Questões de Inglês do ENEM

Leia o fragmento textual que segue e, com base nele, responda às questões de 52 a 56.



Segundo o fragmento,

                         FOR CATS, A BIG GULP WITH A TOUCH OF THE TONGUE

             It has taken four highly qualified engineers and a bunch of integral equations to figure it out, but we now know how cats drink. The answer is: very elegantly, and not at all the way you might suppose. Cats lap water so fast that the human eye cannot follow what is happening, which is why the trick had apparently escaped attention until now. With the use of high-speed photography, the neatness of the feline solution has been captured. The act of drinking may seem like no big deal for anyone who can fully close his mouth to create suction, as people can. But the various species that cannot do so - and that includes most adult carnivores - must resort to some other mechanism. Dog owners are familiar with the unseemly lapping noises that ensue when their thirsty pet meets a bowl of water. The dog is thrusting its tongue into the water, forming a crude cup with it and hauling the liquid back into the muzzle.
             Cats, both big and little, are so much classier, according to new research by Pedro M. Reis and Roman Stocker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, joined by Sunghwan Jung of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Jeffrey M. Aristoff of Princeton. Writing in the Thursday issue of Science, the four engineers report that the cat’s lapping method depends on its instinctive ability to calculate the balance between opposing gravitational and inertial forces. What happens is that the cat darts its tongue, curving the upper side downward so that the tip lightly touches the surface of the water.
             The tongue is then pulled upward at high speed, drawing a column of water behind it. Just at the moment that gravity finally overcomes the rush of the water and starts to pull the column down - snap! The cat’s jaws have closed over the jet of water and swallowed it. The cat laps four times a second - too fast for the human eye to see anything but a blur - and its tongue moves at a speed of one meter per second. Being engineers, the cat-lapping team next tested its findings with a machine that mimicked a cat’s tongue, using a glass disk at the end of a piston to serve as the tip. After calculating things like the Froude number and the aspect ratio, they were able to figure out how fast a cat should lap to get the greatest amount of water into its mouth. The cats, it turns out, were way ahead of them - they lap at just that speed. To the scientific mind, the next obvious question is whether bigger cats should lap at different speeds.


WADE, Nicholas. For cats, a big gulp with a touch of the tongue. Disponível em: Acesso em: 20 nov. 2010.


Qual é o significado do substantivo sublinhado na seguinte oração?

"The neatness of the feline solution has been captured".

The main idea of the article is

The phrase “a chicken-and-egg problem” (. 30) expresses the idea of

The statement “A number of carmakers are developing wireless networking systems (…) if an accident looks likely” (. 50-54) shows that the manufacturers’ objective is

Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities

By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.

In a unanimous decision with majorn implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.

“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”

There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.

The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.

While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.

Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.

“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” *reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.

In: <https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilitie> 30.03.2018

O fato que levou à publicação deste texto em março de 2017 foi

In the fragment, “The ordinary-looking models (…) likely to be encountered on roads” (. l 74-78), the demonstrative “These” refers to

No primeiro parágrafo, a palavra instead pode ser CORRETAMENTE traduzida por

Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities

By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.

In a unanimous decision with majorn implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.

“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”

There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.

The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.

While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.

Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.

“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” *reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.

In: <https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilitie> 30.03.2018

De acordo com o terceiro parágrafo, é CORRETO afirmar que, nos Estados Unidos,

In the fragment from paragraph 6 “the judge also sided with the school district”, the expression in bold means the same as

Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities

By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.

In a unanimous decision with majorn implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.

“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”

There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.

The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.

While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.

Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.

“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” *reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.

In: <https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilitie> 30.03.2018

No excerto do sexto parágrafo “whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater”, a palavra it se refere a