Prova de 2010: Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) — questões com gabarito

     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.?

     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?

     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?

     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.

     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?

     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?

Ao incidir sobre um prisma de vidro, um feixe de luz branca é decomposto em várias cores. Esse fenômeno acontece porque as ondas eletromagnéticas de diferentes comprimentos de onda se propagam no vidro com diferentes velocidades, de modo que o índice de refração n tem valor diferente para cada comprimento de onda. O estudo das propriedades óticas de um pedaço de vidro forneceu o gráfico ao lado para o índice de refração em função do comprimento de onda λ da luz. Suponha a velocidade da luz no vácuo igual a 3,0 × 108 m/s. Com base nos conceitos de ótica e nas informações do gráfico, assinale a alternativa correta.

Na segunda década do século XIX, Hans Christian Oersted demonstrou que um fio percorrido por uma corrente elétrica era capaz de causar uma perturbação na agulha de uma bússola. Mais tarde, André Marie Ampère obteve uma relação matemática para a intensidade do campo magnético produzido por uma corrente elétrica que circula em um fio condutor retilíneo. Ele mostrou que a intensidade do campo magnético depende da intensidade da corrente elétrica e da distância ao fio condutor. Com relação a esse fenômeno, assinale a alternativa correta.

Capacitores são dispositivos que podem armazenar energia quando há um campo elétrico em seu interior, o qual é produzido por cargas elétricas depositadas em suas placas. O circuito ao lado é formado por um capacitor C de capacitância 2 µF e por duas fontes de fem, consideradas ideais, com ε1 = 10 V e ε2 = 15 V. Assinale a alternativa correta para a energia elétrica armazenada no capacitor C.

Um pesquisador produziu um novo material e, para investigar possíveis aplicações tecnológicas, estudou o comportamento elétrico de um objeto cilíndrico feito com esse material. Aplicaram-se diversos valores de diferenças de potencial ∆V a esse objeto e mediu-se a corrente elétrica i que circulou por ele. Foi obtido então o gráfico ao lado:

Com base nesse gráfico, considere as seguintes afirmativas:

1. O objeto apresenta comportamento ôhmico apenas para diferenças de potencial entre 0 V e 1 V.

2. Quando submetido a uma diferença de potencial de 4 V, a resistência elétrica do objeto vale R = 20 Ω.

3. Para diferenças de potencial entre 1 V e 3 V, a resistência elétrica do objeto é constante.

4. Quando aplicada uma diferença de potencial de 2 V, a potência elétrica dissipada pelo objeto é igual a 1 W.

Assinale a alternativa correta.

Uma fila de carros, igualmente espaçados, de tamanhos e massas iguais faz a travessia de uma ponte com velocidades iguais e constantes, conforme mostra a figura abaixo. Cada vez que um carro entra na ponte, o impacto de seu peso provoca nela uma perturbação em forma de um pulso de onda. Esse pulso se propaga com velocidade de módulo 10 m/s no sentido de A para B. Como resultado, a ponte oscila, formando uma onda estacionária com 3 ventres e 4 nós. Considerando que o fluxo de carros produza na ponte uma oscilação de 1 Hz, assinale a alternativa correta para o comprimento da ponte.

Um esporte muito popular em paises do Hemisfério Norte é o “curling”, em que pedras de granito polido são lançadas sobre uma pista horizontal de gelo. Esse esporte lembra o nosso popular jogo de bocha. Considere que um jogador tenha arremessado uma dessas pedras de modo que ela percorreu 45 m em linha reta antes de parar, sem a intervenção de nenhum jogador. Considerando que a massa da pedra é igual a 20 kg e o coeficiente de atrito entre o gelo e o granito é de 0,02, assinale a alternativa que dá a estimativa correta para o tempo que a pedra leva para parar.

No último campeonato mundial de futebol, ocorrido na África do Sul, a bola utilizada nas partidas, apelidada de Jabulani, foi alvo de críticas por parte de jogadores e comentaristas. Mas como a bola era a mesma em todos os jogos, seus efeitos positivos e negativos afetaram todas as seleções. Com relação ao movimento de bolas de futebol em jogos, considere as seguintes afirmativas:

1. Durante seu movimento no ar, após um chute para o alto, uma bola está sob a ação de três forças: a força peso, a força de atrito com o ar e a força de impulso devido ao chute.

2. Em estádios localizados a grandes altitudes em relação ao nível do mar, a atmosfera é mais rarefeita, e uma bola, ao ser chutada, percorrerá uma distância maior em comparação a um mesmo chute no nível do mar.

3. Em dias chuvosos, ao atingir o gramado encharcado, a bola tem sua velocidade aumentada.

4. Uma bola de futebol, ao ser chutada obliquamente em relação ao solo, executa um movimento aproximadamente parabólico, porém, caso nessa região haja vácuo, ela descreverá um movimento retilíneo.

