Pular para o conteúdo

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 794 de 950

  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 1 e responda à questão. 

    TEXTO 1 

    Figura 1 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Interpretação de Textos

    Figura 2 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Interpretação de Textos

    Figura 3 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Interpretação de Textos

    Figura 4 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Interpretação de Textos

    Figura 5 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Interpretação de Textos

    André Felipe Portugal é advogado e mestrando em Direito Constitucional pela Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal). 

    PORTUGAL, André Felipe. Não ao pensamento único. Disponível em:<http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/nao-ao-pensamento-unico-8n51aku1uc9ghd632l0zsrcqg>Acesso em: 10 jun. 2016 (Adaptado)

    O autor do TEXTO 1 utiliza-se de argumentos de autoridade, fatos, exemplos e constrói suas opiniões para fortalecer a argumentação. Dos trechos a seguir, a única opção em que se recorreu ao fato é:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d78c8649-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 1 e responda à questão. 

    TEXTO 1 

    Figura 1 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Análise sintática

    Figura 2 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Análise sintática

    Figura 3 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Análise sintática

    Figura 4 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Análise sintática

    Figura 5 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Análise sintática

    André Felipe Portugal é advogado e mestrando em Direito Constitucional pela Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal). 

    PORTUGAL, André Felipe. Não ao pensamento único. Disponível em:<http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/nao-ao-pensamento-unico-8n51aku1uc9ghd632l0zsrcqg>Acesso em: 10 jun. 2016 (Adaptado)

    “[...] Logo, pode-se dizer que, a não ser pela linguagem, pelas palavras, não conseguimos compreendê-lo. O que é o real? Não saberemos senão através da linguagem. Isto é, não saberemos – ao menos não completamente.” (linhas 4–7)

    Considerando o trecho do TEXTO 1, destacado anteriormente, o discurso se organiza, sequencialmente, por elementos linguísticos que, além de estabelecerem a coesão, introduzem ideias de:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7912653-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, PUC - SP 2015, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension Em relação à Nigéria e ao Senegal, o parágrafo 5 diz que
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7927c68-ab
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 1 e responda à questão. 

    TEXTO 1 

    Figura 1 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    Figura 2 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    Figura 3 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    Figura 4 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    Figura 5 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    André Felipe Portugal é advogado e mestrando em Direito Constitucional pela Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal). 

    PORTUGAL, André Felipe. Não ao pensamento único. Disponível em:<http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/nao-ao-pensamento-unico-8n51aku1uc9ghd632l0zsrcqg>Acesso em: 10 jun. 2016 (Adaptado)

    “Uma vez pregada a existência de um pensamento e uma interpretação únicos, no entanto, para que serviriam o diálogo e o confronto sadio de interpretações?”(linhas 94–96).

    Ao observar a regra de concordância entre adjetivo e substantivo, sobre o trecho anterior, pode-se afirmar que:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d794b668-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 1 e responda à questão. 

    TEXTO 1 

    Figura 1 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Coesão e coerência

    Figura 2 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Coesão e coerência

    Figura 3 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Coesão e coerência

    Figura 4 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Coesão e coerência

    Figura 5 de 5 da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Coesão e coerência

    André Felipe Portugal é advogado e mestrando em Direito Constitucional pela Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal). 

    PORTUGAL, André Felipe. Não ao pensamento único. Disponível em:<http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/nao-ao-pensamento-unico-8n51aku1uc9ghd632l0zsrcqg>Acesso em: 10 jun. 2016 (Adaptado)

    “a minha interpretação ou perspectiva não é única, e é bem possível que ela nem sequer seja a melhor dentre as existentes. Há outras que podem ser igualmente válidas, com as quais posso aprender alguma coisa. Também é possível que eu discorde delas, mas isso não significará, necessariamente, que elas são erradas ou menos válidas do que a minha [...]”. (linhas 29–34)

    No trecho acima, observamos a utilização de mecanismos linguísticos que permitiram a sequência lógico-semântica entre as partes do texto, isto é, funcionaram para estabelecer a coesão textual. Observando a utilização desses conectores, marque a opção correta.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d79bb5ab-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 3 e responda à questão.

    TEXTO 3 

    Imagem da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Funções da Linguagem: emotiva, apelativa, referencial, metalinguística, fática e poética.

    Intolerância religiosa é crime de ódio e fere a dignidade. O direito de criticar dogmas e encaminhamentos é assegurado como liberdade de expressão, mas atitudes agressivas, ofensas e tratamento diferenciado a alguém, em função de crença ou de não ter religião, são crimes inafiançáveis e imprescritíveis. 


    Disponível em: <http://juventudeespirita.tumblr.com/post/96974768531/intoler%C3%A2ncia-religiosa-

    %C3%A9-crime-de-%C3%B3dio-e-fere-a>  . Acesso em: 24 ago. 2016 

    Nas campanhas comunitárias, ou publicitárias, é comum o predomínio da função conativa da linguagem. No TEXTO 3, pode-se observar que:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7a24c43-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Imagem da questão de Português, UNIFESP 2005, Interpretação de Textos De acordo com o texto, a caligrafia dos médicos
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7a53a5c-29
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia o TEXTO 3 e responda à questão.

    TEXTO 3 

    Imagem da questão de Português, IFN-MG 2016, Adjetivos

    Intolerância religiosa é crime de ódio e fere a dignidade. O direito de criticar dogmas e encaminhamentos é assegurado como liberdade de expressão, mas atitudes agressivas, ofensas e tratamento diferenciado a alguém, em função de crença ou de não ter religião, são crimes inafiançáveis e imprescritíveis. 


    Disponível em: <http://juventudeespirita.tumblr.com/post/96974768531/intoler%C3%A2ncia-religiosa-

    %C3%A9-crime-de-%C3%B3dio-e-fere-a>  . Acesso em: 24 ago. 2016 

    Sobre o efeito semântico de empregos linguísticos e/ou sinonímia das palavras utilizadas no TEXTO 3, é correto afirmar que:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7a68d1e-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Imagem da questão de Português, ENEM 2011, Interpretação de Textos

    A memória é um importante recurso do patrimônio cultural de uma nação. Ela está presente nas lembranças do passado e no acervo cultural de um povo. Ao tratar o fazer poético como uma das maneiras de se guardar o que se quer, o texto
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7af8531-88
  • Linguagens

    Português

    Leia os textos 5 e 6 para responder à questão.

    TEXTO 5 

    A língua de que usam, por toda a costa, carece de três letras; convém a saber, não se acha nela F, nem L, nem R, coisa digna de espanto, porque assim não têm Fé, nem Lei, nem Rei, e essa maneira vivem desordenadamente, sem terem além disto conta, nem peso, nem medida. 

    GÂNGAVO, P. M.. A primeira história do Brasil: história da província de Santa Cruz a que vulgarmente chamamos Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2004 (Adaptado)


    TEXTO 6 

    Águas são muitas; infinitas. Em tal maneira é graciosa que, querendo-a aproveitar, dar-se-á nela tudo; por causa das águas que tem!

    Contudo, o melhor fruto que dela se pode tirar parece-me que será salvar esta gente. E esta deve ser a principal semente que Vossa Alteza em ela deve lançar. E que não houvesse mais do que ter Vossa Alteza aqui esta pousada para essa navegação de Calicute bastava. Quanto mais, disposição para se ela cumprir e fazer o que Vossa Alteza tanto deseja, a saber, acrescentamento da nossa fé! [...]”.(Fragmento da Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha).

    Disponível em: <http://escolakids.uol.com.br/carta-de-pero-vaz-de-caminha.htm>. Acesso em: 24 ago. 2016. 

    A literatura nascente no Brasil compreende os textos com objetivo informativo e formativo. Sobre os dois trechos, apresentados nos TEXTOS 5 e 6, que compõem as crônicas do “Descobrimento do Brasil”, pode-se afirmar que:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7b0b835-b7
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        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
  • Linguagens

    Literatura

    Sobre o filme Que horas Ela volta, de Anna Muylaert, pode-se afirmar que:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão d7b4a031-b7