Pular para o conteúdo

Disciplina · Linguagens

Questões de Inglês do ENEM

Questões de Inglês, da área de Linguagens, com gabarito em cada página.

  • 5.311 questões
  • 57 assuntos

Resultados: 5.311 questões

Página 199 de 266

  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        As we all know, electricity is a fundamental need. On a daily basis, we consume electricity even without us knowing it. Just a simple task such as listening to your music player consumes electricity. Today, most of our electric generators and power plants are fed with fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. However, due to the exponential increase of power demand, fossil fuel supplies are slowly being depleted. Not only that, but also burning fossil fuels has given off greenhouse gases and other unwanted byproducts. Because of this, the search for alternative energy sources is now a necessity. One of the most promising alternative energy sources today is Wind Powered Generators. So, what is a wind-powered generator? Basically it is the use of wind as a mechanical force needed to power an electric generator. Utilizing wind as an energy source is not exactly a new idea. The ancient Persians were the first to use wind to pump water, cut wood, and grind food and others by building windmills. Even today you can find windmills still being used on some farms. It was the use of wind as an electric source that came into existence much later. The first practical wind powered generators were built in 1970, but yet we rarely see them in widespread use today, why? Let’s look at the advantages and disadvantages of the wind powered generator.
        The main advantage of wind powered generators is that they have, ideally, zero gas emissions – unlike fossil-fueled power generators. Because of the alarming effects of greenhouse gases and global warming, we want our power generators to be as clean and as environmentally friendly as possible. Since there is no burning process in a wind powered generator that produces toxic gases, it is very safe to build one in residential areas. Also, with proper engineering and enough wind, these generators can provide a high rate of wattage that can go as high as the Megawatt range. Another advantage is that it can be implemented using several small turbines connected together. This is a good thing when there is not enough space for huge structures.
         The major disadvantage of wind powered generators is that wind power varies greatly from one place to another and from day to day and season to season. Sometimes wind may be strong enough to supply energy, but that strength cannot be maintained due to changes in weather patterns. Needing strong, constant wind to most effectively power wind generators is one reason they are often built in coastal areas. Another disadvantage is that the structure of most practical wind powered generators is huge and bulky. Commonly, its size is proportional to the wind power it can collect.
        Research in wind power has now intensified because of its innate advantages over other power generators. With this increase in interest in wind energy and alternative energy sources as a whole, our future will become brighter and more and more remote areas will eventually enjoy the benefits of clean electric energy. In an electricity-dependent world, power supplies must provide the required electricity for communities and businesses. Wind powered generators might just be the solution for power shortages.

    Disponível em: http://mysolarcellhome.org/articles/pros-and-cons-of-wind-powered-generators. 
    Might in “wind powered generators might just be the solution for power shortages…” and Must in “In an electricity-dependent world, power supplies must provide the required electricity for communities and businesses” express respectively the ideas of:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bfd8b257-e9
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Read the text to answer question
    Imagem da questão de Inglês, Ensino Einstein 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

        In the late 1960s, following the Apollo 11 Moon landings, the three astronauts were waiting to be picked up inside their capsule floating in the Pacific Ocean — and they were hot and uncomfortable. NASA officials decided to make things more pleasant for their three national heroes. The downside? There was a small possibility of unleashing deadly alien microbes on Earth.
        When humanity first made plans to send probes and people into space in the mid-20th Century, the issue of contamination came up. Firstly, there was the fear of “forward” contamination — the possibility that Earth-based life might accidentally hitch a ride into the cosmos. Spacecraft needed to be sterilised and carefully packaged before launch. If microbes silently moved onboard, it would confuse any attempts to detect alien life. And if there were extra-terrestrial organisms out there, we might end up inadvertently killing them with Earth-based bacteria or viruses. These concerns matter just as much today as they did back in the Space Race era.
       A second concern was “back” contamination. This was the idea that astronauts, rockets or probes returning to Earth might bring back life that could prove catastrophic, either by consuming all our oxygen or outcompeting Earth organisms. What if the astronauts brought back something dangerous? At the time, the probability was not considered high, but still, the scenario had to be explored. “Maybe it’s sure to 99% that Apollo 11 will not bring back lunar organisms,” said one influential scientist at the time, “but even that 1% of uncertainty is too large to be complacent about.”
        NASA put several quarantine measures in place — in some cases, a little reluctantly. Concerned officials from the US Public Health Service argued for stricter measures than initially planned, pointing out that they had the power to refuse border entry to contaminated astronauts. NASA then agreed to install a costly quarantine facility on the ship that would pick up the men from their splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. It was also agreed that the lunar explorers would then spend three weeks in isolation before they could hug their families or shake the hand of the president.

    (Richard Fisher. www.bbc.com, 18.02.2021. Adapted.)
    The text discusses
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bff11c3c-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Read the text to answer question
    Imagem da questão de Inglês, Ensino Einstein 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

        In the late 1960s, following the Apollo 11 Moon landings, the three astronauts were waiting to be picked up inside their capsule floating in the Pacific Ocean — and they were hot and uncomfortable. NASA officials decided to make things more pleasant for their three national heroes. The downside? There was a small possibility of unleashing deadly alien microbes on Earth.
        When humanity first made plans to send probes and people into space in the mid-20th Century, the issue of contamination came up. Firstly, there was the fear of “forward” contamination — the possibility that Earth-based life might accidentally hitch a ride into the cosmos. Spacecraft needed to be sterilised and carefully packaged before launch. If microbes silently moved onboard, it would confuse any attempts to detect alien life. And if there were extra-terrestrial organisms out there, we might end up inadvertently killing them with Earth-based bacteria or viruses. These concerns matter just as much today as they did back in the Space Race era.
       A second concern was “back” contamination. This was the idea that astronauts, rockets or probes returning to Earth might bring back life that could prove catastrophic, either by consuming all our oxygen or outcompeting Earth organisms. What if the astronauts brought back something dangerous? At the time, the probability was not considered high, but still, the scenario had to be explored. “Maybe it’s sure to 99% that Apollo 11 will not bring back lunar organisms,” said one influential scientist at the time, “but even that 1% of uncertainty is too large to be complacent about.”
        NASA put several quarantine measures in place — in some cases, a little reluctantly. Concerned officials from the US Public Health Service argued for stricter measures than initially planned, pointing out that they had the power to refuse border entry to contaminated astronauts. NASA then agreed to install a costly quarantine facility on the ship that would pick up the men from their splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. It was also agreed that the lunar explorers would then spend three weeks in isolation before they could hug their families or shake the hand of the president.

    (Richard Fisher. www.bbc.com, 18.02.2021. Adapted.)
    The first paragraph mentions
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bff3a85b-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Read the text to answer question
    Imagem da questão de Inglês, Ensino Einstein 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

        In the late 1960s, following the Apollo 11 Moon landings, the three astronauts were waiting to be picked up inside their capsule floating in the Pacific Ocean — and they were hot and uncomfortable. NASA officials decided to make things more pleasant for their three national heroes. The downside? There was a small possibility of unleashing deadly alien microbes on Earth.
        When humanity first made plans to send probes and people into space in the mid-20th Century, the issue of contamination came up. Firstly, there was the fear of “forward” contamination — the possibility that Earth-based life might accidentally hitch a ride into the cosmos. Spacecraft needed to be sterilised and carefully packaged before launch. If microbes silently moved onboard, it would confuse any attempts to detect alien life. And if there were extra-terrestrial organisms out there, we might end up inadvertently killing them with Earth-based bacteria or viruses. These concerns matter just as much today as they did back in the Space Race era.
       A second concern was “back” contamination. This was the idea that astronauts, rockets or probes returning to Earth might bring back life that could prove catastrophic, either by consuming all our oxygen or outcompeting Earth organisms. What if the astronauts brought back something dangerous? At the time, the probability was not considered high, but still, the scenario had to be explored. “Maybe it’s sure to 99% that Apollo 11 will not bring back lunar organisms,” said one influential scientist at the time, “but even that 1% of uncertainty is too large to be complacent about.”
        NASA put several quarantine measures in place — in some cases, a little reluctantly. Concerned officials from the US Public Health Service argued for stricter measures than initially planned, pointing out that they had the power to refuse border entry to contaminated astronauts. NASA then agreed to install a costly quarantine facility on the ship that would pick up the men from their splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. It was also agreed that the lunar explorers would then spend three weeks in isolation before they could hug their families or shake the hand of the president.

    (Richard Fisher. www.bbc.com, 18.02.2021. Adapted.)
    In the second paragraph, “‘forward’ contamination” is explained as contamination which
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bff62b3a-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Read the text to answer question
    Imagem da questão de Inglês, Ensino Einstein 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

        In the late 1960s, following the Apollo 11 Moon landings, the three astronauts were waiting to be picked up inside their capsule floating in the Pacific Ocean — and they were hot and uncomfortable. NASA officials decided to make things more pleasant for their three national heroes. The downside? There was a small possibility of unleashing deadly alien microbes on Earth.
        When humanity first made plans to send probes and people into space in the mid-20th Century, the issue of contamination came up. Firstly, there was the fear of “forward” contamination — the possibility that Earth-based life might accidentally hitch a ride into the cosmos. Spacecraft needed to be sterilised and carefully packaged before launch. If microbes silently moved onboard, it would confuse any attempts to detect alien life. And if there were extra-terrestrial organisms out there, we might end up inadvertently killing them with Earth-based bacteria or viruses. These concerns matter just as much today as they did back in the Space Race era.
       A second concern was “back” contamination. This was the idea that astronauts, rockets or probes returning to Earth might bring back life that could prove catastrophic, either by consuming all our oxygen or outcompeting Earth organisms. What if the astronauts brought back something dangerous? At the time, the probability was not considered high, but still, the scenario had to be explored. “Maybe it’s sure to 99% that Apollo 11 will not bring back lunar organisms,” said one influential scientist at the time, “but even that 1% of uncertainty is too large to be complacent about.”
        NASA put several quarantine measures in place — in some cases, a little reluctantly. Concerned officials from the US Public Health Service argued for stricter measures than initially planned, pointing out that they had the power to refuse border entry to contaminated astronauts. NASA then agreed to install a costly quarantine facility on the ship that would pick up the men from their splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. It was also agreed that the lunar explorers would then spend three weeks in isolation before they could hug their families or shake the hand of the president.

    (Richard Fisher. www.bbc.com, 18.02.2021. Adapted.)
    According to the third and fourth paragraphs, the disputes over the potential risks posed by the return of Apollo 11 from outer space were eventually settled as follows:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bff8c262-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Read the advertisement.

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, Ensino Einstein 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension


    The advertisement uses text and the image of two women astronauts in spacesuits to suggest that both the bath oil “Skin-So-Soft” and the suit

    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão bffb7e12-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Forget Texting While Driving: AT&T Survey reveals drivers do a lot more with their smartphones
    By Menchie Mendoza, Tech Times | May 20, 10:10 AM 

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, UFPR 2015, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
        Drivers who continue to use their smartphones while driving are not only distracted when they call and text. Apart from calling and texting, drivers are also browsing the Internet, tweeting, video chatting, taking selfies and sending email with their devices, according to a study by AT&T.
        The research was conducted as part of the carrier's "It Can Wait" campaign launched in 2010. It hopes to increase awareness of the dangers posed by using smartphones while one is behind the wheel. The study polled 2,067 U.S. residents ages 16-65 who use their smartphone and drive once or more per day.
        Seventy percent of those surveyed admit they use their smartphones for a number of activities while they are driving: 61 percent say they text and 33 percent send email while they are behind the wheel. Posting or interacting on social media is also one of the most common activities that drivers engage in. Using Facebook ranks first on the list, with 27 percent of drivers logging in while driving. Other social media channels that keep drivers "multitasking" include Instagram and Twitter (14 percent) and Snapchat (11 percent).
        The results also show that there is a deeper problem involved when people use social media while driving. Among those surveyed, 22 percent blame their addiction to social media.
        Other revelations show 62 percent keep their smartphones within easy reach, and that 30 percent of those who post to Twitter while driving do it "all the time". Drivers also don't seem to run out of other activities using their smartphones since most apps are now easily accessed with just a simple tap. Because of this, 28 percent of drivers browse the web; 17 percent take selfies (or groupies); and 10 percent video chat.
        "One in 10 say they do video chat while driving", said Lori Lee, AT&T's senior VP for global marketing. "I don't even have words for that". AT&T plans to expand the "It Can Wait" campaign in order to add more focus on the topic of texting while driving by including other driving distractions that result from using the smartphones. "When we launched 'It Can Wait' five years ago, we pleaded with people to realize that no text is worth a life", said Lee. "The same applies to other smartphone activities that people are doing while driving. For the sake of you and those around you, please keep your eyes on the road, not on your phone". AT&T will also launch a nationwide virtual reality tour in summer in order to spread the word that driving and using a smartphone don't and will never mix.


    Adapted from <http://www.techtimes.com/>
    Because of the results of its survey, AT&T is planning:

    1. to expand its campaign and include other smartphone distractions.
    2. to expand its campaign to other parts of the world.
    3. to improve smartphone use with new apps.
    4. to invest in a virtual reality tour as part of their awareness efforts.

    According to the text, the correct items are:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c002e19f-b3
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Voices: The Pope's powerful message to Cubans

    Rick Jervis, September 24, 2015 

    SANTIAGO DE CUBA – I've always been fairly skeptical about how much power one man can exercise, even if that man commands the attention of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics.
        I understand that Pope John Paul II visited Poland in the 1970s and '80s and gave speeches so stirring that they helped launch the Solidarity opposition movement and lead to the collapse of communism in the country. And I know that popes throughout history have had influential moments.
        But, really, how much can one man and one microphone do? How literally do people take his message? These were the questions that kept my mind busy when I left for Cuba last week to cover Pope Francis' four-day trip. I was curious to see how much impact the words of this 78-year-old man can have on a population of 11 million.
        I'm becoming fairly familiar with Cuba. I've been to the island three times this year, five times overall, and grew up in southern Florida. My parents are Cubans who left the country in 1962. Cuba today continues to fascinate and dismay. It's a place of beauty and jolting contradictions. The re-establishment of relations between the U.S. and Cuban governments, begun last December, continue to stir excitement and hope in Cubans, and changes are trickling in.
        I followed Pope Francis from Havana to Santiago and heard him talk of reconciliation, love for mankind and the importance of family. I interviewed Cubans who glowed with the fervor of the faithful as they pledged their love for the Pope and promised to follow his message. But my question remained: What does all of this mean? How does it translate to actual change on the island?
        To help me sort through this, I visited Father Jorge Catasus, a popular parish priest here who helped welcome the Pope to the city. We sat in the cool, cavernous back room of his 18th-century church, safe from the 37-degree heat outside. Catasus said “don't focus on any grand political or social changes stemming from the papal visit". The most important changes, he said, come from within. That's what Pope Francis offered as a first step, and that's what Cubans across the island, in chants, cheers and tearful acceptance, agreed to abide by.
        “The lives of men are decided in their hearts", Catasus told me. “That's where we'll see the change". This may not be 1980s Poland, and Solidarity may still not be anywhere in sight. But first things first. A change of heart can often lead to a world of good.
    Adapted from <http://www.usatoday.com/>
    Concerning the author of the text, identify the statements below as true (T) or false (F):

    ( ) He was raised in the south of Florida, USA.
    ( ) His parents are Cubans who left the country and moved to the USA.
    ( ) He feels fascinated by the beauty and contradictions of Cuba.
    ( ) He considers that Cubans are not interested about the re-establishment of relations with the USA.
    ( ) He was born in 1962 when his parents left Cuba.

    Mark the alternative which presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c007e779-b3
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 2 da questão de Inglês, UFT 2010, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
    Figura 2 de 2 da questão de Inglês, UFT 2010, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    The sentence ?If you?re in junior high, high school or even the first years of college now, you may have been too little then to have been aware of what was happening on the day itself? refers to the fact that:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c00bab57-6d
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Lucy’s Big Brother Reveals New Facets of her Species

         First came Lucy. Then came Lucy’s baby, an infant of her species. Now comes Lucy’s “big brother”: the partial skeleton of a large male of Australopithecus afarensis, unveiled this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The roughly 40% complete skeleton has been nicknamed Kadanuumuu, which means “big man” in the Afar language of the Afar Depression of Ethiopia, where it was found. “It was huge – a big man, with long legs”, says lead author Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a palaeoanthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio.
         Dated to 3.6 million years ago, the new skeleton is almost half a million years older than Lucy and the second oldest skeleton found of a possible human ancestor. It had long legs and a torso and a pelvis more like those of a modern human than an African ape, showing that fully upright walking was in place at this early date, Haile-Selassie says. Although headless, the skeleton also preserves parts not found before in Lucy’s species. “It is important because it provides the ribs and scapula”, says palaeoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia.
         In 2005, a sharp-eyed member of Haile-Selassie’s team, Alemayehu Asfaw, spotted a fragment of lower arm bone on the ground at Woranso-Mille, about 48 kilometers north of Lucy’s grave at Hadar. Over the next 4 years, the team unearthed the shoulder blade, collarbone, ribs, and neck vertebra, the first time those bones were found together in an A. afarensis adult. The team also found a pelvis, an arm, and leg bones. Although they never found the skull or teeth, which are typically used to assign species, the skeleton’s age and similarity to Lucy suggest that it belongs to her species, says co-author Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio.
         The robust male stood between 1.5 and 1.7 meters tall, about 30% larger than Lucy. Isolated bones of other individuals suggest that some males were even larger, so the new skeleton doesn’t settle a long-standing debate over just how much sexual dimorphism there was in A. afarensis, Lovejoy says. The shoulder blade looks more like that of a gorilla and a modern human than that of a chimpanzee. The curvature of the second rib suggests a wide rib cage at the top and a barrel shape overall, similar to that of modern humans and distinct from the more funnel-shaped rib cage of a chimpanzee, the authors say.
    (Science Magazine, 25 June 2010.)
    Where was the skeleton found?
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c02b68af-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Lucy’s Big Brother Reveals New Facets of her Species

         First came Lucy. Then came Lucy’s baby, an infant of her species. Now comes Lucy’s “big brother”: the partial skeleton of a large male of Australopithecus afarensis, unveiled this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The roughly 40% complete skeleton has been nicknamed Kadanuumuu, which means “big man” in the Afar language of the Afar Depression of Ethiopia, where it was found. “It was huge – a big man, with long legs”, says lead author Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a palaeoanthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio.
         Dated to 3.6 million years ago, the new skeleton is almost half a million years older than Lucy and the second oldest skeleton found of a possible human ancestor. It had long legs and a torso and a pelvis more like those of a modern human than an African ape, showing that fully upright walking was in place at this early date, Haile-Selassie says. Although headless, the skeleton also preserves parts not found before in Lucy’s species. “It is important because it provides the ribs and scapula”, says palaeoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia.
         In 2005, a sharp-eyed member of Haile-Selassie’s team, Alemayehu Asfaw, spotted a fragment of lower arm bone on the ground at Woranso-Mille, about 48 kilometers north of Lucy’s grave at Hadar. Over the next 4 years, the team unearthed the shoulder blade, collarbone, ribs, and neck vertebra, the first time those bones were found together in an A. afarensis adult. The team also found a pelvis, an arm, and leg bones. Although they never found the skull or teeth, which are typically used to assign species, the skeleton’s age and similarity to Lucy suggest that it belongs to her species, says co-author Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio.
         The robust male stood between 1.5 and 1.7 meters tall, about 30% larger than Lucy. Isolated bones of other individuals suggest that some males were even larger, so the new skeleton doesn’t settle a long-standing debate over just how much sexual dimorphism there was in A. afarensis, Lovejoy says. The shoulder blade looks more like that of a gorilla and a modern human than that of a chimpanzee. The curvature of the second rib suggests a wide rib cage at the top and a barrel shape overall, similar to that of modern humans and distinct from the more funnel-shaped rib cage of a chimpanzee, the authors say.
    (Science Magazine, 25 June 2010.)
    Why do palaeoanthropologists believe the skeleton may be a human ancestor?
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c0318ff4-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

         Germans make wonderful beer. Yet the productivity of the German beer industry is only 43 percent that of the U.S. beer industry. Meanwhile, the German metalworking and steel industries are equal in productivity to their American counterparts. Since the Germans are evidently capable of organizing industries well, why can’t they do so when it comes to beer?
         It turns out that the German beer industry suffers from small-scale production. There are a thousand tiny beer companies in Germany, shielded from competition with one another because each German brewery has virtually a local monopoly, and they are also shielded from competition with imports. The United States has 67 major beer breweries, producing 23 billion liters of beer per year. All of Germany’s 1,000 breweries combined produce only half as much. Thus the average U.S. brewery produces 31 times more beer than the average German brewery. 
         This fact results from local tastes and German government policies. German beer drinkers are fiercely loyal to their local brand, so there are no national brands in Germany analogous to our Budweiser, Miller, or Coors. Instead, most German beer is consumed within 30 miles of the factory where it is brewed. Therefore, the German beer industry cannot profit from economies of scale. In the beer business, as in other businesses, production costs decrease greatly with scale. The bigger the refrigerating unit for making beer, and the longer the assembly line for filling bottles with beer, the lower the cost of manufacturing beer. Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There’s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies. 
         The local beer loyalties of individual German drinkers are reinforced by German laws that make it hard for foreign beers to compete in the German market. The German government has so-called beer purity laws that specify exactly what can go into beer. Not surprisingly, those government purity specifications are based on what German breweries put into beer, and not what American, French, and Swedish breweries like to put into beer. Because of those laws, not much foreign beer gets exported to Germany, and because of inefficiency and high prices much less of that wonderful German beer than you would otherwise expect gets sold abroad. (Before you object that German Löwenbräu beer is widely available in the United States, please read the label on the next bottle of Löwenbräu that you drink here: it’s not produced in Germany but in North America, under license, in big factories with North American productivities and efficiencies of scale). 
    (Diamond, J. ,2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton.)  
    Are the statements true (T) or false (F), according to the text?

    ( ) The United States produces less beer than Germany.
    ( ) The German steel industry is better organized than the German beer industry.
    ( ) The German metalworking industry is more productive than the American metalworking industry.
    ( ) In Germany there are more factories producing beer than in the United States.
    ( ) 43% of the beer sold in the United States is produced in Germany.

    Mark the alternative which presents the correct sequence, from top to bottom.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c03464b3-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

         Germans make wonderful beer. Yet the productivity of the German beer industry is only 43 percent that of the U.S. beer industry. Meanwhile, the German metalworking and steel industries are equal in productivity to their American counterparts. Since the Germans are evidently capable of organizing industries well, why can’t they do so when it comes to beer?
         It turns out that the German beer industry suffers from small-scale production. There are a thousand tiny beer companies in Germany, shielded from competition with one another because each German brewery has virtually a local monopoly, and they are also shielded from competition with imports. The United States has 67 major beer breweries, producing 23 billion liters of beer per year. All of Germany’s 1,000 breweries combined produce only half as much. Thus the average U.S. brewery produces 31 times more beer than the average German brewery. 
         This fact results from local tastes and German government policies. German beer drinkers are fiercely loyal to their local brand, so there are no national brands in Germany analogous to our Budweiser, Miller, or Coors. Instead, most German beer is consumed within 30 miles of the factory where it is brewed. Therefore, the German beer industry cannot profit from economies of scale. In the beer business, as in other businesses, production costs decrease greatly with scale. The bigger the refrigerating unit for making beer, and the longer the assembly line for filling bottles with beer, the lower the cost of manufacturing beer. Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There’s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies. 
         The local beer loyalties of individual German drinkers are reinforced by German laws that make it hard for foreign beers to compete in the German market. The German government has so-called beer purity laws that specify exactly what can go into beer. Not surprisingly, those government purity specifications are based on what German breweries put into beer, and not what American, French, and Swedish breweries like to put into beer. Because of those laws, not much foreign beer gets exported to Germany, and because of inefficiency and high prices much less of that wonderful German beer than you would otherwise expect gets sold abroad. (Before you object that German Löwenbräu beer is widely available in the United States, please read the label on the next bottle of Löwenbräu that you drink here: it’s not produced in Germany but in North America, under license, in big factories with North American productivities and efficiencies of scale). 
    (Diamond, J. ,2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton.)  
    Which of these statements DOES NOT CORRESPOND to information given in the text?
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c0376c7f-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

