Questões de Linguagens do ENEM

INSTRUÇÃO: Responder à questão com base no texto.

Sobre este trecho da obra de Noll, Adelaide Calhman de Miranda comenta:

“Normalmente a reação das pessoas à diferença é hostil; o melhor que se pode esperar é a tolerância. Uma crítica a este fenômeno pode ser encontrada no deboche do narrador de Bandoleiros à sociedade utópica teorizada por Ada e suas colegas, a “Sociedade Minimal”, “um núcleo comunitário mínimo, onde só circulassem suas próprias mercadorias”. Os princípios absurdos da Sociedade Minimal e a ironia com que o narrador se refere a ela podem ser considerados uma crítica à estética minimalista, que extingue o supérfluo e elimina as diferenças.”

Adaptado de: MIRANDA, Adelaide Calhman de. Abscesso na cidade desencontro, violência e esquecimento em Bandoleiros, de João Gilberto Noll. Estudos de Literatura Brasileira Contemporânea, Brasília, v. 14, p. 01-20, 2001. Disponível em: http:// periodicos.unb.br/index.php/estudos/article/view/2230/1788

Considerando os excertos de Noll e de Miranda, analise as afirmativas abaixo, preenchendo os parênteses com V (verdadeiro) ou F (falso).

( ) O trecho de Noll bem representa o estilo prosa poética associado a sua escrita.

( ) Em ambos os textos há dados consistentes sobre a forma particular de circulação de mercadorias nas Sociedades Minimais.

( ) A expressão “princípios absurdos” e a referência à ironia do narrador utilizadas pela crítica literária podem ser identificadas no excerto de Bandoleiros de forma sutil.

( ) Miranda associa a ironia de Noll à ideia de falta de tolerância das pessoas em relação à diferença. O correto preenchimento dos parênteses, de cima para baixo, é

INSTRUÇÃO: Responder à questão com base nos textos 8 e 9.

Disponível em: www.deskgram.org. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2018 (adaptado).

A associação entre o texto verbal e as imagens da garrafa e do cão configura recurso expressivo que busca

The text ‘Brazil as a bridge between old and new powers?’ has been extracted from a text published in the periodical International Affairs, issue nº 89. The issue, as stated by the editors in an introductory article, ‘… has been divided into two parts. Part one comprises case-studies of three rising powers — Brazil, India and China — while the articles in part two cover the various actors and entities that have reason and/or ability to attempt to manage the rise of new powers. (…) These multiple actors may be grouped into four categories…’

The following definitions were given in the introductory article for each of the categories:

1. This group comprises states and groupings of states that have acquired, over the past decades, the role of agendasetters as Great Powers. They have exerted defining influence in shaping the rules and norms of global governance. Despite their relative decline (especially with reference to the rising powers), they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.

2. In this category are the countries that represent the proverbial grass that gets trampled when elephants fight. They often form the unfortunate terrain on which scrambles for power can occur, but are also occasionally able to exercise powerful leverage by providing the follower base that aspiring leaders seek, and legitimize claims to greater power by securing for those leaders the backing of large numbers.

3. As the shift in the balance of power that we see under way today is not occurring simply between states, this category includes businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged as repositories and brokers of power, effectively harnessed by states at different levels of the hierarchy and harnessing them to serve their own causes in turn.

4. This category recognizes that most international organizations, regimes and networks are seldom ‘actors’ in their own right. But different organizations, networks and regimes, even when made up of similar memberships, show different degrees of adaptability and reform in response to the needs and demands posed by rising powers.

The sequence that matches the category with its definition is:

The text ‘Brazil as a bridge between old and new powers?’ has been extracted from a text published in the periodical International Affairs, issue nº 89. The issue, as stated by the editors in an introductory article, ‘… has been divided into two parts. Part one comprises case-studies of three rising powers — Brazil, India and China — while the articles in part two cover the various actors and entities that have reason and/or ability to attempt to manage the rise of new powers. (…) These multiple actors may be grouped into four categories…’

The following definitions were given in the introductory article for each of the categories:

1. This group comprises states and groupings of states that have acquired, over the past decades, the role of agendasetters as Great Powers. They have exerted defining influence in shaping the rules and norms of global governance. Despite their relative decline (especially with reference to the rising powers), they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.

2. In this category are the countries that represent the proverbial grass that gets trampled when elephants fight. They often form the unfortunate terrain on which scrambles for power can occur, but are also occasionally able to exercise powerful leverage by providing the follower base that aspiring leaders seek, and legitimize claims to greater power by securing for those leaders the backing of large numbers.

3. As the shift in the balance of power that we see under way today is not occurring simply between states, this category includes businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged as repositories and brokers of power, effectively harnessed by states at different levels of the hierarchy and harnessing them to serve their own causes in turn.

4. This category recognizes that most international organizations, regimes and networks are seldom ‘actors’ in their own right. But different organizations, networks and regimes, even when made up of similar memberships, show different degrees of adaptability and reform in response to the needs and demands posed by rising powers.

In the definition transcribed in number 1 , the fragment “Despite their relative decline (…) they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.” means that