Assinale a alternativa correta.

No dia 20 de abril de 2010, houve uma explosão numa plataforma petrolífera da British Petroleum, no Golfo do México, provocando o vazamento de petróleo que se espalhou pelo litoral. O poço está localizado a 1500 m abaixo do nível do mar, o que dificultou os trabalhos de reparação. Suponha a densidade da água do mar com valor constante e igual a 1,02 g/cm3 e considere a pressão atmosférica igual a 1,00 × 105 Pa. Com base nesses dados, calcule a pressão na profundidade em que se encontra o poço e assinale a alternativa correta que fornece em quantas vezes essa pressão é múltipla da pressão atmosférica.

“Temos a tendência de pressupor que todas as mudanças que decorreram de um movimento de independência foram para o melhor. Raramente, por exemplo, consideramos um movimento de independência como uma regressão, um triunfo do despotismo sobre a liberdade, de um regime imposto sobre um regime representativo. Apesar disso, no caso da independência do Brasil, essas acusações foram na época imputadas ao novo regime”. (Adaptado de MAXWELL, K. “Por que o Brasil foi diferente? O contexto da independência”. In: MOTTA, C. G.

(org.). Viagem incompleta: a experiência brasileira. São Paulo: Editora Senac, 2000, p 181.)

Qual dos eventos citados a seguir gerou as acusações mencionadas no texto?

No final dos anos 1960 e início de 1970, a sociedade brasileira experimentou os “anos de chumbo” da ditadura civilmilitar, em especial após o silêncio imposto pelo Ato Institucional no 5, de 1968. No campo cultural, considere as seguintes afirmativas:

1. A repressão civil-militar fez com que o conflito ideológico da Guerra Fria se esgotasse no Brasil.

2. Houve investimentos massivos nos meios de comunicação de massa, visando a eficácia da propaganda política do regime.

3. Uma das reações à repressão foi a explosão do movimento de consciência negra no Brasil.

4. A censura e a consolidação de novos meios de comunicação de massa provocaram a criação de novos espaços e estilos culturais, como a Tropicália.

Assinale a alternativa correta.

Com relação ao Estado Novo, de 1937 a 1945, é correto afirmar:

Este ano ocorreu um terrível acidente ambiental com o vazamento de petróleo no Golfo do México. O vazamento, que durou meses na plataforma Deepwater Horizon, da British Petroleum, pode ter derramado 4,5 milhões de barris de petróleo no mar. Considerando que um barril corresponde a 159 litros e que a densidade do petróleo é de 0,88 kg.L-1 , qual é a quantidade de matéria (em mols) aproximada de carbono presentes no petróleo derramado? Assuma que a composição do petróleo é de alcanos de fórmula geral CnH2n+2. (M (g.mol-1): H = 1,008; C = 12,01)

Assinale a alternativa correta.

Uma das etapas do processo de reciclagem de plásticos é a separação de diferentes polímeros. Um dos métodos mais empregados consiste na separação por densidade. Uma amostra contendo diferentes polímeros é triturada e colocada num líquido. Os plásticos mais densos que o líquido afundam e os menos densos flutuam, permitindo a separação. Considere uma mistura constituída por peças de PET (politereftalato de etila), cuja densidade varia entre 1,29 e 1,39 g.mL-1, e peças de PVC (policloreto de vinila), de densidade entre 1,46 e 1,58 g.mL-1. Dentre as soluções aquosas abaixo, qual seria a apropriada para efetuar a separação desses dois polímeros?

A constituição elementar da matéria sempre foi uma busca do homem. Até o início do século XIX, não se tinha uma ideia concreta de como a matéria era constituída. Nas duas últimas décadas daquele século e início do século XX, observou-se um grande avanço das ciências e com ele a evolução dos modelos atômicos. Acerca desse assunto, numere a coluna da direita de acordo com sua correspondência com a coluna da esquerda.

1. Próton.

2. Elétron.

3. Átomo de Dalton.

4. Átomo de Rutherford.

5. Átomo de Bohr.

( ) Partícula de massa igual a 9,109 x 10-31 kg e carga elétrica de -1,602 x 10-19 C.

( ) Partícula constituída por um núcleo contendo prótons e nêutrons, rodeado por elétrons que circundam em órbitas estacionárias.

( ) Partícula indivisível e indestrutível durante as transformações químicas.

( ) Partícula de massa igual a 1,673 x 10−27 kg, que corresponde à massa de uma unidade atômica.

( ) Partícula que possui um núcleo central dotado de cargas elétricas positivas, sendo envolvido por uma nuvem de cargas elétricas negativas.

Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a numeração correta da coluna da direita, de cima para baixo.