         Germans make wonderful beer. Yet the productivity of the German beer industry is only 43 percent that of the U.S. beer industry. Meanwhile, the German metalworking and steel industries are equal in productivity to their American counterparts. Since the Germans are evidently capable of organizing industries well, why can’t they do so when it comes to beer?
         It turns out that the German beer industry suffers from small-scale production. There are a thousand tiny beer companies in Germany, shielded from competition with one another because each German brewery has virtually a local monopoly, and they are also shielded from competition with imports. The United States has 67 major beer breweries, producing 23 billion liters of beer per year. All of Germany’s 1,000 breweries combined produce only half as much. Thus the average U.S. brewery produces 31 times more beer than the average German brewery. 
         This fact results from local tastes and German government policies. German beer drinkers are fiercely loyal to their local brand, so there are no national brands in Germany analogous to our Budweiser, Miller, or Coors. Instead, most German beer is consumed within 30 miles of the factory where it is brewed. Therefore, the German beer industry cannot profit from economies of scale. In the beer business, as in other businesses, production costs decrease greatly with scale. The bigger the refrigerating unit for making beer, and the longer the assembly line for filling bottles with beer, the lower the cost of manufacturing beer. Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There’s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies. 
         The local beer loyalties of individual German drinkers are reinforced by German laws that make it hard for foreign beers to compete in the German market. The German government has so-called beer purity laws that specify exactly what can go into beer. Not surprisingly, those government purity specifications are based on what German breweries put into beer, and not what American, French, and Swedish breweries like to put into beer. Because of those laws, not much foreign beer gets exported to Germany, and because of inefficiency and high prices much less of that wonderful German beer than you would otherwise expect gets sold abroad. (Before you object that German Löwenbräu beer is widely available in the United States, please read the label on the next bottle of Löwenbräu that you drink here: it’s not produced in Germany but in North America, under license, in big factories with North American productivities and efficiencies of scale). 
    (Diamond, J. ,2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton.)  
    How does Germany protect its beer industry, according to the text?
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c03b2772-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

         Germans make wonderful beer. Yet the productivity of the German beer industry is only 43 percent that of the U.S. beer industry. Meanwhile, the German metalworking and steel industries are equal in productivity to their American counterparts. Since the Germans are evidently capable of organizing industries well, why can’t they do so when it comes to beer?
         It turns out that the German beer industry suffers from small-scale production. There are a thousand tiny beer companies in Germany, shielded from competition with one another because each German brewery has virtually a local monopoly, and they are also shielded from competition with imports. The United States has 67 major beer breweries, producing 23 billion liters of beer per year. All of Germany’s 1,000 breweries combined produce only half as much. Thus the average U.S. brewery produces 31 times more beer than the average German brewery. 
         This fact results from local tastes and German government policies. German beer drinkers are fiercely loyal to their local brand, so there are no national brands in Germany analogous to our Budweiser, Miller, or Coors. Instead, most German beer is consumed within 30 miles of the factory where it is brewed. Therefore, the German beer industry cannot profit from economies of scale. In the beer business, as in other businesses, production costs decrease greatly with scale. The bigger the refrigerating unit for making beer, and the longer the assembly line for filling bottles with beer, the lower the cost of manufacturing beer. Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There’s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies. 
         The local beer loyalties of individual German drinkers are reinforced by German laws that make it hard for foreign beers to compete in the German market. The German government has so-called beer purity laws that specify exactly what can go into beer. Not surprisingly, those government purity specifications are based on what German breweries put into beer, and not what American, French, and Swedish breweries like to put into beer. Because of those laws, not much foreign beer gets exported to Germany, and because of inefficiency and high prices much less of that wonderful German beer than you would otherwise expect gets sold abroad. (Before you object that German Löwenbräu beer is widely available in the United States, please read the label on the next bottle of Löwenbräu that you drink here: it’s not produced in Germany but in North America, under license, in big factories with North American productivities and efficiencies of scale). 
    (Diamond, J. ,2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton.)  
    According to the text, why does Germany export so little beer to the U.S.?
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c03efc1a-b0
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.

    Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now

    Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
    children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
    prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
    two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
    At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
    ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
    adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
    there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
    change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
    international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
    women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
    to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
    available for them?
    No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
    states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
    against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
    hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.

    NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em: Imagem da questão de Inglês, UEG 2010, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).

    Com base nas ideias e opiniões expressas no texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c04f8cee-6f
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    TEXT

        For a $14.95 monthly membership, the website Lumosity promises to “train” your brain with games designed to stave off mental decline. Users view a quick succession of bird images and numbers to test attention span, for instance, or match increasingly complex tile patterns to challenge memory.

        While Lumosity is perhaps the best known of the brain-game websites, with 50 million subscribers in 180 countries, the cognitive training business is booming. Happy Neuron of Mountain View, Calif., promises “brain fitness for life.” Cogmed, owned by the British education company Pearson, says its training program will give students “improved attention and capacity for learning.” The Israeli firm NeurMuch of the focus of theonix is developing a brain stimulation and cognitive training program that the company calls a “new hope for Alzheimer’s disease.”

