the woman said she needed some fresh air and touched the button to open the exit when the stewardess turned around to help others, the report said. The woman was taken away and the flight was delayed for an hour. Opening the emergency exit can be considered to be disturbing public order in an aircraft, which is punishable by police detention and a fine.

    In July last year, a woman who was flying for the first time mistook the emergency door for a lavatory door before her plane took off in Nanjing. The emergency slide was released and the flight was delayed for two hours. The woman was detained for 10 days. Some passengers have paid a heavy price for releasing the emergency slide, which may take days and considerable expense to repair and reinstall. In January 2015, a man who opened an emergency door after a plane landed in Chongqing had to pay 35,000 yuan (150,000 baht) in compensation to the airline.

    In June, a man from Hubei who was returning to China from Bangkok on a Thai Lion Air Flight opened an emergency exit before take-off. After apologising repeatedly, according to witnesses, he was held by Thai authorities for one day and given a fine of 500 baht before being deported.

Adapted from https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1762629/chinese-woman-opens-planes-emergency-exit-for-somefresh-air

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

    A number of writers in our field have criticized the concept of language teaching methods. Some say that methods are prescriptions for classroom behavior (Pennycook 1989); others that teachers do not think about methods when planning their lessons (Long 1991), and that methodological labels tell us little about what really occurs in classrooms (Katz 1996).

    A particular method can be imposed on teachers by others. However, we also know that teaching is more than following a recipe. Any method is going to be shaped by a teacher’s own understanding, beliefs, style, and level of experience. After all, teachers are professionals who can, in the best of all worlds, make their own decisions. They are informed by their own experience, the findings from research, and the wisdom of practice accumulated by the profession (see, for example, Kumaravadivelu 1994).

    Furthermore, a method is decontextualized. How a method is implemented in the classroom is going to be affected not only by who the teacher is, but also by who the students are, the institutional constraints and demands, and factors connected to the wider sociocultural context where the instruction takes place. In addition, decisions that teachers make are often affected by exigencies in the classroom rather than by methodological considerations. Saying that a particular method is practiced certainly does not give us the whole picture of what is happening in the classroom. Then, too, since a method is more abstract than a teaching activity, it is not surprising that teachers think in terms of activities rather than methodological choices when they plan their lessons.

    [...] Some language teaching methods share the view that language can best be learned when it is taught through communication, rather than for it; and second, that language acquisition can be enhanced by working not only on language, but also on the process of learning (learnng strategies, cooperative learning and multiple intelligences).

(LARSEN FREEMAN, D. Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. pp. xi-xii. Adaptado)