Questões de Linguagens do ENEM

                                             Os bens e o sangue

                                                           VIII

      (...)

      Ó filho pobre, e descorçoado*, e finito

      ó inapto para as cavalhadas e os trabalhos brutais

      com a faca, o formão, o couro... Ó tal como quiséramos

      para tristeza nossa e consumação das eras,

      para o fim de tudo que foi grande!

                                                          Ó desejado,

      ó poeta de uma poesia que se furta e se expande

      à maneira de um lago de pez** e resíduos letais...

      És nosso fim natural e somos teu adubo,

      tua explicação e tua mais singela virtude...

      Pois carecia que um de nós nos recusasse

      para melhor servirnos. Face a face

      te contemplamos, e é teu esse primeiro

      e úmido beijo em nossa boca de barro e de sarro.

                                                                                     Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Claro enigma.

* “descorçoado”: assim como “desacorçoado”, é uma variante de uso popular da palavra “desacoroçoado”, que significa “desanimado”.

** “pez”: piche.

Considere o tipo de relação estabelecida pela preposição “para” nos seguintes trechos do poema:

I. “ó inapto para as cavalhadas e os trabalhos brutais”.

II. “Ó tal como quiséramos para tristeza nossa e consumação das eras”.

III. “para o fim de tudo que foi grande”.

IV. “para melhor servirnos”.

A preposição “para” introduz uma oração com ideia de finalidade apenas em

      It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds.

      Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.

      Today, the head is on display in a museum, with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”

      There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.

      To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.

      Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

                                                         Julia Baird, The New York Times. September 4, 2017. Adaptado. 

      It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds.

      Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.

      Today, the head is on display in a museum, with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”

      There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.

      To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.

      Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

                                                         Julia Baird, The New York Times. September 4, 2017. Adaptado. 

      It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds.

      Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.

      Today, the head is on display in a museum, with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”

      There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.

      To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.

      Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

                                                         Julia Baird, The New York Times. September 4, 2017. Adaptado. 

      Algorithms are everywhere. They play the stockmarket, decide whether you can have a mortgage and may one day drive your car for you. They search the internet when commanded, stick carefully chosen advertisements into the sites you visit and decide what prices to show you in online shops. (…) But what exactly are algorithms, and what makes them so powerful?

      An algorithm is, essentially, a brainless way of doing clever things. It is a set of precise steps that need no great mental effort to follow but which, if obeyed exactly and mechanically, will lead to some desirable outcome. Long division and column addition are examples that everyone is familiar with — if you follow the procedure, you are guaranteed to get the right answer. So is the strategy, rediscovered thousands of times every year by schoolchildren bored with learning mathematical algorithms, for playing a perfect game of noughts and crosses. The brainlessness is key: each step should be as simple and as free from ambiguity as possible. Cooking recipes and driving directions are algorithms of a sort. But instructions like “stew the meat until tender” or “it’s a few miles down the road” are too vague to follow without at least some interpretation.

      (…)

                                                                                                          The Economist, August 30, 2017.

      Algorithms are everywhere. They play the stockmarket, decide whether you can have a mortgage and may one day drive your car for you. They search the internet when commanded, stick carefully chosen advertisements into the sites you visit and decide what prices to show you in online shops. (…) But what exactly are algorithms, and what makes them so powerful?

      An algorithm is, essentially, a brainless way of doing clever things. It is a set of precise steps that need no great mental effort to follow but which, if obeyed exactly and mechanically, will lead to some desirable outcome. Long division and column addition are examples that everyone is familiar with — if you follow the procedure, you are guaranteed to get the right answer. So is the strategy, rediscovered thousands of times every year by schoolchildren bored with learning mathematical algorithms, for playing a perfect game of noughts and crosses. The brainlessness is key: each step should be as simple and as free from ambiguity as possible. Cooking recipes and driving directions are algorithms of a sort. But instructions like “stew the meat until tender” or “it’s a few miles down the road” are too vague to follow without at least some interpretation.

      (…)

                                                                                                          The Economist, August 30, 2017.

How do we know the world is getting warmer?

Our planet has been warming rapidly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

The average temperature at the Earth's surface has risen about 1.1C since 1850. Furthermore, each of the last four decades has been warmer than any that preceded it, since the middle of the 19th Century.

These conclusions come from analyses of millions of measurements gathered in different parts of the world. The temperature readings are collected by weather stations on land, on ships and by satellites.

Multiple independent teams of scientists have reached the same result – a spike in temperatures coinciding with the onset of the industrial era. Scientists can reconstruct temperature fluctuations even further back in time. Tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments and corals all record a signature of the past climate.

This provides much-needed context to the current phase of warming. In fact, scientists estimate the Earth hasn't been this hot for about 125,000 years. 

How do we know humans are responsible for global warming?

Greenhouse gases - which trap the Sun's heat - are the crucial link between temperature rise and human activities. The most important is carbon dioxide (CO₂), because of its abundance in the atmosphere.

We can also tell it's CO₂ trapping the Sun's energy. Satellites show less heat from the Earth escaping into space at precisely the wavelengths at which CO₂ absorbs radiated energy.

Burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees lead to the release of this greenhouse gas. Both activities exploded after the 19th Century, so it's unsurprising that atmospheric CO₂ increased over the same period.

There's a way we can show definitively where this extra CO₂ came from. The carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a distinctive chemical signature.

 Available in: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58954530. Access in: 17 Aug. 2022.

What is an effective way of getting people to cut down on meat?

A meat tax, or “sin taxes” would be most effective yet almost all government subsidies promote meat consumption. In the UK, the best (1)________of how this might work is the tax on the soft drinks industry. It mainly (2)________manufacturers reformulating products, and didn’t put the burden on the consumer. A meat tax would mainly incentivise manufacturers to put (3)________  meat in products (eg, a sausage might have 60% meat instead of 70%) but there is no government appetite for it.

There are many reasons for this, including lobbying from interest groups saying it would (4)________the domestic farming sector. Neoliberal governments also have a tendency to believe the market will internalise health and environmental costs if better information is provided, and the government does not want to appear to be a “nanny state”, says Dominic Moran, professor of agricultural and resource economics from the University of Edinburgh. There is also concern the burden of taxes falls disproportionately on lower income groups. “But this isn’t (5) ________,” says Moran. 

If you make it easier for companies to advertise products that are better for the environment, you expose fewer people to products which are bad for the environment. Good in theory, but it would be really hard to work out what should be regulated because (6)  ________  tobacco, eating meat is not all bad for people, it’s just the quantity it is being eaten in. It would also be hard to know what needs to be regulated – would it just be (7) ________ red meat, or chicken too? What about organic?

Available in: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/16/how-can-the-uk-reduce-meat-consumption-and-cut-emissions-aoe?CMP=Share_

AndroidApp_Other. Access in: 16 Aug. 2022 (adapted).

No texto apresentado, foram omitidos sete termos cujas grafias estão contidas nas alternativas a seguir. Assinale a que completa, correta e respectivamente, as lacunas numeradas nele.

Why does Nature Loss Matter?

Nature is our life-support system. From the fresh air we (1) breathe to the clean water we (2) drink, nature (3) provides the essentials we all rely on for our survival and well-being. And it also holds the key to our (4) prosperity, with millions of livelihoods and much of our economic activity also depending on the natural world. These immense (5) benefits to humanity, estimated to be worth around US$ 125 trillion a year, are only possible if we maintain a rich (6) diversity of wildlife.

Available in: https://explore.panda.org/newdeal?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgO2XBhCaARIsANrW2X0IIHXhC2iCZHBBoQAx6UyJdDDUy2p-hWYPGlbDTblY7kfNin2Y2GoaAvVGEALw_wcB#why. Access in: 16 Aug. 2022.

De acordo com o texto, assinale a alternativa que indica a classificação correta das palavras destacadas.

Available in: https://www.rd.com/list/animal-cartoons. Access in: 28 Aug. 2022. 

Com base no cartum apresentado, é correto afirmar que

Linguisticamente

A linguística, nascida no século 19 e amadurecida no 20, revolucionou o mapa do nosso entendimento sobre as línguas. Até então, a cartografia do verbo tinha duas estradas principais, a normativista e a enciclopédica.

O normativismo é, como diria o Chico, “bedel e também juiz”. Dita regras de bom uso do idioma, pautadas num distante ideal fixado por escritores clássicos, e fica bravo se discordamos. É o que costuma cair em provas, muitas vezes na forma de ridículas pegadinhas. O maior símbolo dessa visão que divide o mundo em certo e errado é aquele tijolo temido pelos estudantes do meu tempo, a gramática normativa. Até hoje o normativismo pauta o senso comum. “Português é tão difícil! A língua está decadente! Será que pode se escrever assim?”

O enciclopedismo é menos carrancudo. Como um colecionador de borboletas, espeta expressões — com destaque para as pitorescas — em compridos murais de cortiça que formam corredores a perder de vista. Tem como símbolo um tijolo maior ainda, o dicionário, que hoje já quase ninguém tira da estante, porque funciona melhor on-line.

A linguística abriu uma terceira via nesse mapa, rumo a amplas regiões inexploradas — a do olhar científico aplicado à língua. Um linguista não está interessado em como a língua deveria ser nem na catalogação de palavras em sua quase infinita variedade. O que se deseja saber é como essa poderosa máquina de fazer sentido, moeda simbólica de toda sociedade humana, estrutura-se e se manifesta. Trata-se de uma ideia simples, indiscutível até. A língua existe na vida real, material, fora do âmbito de nossos desejos, e está condicionada apenas à história.

Sérgio Rodrigues, Folha de São Paulo, 03 fev. 2021. Disponível em: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/sergio-rodrigues/2021/02/linguisticamente.shtml.

Acesso em: 20 ago. 2022 (fragmento).

Sobre a interpretação autorizada do texto de Sérgio Rodrigues, é correto afirmar que a linguística