        Much of the focus of the brain fitness business has been on helping children with attention-deficit problems, and on improving cognitive function and academic performance in healthy children and adults. An effective way to stave off memory loss or prevent Alzheimer’s — particularly

        The problem, Dr. Doraiswa if it were a simple website or video game — is the “holy grail” of neuroscience, said Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, director of the neurocognitive disorders program at Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. The problem, Dr. Doraiswamy added, is that the science of cognitive training has not kept up with the hype. “Almost all the marketing claims made by all the companies go beyond the data,” he said. “We need large national studies before you can conclude that it’s ready for prime time.”

        For centuries, scientists believed that most brain development occurred in the first few years of life — that by adulthood the brain was largely immutable. But over the past two decades, studies on animals and humans have found that the brain continues to form new neural connections throughout life. But questions remain whether an intervention that challenges the brain — a puzzle, studying a new language or improving skill on a video game — can really raise intelligence or stave off normal memory loss.

        A series of studies in recent years has suggested that certain types of game training can improve a person’s cognitive performance. In February 2013, however, an analysis of 23 of the best studies on brain training, led by the University of Oslo researcher Monica Melby-Lervag, concluded that while players do get better, the increase in skill hasn’t been shown to transfer to other tasks. In other words, playing Sudoku or an online matching game makes you better at the game, but it doesn’t make you better at math or help you remember names or where you left your car keys.

        But other studies have been more encouraging. Last September, the journal Nature published a study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, that showed a driving game did improve short-term memory and longterm focus in older adults. The findings are significant because the research found that improvements in performance weren’t limited to the game, but also appeared to be linked to a strengthening of older brains over all, helping them to perform better at other memory and attention tasks.

        In addition, brain monitoring during the study showed that in older participants, game training led to bursts in brain waves associated with attention; the patterns were similar to those seen in much younger brains.

        Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health invited applications to more rigorously test brain fitness training to stave off cognitive decline. Researchers say they hope the effort will help establish a consistent standard for determining whether a brain-training intervention works.

        But while the science remains unclear, entrepreneurs have seized on what is likely to be a sizable marketing opportunity. In May, hundreds of researchers and businesses will gather in San Francisco for the NeuroGaming Conference and Expo to explore the latest research and the newest technology.

        While there is no real risk to participating in the many unproven brain-training games available online and through smartphones, experts say, consumers should know that the scientific jury is still out on whether they are really boosting brain health or just paying hundreds of dollars to get better at a game.

        “I’m not convinced there is a huge difference between buying a $300 subscription to a gaming company versus you yourself doing challenging things on your own, like attending a lecture or learning an instrument,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “Each person has to personalize for themselves what they find fun and challenging and what they can stick with.”

    From: www.nytimes.com, March 10, 2014

    The idea that the brain ceases to develop at a very young age
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c057ef07-b8
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, FMP 2013, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension According to Text II, the dark energy
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c058caf2-e5
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    TEXT

        For a $14.95 monthly membership, the website Lumosity promises to “train” your brain with games designed to stave off mental decline. Users view a quick succession of bird images and numbers to test attention span, for instance, or match increasingly complex tile patterns to challenge memory.

        While Lumosity is perhaps the best known of the brain-game websites, with 50 million subscribers in 180 countries, the cognitive training business is booming. Happy Neuron of Mountain View, Calif., promises “brain fitness for life.” Cogmed, owned by the British education company Pearson, says its training program will give students “improved attention and capacity for learning.” The Israeli firm NeurMuch of the focus of theonix is developing a brain stimulation and cognitive training program that the company calls a “new hope for Alzheimer’s disease.”

        Much of the focus of the brain fitness business has been on helping children with attention-deficit problems, and on improving cognitive function and academic performance in healthy children and adults. An effective way to stave off memory loss or prevent Alzheimer’s — particularly

        The problem, Dr. Doraiswa if it were a simple website or video game — is the “holy grail” of neuroscience, said Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, director of the neurocognitive disorders program at Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. The problem, Dr. Doraiswamy added, is that the science of cognitive training has not kept up with the hype. “Almost all the marketing claims made by all the companies go beyond the data,” he said. “We need large national studies before you can conclude that it’s ready for prime time.”

        For centuries, scientists believed that most brain development occurred in the first few years of life — that by adulthood the brain was largely immutable. But over the past two decades, studies on animals and humans have found that the brain continues to form new neural connections throughout life. But questions remain whether an intervention that challenges the brain — a puzzle, studying a new language or improving skill on a video game — can really raise intelligence or stave off normal memory loss.

        A series of studies in recent years has suggested that certain types of game training can improve a person’s cognitive performance. In February 2013, however, an analysis of 23 of the best studies on brain training, led by the University of Oslo researcher Monica Melby-Lervag, concluded that while players do get better, the increase in skill hasn’t been shown to transfer to other tasks. In other words, playing Sudoku or an online matching game makes you better at the game, but it doesn’t make you better at math or help you remember names or where you left your car keys.

