Questões de Inglês do ENEM

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

    One reason growth forecasts for rich nations are so grim is the common assumption that birth rates are falling. Fewer people will produce less income, and shrinking economies. Only the assumption of aging populations may be wrong, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs that looks at key demographic trends for the 21st century.

    Since bottoming out in 2001, fertility rates in a number of developed economies have actually been on the rise. Among rich economies, the jump is most pronounced in places like the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the U.S. Larger immigrant populations in these nations have something to do with this, as they tend to have more children. Yet the effect is only short term, as migrants adopt the fertility rates of their new homes within a generation or so.

    Goldman’s new analysis shows that another reason for the unexpected jump, and one that will play a bigger role in the future, is that women in rich countries have been having children later and later in life, something that traditional economic models don’t account for. Standard estimates of fertility are still tabulated assuming that most women are having children in their early 20s, rather than late 20s or even 30s and 40s, as has become more common in rich countries with lots of women in the workforce. “In parts of Europe (this method of calculation) has probably understated true fertility by about 15 to 20 percent,” notes Goldman Sachs economist Peter Berezin.

    Those are big numbers, with potentially very significant ramifications. For starters, it could be that some of the problems faced by aging nations with shrinking tax bases (like, for example, overblown health-care spending, crumbling infrastructure, and budget shortfalls) may not be quite as bad as once envisioned. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that we may soon start seeing mini baby booms, which, in 20 years or so, could have a significant impact on the size of rich nations’ workforces, a shift that can’t come too soon for countries now struggling with unprecedented levels of national debt. Another bright spot – recent surveys by Eurobarometer show that European women between the ages of 25 and 39 want to have more children, if only it were easier to find a better work-life balance. Note to European leaders: stop worrying about the effects of immigration and start creating better-paid part-time work.

Newsweek, September 28, 2009

How does the CSP technology work?

The answer to this question is in

The expression “take the lead” in this sentence should be understood as

Fill in the parentheses with True or False. It’s stated in the text that

( ) Short people don’t make as much money as tall people.

( ) Thin workers earn less money than fat ones.

( ) Short people can handle difficult situations more easily than tall ones.

( ) Tall people aren’t usually considered as intelligent as shorter ones.

The correct sequence, from top to bottom, is

Earth on its way to the ICU

    There’s no way to deny it anymore. It has been proven through a report from the UN (United Nations) that, yes, it was man who made the Earth sick. And even if now the world, diagnosed, decides to reduce the damage that our presence here causes (which is not very likely) and decides to promote an extreme change in the economical structures, the Earth, still at that, will have its fever raised in 1.1◦C this century. Is that bad? But it is still bearable. Now if nothing is done, the world must prepare for a new class of refugees: the climatic. A heating of up to 6◦C would be forecasted. To have an idea, the Earth was only 5◦C colder in the Ice Age, which put an end to the Dinosaur Age. If the “dinos” couldn’t handle the shock, who’d think the humans would. Humans?

     It is most probable, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes, that the Earth will be warmed 3◦C, which will cause phenomena such as thawing, hurricanes, droughts and tempests. The sea level, according to the report, may rise between 18 and 59 centimeters, making cities below sea level disappear.

     In Brazil, the greatest impact would be on the Northeast, which could become a semi-desert. The Amazon would suffer due to lack of rain, affecting the entire rainforest, losing biodiversity. On the other hand, the intensity of the rain would impact the South-east. To the UN, The world must do the impossible to stagnate the intensity of the fever, so that the temperature increase does not exceed 2◦C. The warning has been given.

Autora: Sonia Racy

Artigo extraído da Revista, TAM magazine, Ano 4, Número 37, Março 2007. 

Assinale a única alternativa abaixo que não foi mencionada no artigo.

The West epitomizes individualistic, do-your-own-thing cultures, ones where the rights of the individual equal and often trump those of the group and where differences are valued. East Asian societies exalt the larger society; behavior is constrained by social roles, conformity is prized, outsiders shunned. […] But the reason a society falls where it does on the individualism-collectivism spectrum has been pretty much a mystery. Now a team of researchers has come up with a surprising explanation: disease-causing microbes. Societies that evolved in places with an abundance of pathogens, they argue, had to adopt behaviors that add up to collectivism, for reasons of sheer preservation. Societies that arose in places with fewer pathogens had the luxury of individualism, which is less effective at limiting the spread of disease but brings with it other social benefits, such as innovation. […]

    How might pathogen-fighting customs and attitudes arise, or fail to? Maybe people make conscious efforts to act in ways that inhibit the spread of pathogens, such as by shunning strangers and demanding conformity. Or maybe there are genes for behaviors that, at the level of a whole society, manifest themselves as collectivism or individualism, and genes for individualism get wiped out in diseaseplagued regions. But when East Asians move to the West or Westerners go East, […] they begin to see, think and behave like people in their adopted society. That would be hard to do if they were in the grip of collectivist or individualistic genes. The presence of pathogens also predicts cross-cultural differences in personality traits, not just shared cultural values. […] The physical world has shaped skin color and other superficial features. The next frontier is fathoming how it might have shaped our very thoughts and values. 

Sharon Begley, Newsweek, April 14th, 2008

The function of TEXT C is to

The West epitomizes individualistic, do-your-own-thing cultures, ones where the rights of the individual equal and often trump those of the group and where differences are valued. East Asian societies exalt the larger society; behavior is constrained by social roles, conformity is prized, outsiders shunned. […] But the reason a society falls where it does on the individualism-collectivism spectrum has been pretty much a mystery. Now a team of researchers has come up with a surprising explanation: disease-causing microbes. Societies that evolved in places with an abundance of pathogens, they argue, had to adopt behaviors that add up to collectivism, for reasons of sheer preservation. Societies that arose in places with fewer pathogens had the luxury of individualism, which is less effective at limiting the spread of disease but brings with it other social benefits, such as innovation. […]

    How might pathogen-fighting customs and attitudes arise, or fail to? Maybe people make conscious efforts to act in ways that inhibit the spread of pathogens, such as by shunning strangers and demanding conformity. Or maybe there are genes for behaviors that, at the level of a whole society, manifest themselves as collectivism or individualism, and genes for individualism get wiped out in diseaseplagued regions. But when East Asians move to the West or Westerners go East, […] they begin to see, think and behave like people in their adopted society. That would be hard to do if they were in the grip of collectivist or individualistic genes. The presence of pathogens also predicts cross-cultural differences in personality traits, not just shared cultural values. […] The physical world has shaped skin color and other superficial features. The next frontier is fathoming how it might have shaped our very thoughts and values. 

Sharon Begley, Newsweek, April 14th, 2008

According to TEXT C the difference between the East and West is due to: