Pular para o conteúdo
Dicas do ENEMEntrar

Área do conhecimento

Questões de Linguagens do ENEM

Todas as questões de Linguagens do banco, com gabarito em cada página. Combine com ano, disciplina e dificuldade para montar sua lista de estudo.

  • 18.995 questões
  • 4 disciplinas
  • 219 assuntos

Resultados: 18.995 questões

Página 800 de 950

Ordenar porMais antigas
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos

        A palavra sonho, do latim somnium, significa muitas coisas diferentes, todas vivenciadas durante a vigília, e não durante o sono. Realizei “o sonho da minha vida”, “meu sonho de consumo” são frases usadas cotidianamente pelas pessoas para dizer que pretendem ou conseguiram alcançar algo. Todo mundo tem um sonho, no sentido de plano futuro. Todo mundo deseja algo que não tem. Por que será que o sonho, fenômeno normalmente noturno que tanto pode evocar o prazer quanto o medo, é justamente a palavra usada para designar tudo aquilo que se quer ter?
        
        O repertório publicitário contemporâneo não tem dúvidas de que o sonho é a força motriz de nossos comportamentos. Desejo é o sinônimo mais preciso da palavra “sonho”. [...] Na área de desembarque de um aeroporto nos Estados Unidos, uma foto enorme de um casal belo e sorridente, velejando num mar caribenho em dia ensolarado, sob a frase enigmática: “Aonde seus sonhos o levarão?”, embaixo o logotipo da empresa de cartão de crédito. Deduz-se do anúncio que os sonhos são como veleiros, capazes de levar-nos a lugares idílicos, perfeitos, altamente… desejáveis. As equações “sonho é igual a desejo que é igual a dinheiro” têm como variável oculta a liberdade de ir, ser e principalmente ter, liberdade que até os mais miseráveis podem experimentar no mundo de regras frouxas do sonho noturno, mas que no sonho diurno é privilégio apenas dos detentores de um mágico cartão plástico.

        A rotina do trabalho diário e a falta de tempo para dormir e sonhar, que acometem a maioria dos trabalhadores, são cruciais para o mal-estar da civilização contemporânea. É gritante o contraste entre a relevância motivacional do sonho e sua banalização no mundo industrial globalizado. [...] A indústria da saúde do sono, um setor que cresce aceleradamente, tem valor estimado entre 30 bilhões e 40 bilhões de dólares. Mesmo assim a insônia impera. Se o tempo é sempre escasso, se despertamos diariamente com o toque insistente do despertador, ainda sonolentos e já atrasados para cumprir compromissos que se renovam ao infinito, se tão poucos se lembram que sonham pela simples falta de oportunidade de contemplar a vida interior, quando a insônia grassa e o bocejo se impõe, chega-se a duvidar da sobrevivência do sonho.

        E, no entanto, sonha-se. Sonha-se muito e a granel, sonha-se sofregamente apesar das luzes e dos ruídos da cidade, da incessante faina da vida e da tristeza das perspectivas. Dirá a formiga cética que quem sonha assim tão livre é o artista, cigarra de fábula que vive de brisa. [...] Na peça teatral A vida é sonho, o espanhol Pedro Calderón de la Barca dramatizou a liberdade de construir o próprio destino. O sonho é a imaginação sem freio nem controle, solta para temer, criar, perder e achar.

    (O oráculo da noite: a história e a ciência do sonho, 2019.)
    Pode ser reescrito na voz passiva o seguinte trecho do texto:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7633ec1-72
    Abrir questão de Português, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
    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.

    (Obra poética, 1997.)
    No poema, o eu lírico sente-se
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d76cbf73-72
    Abrir questão de Português, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
    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.

    (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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d779432c-72
    Abrir questão de Português, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
    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.

    (Obra poética, 1997.)
    O eu lírico recorre a um sinal de pontuação para indicar a supressão de um verbo em
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d77d8430-72
    Abrir questão de Português, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Literatura

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
    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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7821f8e-72
    Abrir questão de Literatura, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
    The first and second paragraphs mainly illustrate
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d786f0d6-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (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,
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d78c0aef-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7902f92-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
    The expression “Before you know it” (3rd paragraph) can be correctly interpreted as
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7955363-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7994fc4-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d79ee807-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
    The subtitle that most closely represents the content of the fifth and sixth paragraphs is:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7a3be58-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (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
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7a84ae7-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
    It is an explicit opinion by the author of the text:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7ad1735-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos
        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.____________________

        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.

    (Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    A afirmação da figura que melhor dialoga com o conteúdo do último parágrafo do texto de Christian Jarrett é:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7b21665-72
    Abrir questão de Inglês, UNIFESP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, USP 2021, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Segundo o texto, conhecer a composição de elementos químicos que constituem as estrelas é fundamental, pois ela, entre outros aspectos,
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão df151641-7b
    Abrir questão de Inglês, USP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, USP 2021, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    No texto, o astrofísico Martin Asplund emprega a frase "The sun is a fundamental yardstick" (L. 15), por considerar o Sol
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão df186798-7b
    Abrir questão de Inglês, USP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, USP 2021, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Conforme o texto, um critério tradicionalmente utilizado por astrônomos para avaliar estrelas envolve
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão df1b57ca-7b
    Abrir questão de Inglês, USP 2021
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Entre para guardar nos favoritos

        I knew TikTok existed, but I didn't fully understand what it was until a few months ago. I also realized that something radical, yet largely invisible, is happening on the internet - with implications we still don't understand.

        When I was growing up, I took it for granted that the people who became famous enough to be listened to by a crowd had worked hard for that accolade and generally operated with the support of an institution or an established industry.

        The idea that I, as a teenager in my bedroom, might suddenly communicate with 100,000 people or more, would have seemed bizarre.

        Today's kids no longer see life in these hierarchical and institutional terms. Yes, their physical worlds are often constrained by parental controls, a lack of access to the outdoors and insane over-scheduling.

        But despite that (or, more accurately, in reaction to that), they see the internet as a constantly evolving frontier, where it is still possible for a bold and lucky pioneer to grab some land or find a voice. Most voices on the internet never travel beyond a relatively small network, and much of the content that goes viral on platforms such as TikTok, YouTube or Instagram does so because of unseen institutions at work (for example, a public relations team aiming to boost a celebrity's profile).

        Fame can suddenly appear - and then just as suddenly be taken away again, because the audience gets bored, the platform's algorithms change or the cultural trend that a breakout video has tapped into goes out of fashion.

        For a teenager, social media can seem like a summer garden at dusk filled with fireflies: spots of lights suddenly flare up and then die down, moving in an unpredictable, capricious display.

        Is this a bad thing? We will not know for several years.

    Financial Times. 5 February 2020. Adaptado. 

    Conforme o texto, um aspecto associado ao caráter efêmero da popularidade de um usuário da internet, relativo ao uso de plataformas como TikTok, é
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão df1e262a-7b
    Abrir questão de Inglês, USP 2021