Questões de Linguagens do ENEM

Leia o trecho do livro Em casa, de Bill Bryson, para responder à questão.

      Quase nada, no século XVII, escapava à astúcia dos que adulteravam alimentos. O açúcar e outros ingredientes caros muitas vezes eram aumentados com gesso, areia e poeira. A manteiga tinha o volume aumentado com sebo e banha. Quem tomasse chá, segundo autoridades da época, poderia ingerir, sem querer, uma série de coisas, desde serragem até esterco de carneiro pulverizado. Um carregamento inspecionado, relata Judith Flanders, demonstrou conter apenas a metade de chá; o resto era composto de areia e sujeira. Acrescentava-se ácido sulfúrico ao vinagre para dar mais acidez; giz ao leite; terebintina1 ao gim. O arsenito de cobre era usado para tornar os vegetais mais verdes, ou para fazer a geleia brilhar. O cromato de chumbo dava um brilho dourado aos pães e também à mostarda. O acetato de chumbo era adicionado às bebidas como adoçante, e o chumbo avermelhado deixava o queijo Gloucester, se não mais seguro para comer, mais belo para olhar.

      Não havia praticamente nenhum gênero que não pudesse ser melhorado ou tornado mais econômico para o varejista por meio de um pouquinho de manipulação e engodo. Até as cerejas, como relata Tobias Smollett, ganhavam novo brilho depois de roladas, delicadamente, na boca do vendedor antes de serem colocadas em exposição. Quantas damas inocentes, perguntava ele, tinham saboreado um prato de deliciosas cerejas que haviam sido “umedecidas e roladas entre os maxilares imundos e, talvez, ulcerados de um mascate de Saint Giles”?

      O pão era particularmente atingido. Em seu romance de 1771, The expedition of Humphry Clinker, Smollett definiu o pão de Londres como um composto tóxico de “giz, alume2 e cinzas de ossos, insípido ao paladar e destrutivo para a constituição”; mas acusações assim já eram comuns na época. A primeira acusação formal já encontrada sobre a adulteração generalizada do pão está em um livro chamado Poison detected: or frightful truths, escrito anonimamente em 1757, que revelou segundo “uma autoridade altamente confiável” que “sacos de ossos velhos são usados por alguns padeiros, não infrequentemente”, e que “os ossuários dos mortos são revolvidos para adicionar imundícies ao alimento dos vivos”.

                                                                    (Em casa, 2011. Adaptado.)

1 terebintina: resina extraída de uma planta e usada na fabricação de vernizes, diluição de tintas etc.

2 alume: designação dos sulfatos duplos de alumínio e metais alcalinos, com propriedades adstringentes, usado na fabricação de corantes, papel, porcelana, na purificação de água, na clarificação de açúcar etc.

Esse movimento descobriu algo que ainda não havia sido conhecido ou enfatizado antes: a “poesia pura”, a poesia que surge do espírito irracional, não conceitual da linguagem, oposto a toda interpretação lógica. Assim, a poesia nada mais é do que a expressão daquelas relações e correspondências, que a linguagem, abandonada a si mesma, cria entre o concreto e o abstrato, o material e o ideal, e entre as diferentes esferas dos sentidos.

Sendo a vida misteriosa e inexplicável, como pensavam os adeptos desse movimento, era natural que fosse representada de maneira imprecisa, vaga, nebulosa, ilógica e ininteligível.

(Afrânio Coutinho. Introdução à literatura no Brasil, 1976. Adaptado.)

O comentário do crítico Afrânio Coutinho refere-se ao movimento literário denominado

Ricardo Reis é, assim, o heterônimo clássico, ou melhor, neoclássico: sua visão da realidade deriva da Antiguidade greco-latina. Seus modelos de vida e de poesia, buscou-os na Grécia e em Roma.

(Massaud Moisés. “Introdução”. In: Fernando Pessoa. O guardador de rebanhos e outros poemas, 1997.)

Levando-se em consideração esse comentário, pertencem a Ricardo Reis, heterônimo de Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935), os versos:

Leia os cartuns 1 e 2 para responder à questão.

Leia os cartuns 1 e 2 para responder à questão.

Leia os cartuns 1 e 2 para responder à questão.

Leia os cartuns 1 e 2 para responder à questão.

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

      In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”

      Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.

      Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.

      So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.

                                          (Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)

Os relatos sobre as ondas epidêmicas de febre amarela na cidade do Rio de Janeiro apareceram com frequência nos periódicos, especialmente a partir da década de 1850.

De acordo com o documento acima, no início da década de 1870, o alastramento da doença era associado ao seguinte fator:

A flutuação do gosto em relação aos poetas é normal, como é normal a sucessão dos modos de fazer poesia. (ℓ. 1-2)

A relação que se estabelece entre essa declaração inicial do crítico Antonio Candido e o restante de seu texto pode ser definida pela seguinte sequência: