Prova de 2018: Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais (UEMG) — questões com gabarito

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

            Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

      For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

      “The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

      For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

      In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […] 

      Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

      First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

      Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

      Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly. 

      With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

      In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

       Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

      […]

      We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.” 

Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> . Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

A propalada crise climática global atual tem, como uma de suas causas, a emissão de dióxido de carbono (CO²) na atmosfera. A criação de Créditos de Carbono foi umas das supostas saídas encontradas para o problema.

Sobre os Créditos de Carbono, informe se é verdadeiro (V) ou falso (F) o que se afirma a seguir e assinale a alternativa com a sequência correta.

( ) Cada Crédito de Carbono é equivalente a 1T (uma tonelada) de CO² não emitida ou retirada da atmosfera por um País.

( ) Os Créditos de Carbono foram criados, em 1997, no Japão, quando houve a assinatura do Protocolo de Kyoto pelos países que se comprometeram a assinar esse acordo.

( ) Os Estados Unidos, maior emissor de gases poluentes do mundo, lidera a aplicação das políticas definidas no Protocolo de Kyoto.

( ) Créditos de Carbono são certificados negociados como mercadorias nas bolsas de valores.

“O acidente em Mariana ficou conhecido no Brasil como o maior desastre ambiental da história e deixou 19 pessoas mortas, além de destruir o distrito de Bento Rodrigues, contaminar a Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Doce e comprometer o abastecimento de água e a produção de alimentos em diversas cidades da região.”

Disponível em: <http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2017-08/juiz-suspende-acao-criminal-contra-mineradoras-por-acidente-em-mariana >. Acesso em: 21 nov. 2017.

Sobre o rompimento da Barragem Fundão em Mariana, é correto afirmar que

Considerando as seguintes semirreações, em uma célula galvânica com eletrodos de alumínio e chumbo, é correto afirmar que

Al3+ + 3e- ⇄ Al0 E0red = -0,13V

Pb2+ + 2e- ⇄ Pb0 E0red = -1,66V

Sobre trigonometria, analise as assertivas e assinale a alternativa que aponta as corretas.

I. cos(x) = 2 cos2 (x/2) - 1 .

II. O valor de (1 + cotg2 x) (1 - cos2 x), para x ≠ kπ, com k inteiro, é igual a 1.

III. A medida do arco trigonométrico da 1ª volta positiva, côngruo ao arco de medida -40°, é 40°.

IV. tg 50° tg 310° < 0

Com base nos dois depoimentos e na imagem a seguir, considerando o que pode ser relacionado a essas fontes históricas, assinale a alternativa INCORRETA.

• “Eu tenho conhecimento de mais acidentes no início do dia do que no final. Eu fui, inclusive, testemunha de um deles. Uma criança estava trabalhando a lã, isto é, preparando a lã para a máquina, mas a alça a prendeu, como ela foi pega de surpresa, acabou sendo levada para dentro do mecanismo; e nós encontramos seus membros em um lugar, outro acolá, e ela foi cortada em pedaços; todo o seu corpo foi mandado para dentro e foi totalmente mutilado”. (John Allett começou a trabalhar em uma fábrica de têxteis quando tinha quatorze anos. Allett tinha cinquenta e três anos quando foi entrevistado por Michael Sadler e seu Comitê da Câmara dos Comuns, em 21 de maio de 1832.).

• “Os primeiros dias de setembro foram muito quentes. Os jornais noticiavam que homens e cavalos caiam mortos nos campos de produção agrícola. Ainda assim, a temperatura nunca passava de 29°C durante a parte mais quente do dia. Qual era então a situação das pobres crianças que estavam condenadas a trabalhar quatorze horas por dia, em uma temperatura média de 28°C? Pode algum homem, com um coração em seu peito e uma língua em sua boca, não se habilitar a amaldiçoar um sistema que produz tamanha escravidão e crueldade?” (William Cobbett fez um artigo sobre uma visita a uma fábrica de tecidos que aconteceu em setembro de 1824).

“As denúncias de que o exército brasileiro ao lutar na guerra (1864-1870) era formado por escravos não são novas. Ao contrário, têm pelo menos cento e vinte anos. Seus primeiros autores foram os redatores dos jornais paraguaios da época que tratavam de menosprezar o exército brasileiro com base no duvidoso argumento de que, por ser formado por negros, deveria ser de qualidade inferior”.

TORAL, André Amaral de. A participação dos negros escravos na guerra do Paraguai. Estudos Avançados. v. 9, nº 24, São Paulo, May/ Aug. 1995 (Adaptado).

Sobre os negros como partícipes da Guerra do Paraguai, analise as assertivas e assinale a alternativa que aponta as corretas.

I. Os exércitos paraguaio, brasileiro e uruguaio tinham alguns batalhões formados exclusivamente por negros. Como exemplos, tem-se o Corpo dos Zuavos da Bahia e o batalhão uruguaio Florida.

II. Na época da Guerra do Paraguai, não existiam negros escravos ou ex-escravos no exército paraguaio. A escravidão havia sido abolida no Paraguai em 1842, por Carlos Lopes, pai de Francisco Solano López.

III. Na época da guerra (1864-1870), no Paraguai, o negro brasileiro era representado como inimigo. O exército brasileiro era o exército macacuno e seus líderes, segundo a propaganda lopizta, eram macacos que pretendiam escravizar o povo paraguaio, conduzindo-os da liberdade à escravidão.

IV. Havia negros no exército brasileiro na Guerra do Paraguai, mas eles já tinham sido libertos.