        But other studies have been more encouraging. Last September, the journal Nature published a study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, that showed a driving game did improve short-term memory and longterm focus in older adults. The findings are significant because the research found that improvements in performance weren’t limited to the game, but also appeared to be linked to a strengthening of older brains over all, helping them to perform better at other memory and attention tasks.

        In addition, brain monitoring during the study showed that in older participants, game training led to bursts in brain waves associated with attention; the patterns were similar to those seen in much younger brains.

        Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health invited applications to more rigorously test brain fitness training to stave off cognitive decline. Researchers say they hope the effort will help establish a consistent standard for determining whether a brain-training intervention works.

        But while the science remains unclear, entrepreneurs have seized on what is likely to be a sizable marketing opportunity. In May, hundreds of researchers and businesses will gather in San Francisco for the NeuroGaming Conference and Expo to explore the latest research and the newest technology.

        While there is no real risk to participating in the many unproven brain-training games available online and through smartphones, experts say, consumers should know that the scientific jury is still out on whether they are really boosting brain health or just paying hundreds of dollars to get better at a game.

        “I’m not convinced there is a huge difference between buying a $300 subscription to a gaming company versus you yourself doing challenging things on your own, like attending a lecture or learning an instrument,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “Each person has to personalize for themselves what they find fun and challenging and what they can stick with.”

    From: www.nytimes.com, March 10, 2014

    According to Dr. Doraiswamy, from the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, the problem about many of the cognitive training programs being offered nowadays is that
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c05ae75a-b8
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    TEXT

        For a $14.95 monthly membership, the website Lumosity promises to “train” your brain with games designed to stave off mental decline. Users view a quick succession of bird images and numbers to test attention span, for instance, or match increasingly complex tile patterns to challenge memory.

        While Lumosity is perhaps the best known of the brain-game websites, with 50 million subscribers in 180 countries, the cognitive training business is booming. Happy Neuron of Mountain View, Calif., promises “brain fitness for life.” Cogmed, owned by the British education company Pearson, says its training program will give students “improved attention and capacity for learning.” The Israeli firm NeurMuch of the focus of theonix is developing a brain stimulation and cognitive training program that the company calls a “new hope for Alzheimer’s disease.”

        Much of the focus of the brain fitness business has been on helping children with attention-deficit problems, and on improving cognitive function and academic performance in healthy children and adults. An effective way to stave off memory loss or prevent Alzheimer’s — particularly

        The problem, Dr. Doraiswa if it were a simple website or video game — is the “holy grail” of neuroscience, said Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, director of the neurocognitive disorders program at Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. The problem, Dr. Doraiswamy added, is that the science of cognitive training has not kept up with the hype. “Almost all the marketing claims made by all the companies go beyond the data,” he said. “We need large national studies before you can conclude that it’s ready for prime time.”

        For centuries, scientists believed that most brain development occurred in the first few years of life — that by adulthood the brain was largely immutable. But over the past two decades, studies on animals and humans have found that the brain continues to form new neural connections throughout life. But questions remain whether an intervention that challenges the brain — a puzzle, studying a new language or improving skill on a video game — can really raise intelligence or stave off normal memory loss.

        A series of studies in recent years has suggested that certain types of game training can improve a person’s cognitive performance. In February 2013, however, an analysis of 23 of the best studies on brain training, led by the University of Oslo researcher Monica Melby-Lervag, concluded that while players do get better, the increase in skill hasn’t been shown to transfer to other tasks. In other words, playing Sudoku or an online matching game makes you better at the game, but it doesn’t make you better at math or help you remember names or where you left your car keys.

        But other studies have been more encouraging. Last September, the journal Nature published a study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, that showed a driving game did improve short-term memory and longterm focus in older adults. The findings are significant because the research found that improvements in performance weren’t limited to the game, but also appeared to be linked to a strengthening of older brains over all, helping them to perform better at other memory and attention tasks.

        In addition, brain monitoring during the study showed that in older participants, game training led to bursts in brain waves associated with attention; the patterns were similar to those seen in much younger brains.

        Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health invited applications to more rigorously test brain fitness training to stave off cognitive decline. Researchers say they hope the effort will help establish a consistent standard for determining whether a brain-training intervention works.

        But while the science remains unclear, entrepreneurs have seized on what is likely to be a sizable marketing opportunity. In May, hundreds of researchers and businesses will gather in San Francisco for the NeuroGaming Conference and Expo to explore the latest research and the newest technology.

        While there is no real risk to participating in the many unproven brain-training games available online and through smartphones, experts say, consumers should know that the scientific jury is still out on whether they are really boosting brain health or just paying hundreds of dollars to get better at a game.

        “I’m not convinced there is a huge difference between buying a $300 subscription to a gaming company versus you yourself doing challenging things on your own, like attending a lecture or learning an instrument,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “Each person has to personalize for themselves what they find fun and challenging and what they can stick with.”

    From: www.nytimes.com, March 10, 2014

    Among the promises made by websites for their cognitive training programs, one may list
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão c05dd253-b8