Prova de 2013: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC - RJ) — questões com gabarito

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

The communicative intention of this article is to

The author claims that “Brazil lacks a history of conquest or imperial domination.” (lines 30-31) to support the idea that

Based on the meanings of the words in Paragraph 2, it can be said that

In the fragments “the country exports advanced passenger aircraft and high fashion design while simultaneously grappling with tens of millions struggling to survive in poverty” (lines 10-13) and “The ability of Brazilian diplomats to carry off this double identity rests in the country’s carefully constructed position as the intermediate or bridging ground between the South and the North.” (lines 52-55), ‘grappling with’ and carry off’ mean, respectively:

In the fragment “But when examined on a deeper level, the country bears more resemblance to a distributive, value-claiming actor.” (lines 50-52) the expression ‘to bear resemblance to’ means

In the fragment “For the last 20 years Itamaraty has been working to position Brazil as a leader of first South America and then the global South.” (lines 100-102), ‘has been working’ expresses

An appropriate explanation of the expression taken from the text is found in

The fragment “Brazilian musician Tom Jobim’s line that ‘Brazil is not for beginners’” (lines 143-144) is used by the author to

In “The interesting point is that this may present more of an opportunity than a threat…” (lines 160-161), ‘may present’ is replaced without change in meaning by

In the last section of the article, lines 151-171, the author states that

The text ‘Brazil as a bridge between old and new powers?’ has been extracted from a text published in the periodical International Affairs, issue nº 89. The issue, as stated by the editors in an introductory article, ‘… has been divided into two parts. Part one comprises case-studies of three rising powers — Brazil, India and China — while the articles in part two cover the various actors and entities that have reason and/or ability to attempt to manage the rise of new powers. (…) These multiple actors may be grouped into four categories…’

The following definitions were given in the introductory article for each of the categories:

1. This group comprises states and groupings of states that have acquired, over the past decades, the role of agendasetters as Great Powers. They have exerted defining influence in shaping the rules and norms of global governance. Despite their relative decline (especially with reference to the rising powers), they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.

2. In this category are the countries that represent the proverbial grass that gets trampled when elephants fight. They often form the unfortunate terrain on which scrambles for power can occur, but are also occasionally able to exercise powerful leverage by providing the follower base that aspiring leaders seek, and legitimize claims to greater power by securing for those leaders the backing of large numbers.

3. As the shift in the balance of power that we see under way today is not occurring simply between states, this category includes businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged as repositories and brokers of power, effectively harnessed by states at different levels of the hierarchy and harnessing them to serve their own causes in turn.

4. This category recognizes that most international organizations, regimes and networks are seldom ‘actors’ in their own right. But different organizations, networks and regimes, even when made up of similar memberships, show different degrees of adaptability and reform in response to the needs and demands posed by rising powers.

The sequence that matches the category with its definition is:

The text ‘Brazil as a bridge between old and new powers?’ has been extracted from a text published in the periodical International Affairs, issue nº 89. The issue, as stated by the editors in an introductory article, ‘… has been divided into two parts. Part one comprises case-studies of three rising powers — Brazil, India and China — while the articles in part two cover the various actors and entities that have reason and/or ability to attempt to manage the rise of new powers. (…) These multiple actors may be grouped into four categories…’

The following definitions were given in the introductory article for each of the categories:

1. This group comprises states and groupings of states that have acquired, over the past decades, the role of agendasetters as Great Powers. They have exerted defining influence in shaping the rules and norms of global governance. Despite their relative decline (especially with reference to the rising powers), they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.

2. In this category are the countries that represent the proverbial grass that gets trampled when elephants fight. They often form the unfortunate terrain on which scrambles for power can occur, but are also occasionally able to exercise powerful leverage by providing the follower base that aspiring leaders seek, and legitimize claims to greater power by securing for those leaders the backing of large numbers.

3. As the shift in the balance of power that we see under way today is not occurring simply between states, this category includes businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged as repositories and brokers of power, effectively harnessed by states at different levels of the hierarchy and harnessing them to serve their own causes in turn.

4. This category recognizes that most international organizations, regimes and networks are seldom ‘actors’ in their own right. But different organizations, networks and regimes, even when made up of similar memberships, show different degrees of adaptability and reform in response to the needs and demands posed by rising powers.

In the definition transcribed in number 1 , the fragment “Despite their relative decline (…) they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.” means that

The text ‘Brazil as a bridge between old and new powers?’ has been extracted from a text published in the periodical International Affairs, issue nº 89. The issue, as stated by the editors in an introductory article, ‘… has been divided into two parts. Part one comprises case-studies of three rising powers — Brazil, India and China — while the articles in part two cover the various actors and entities that have reason and/or ability to attempt to manage the rise of new powers. (…) These multiple actors may be grouped into four categories…’

The following definitions were given in the introductory article for each of the categories:

1. This group comprises states and groupings of states that have acquired, over the past decades, the role of agendasetters as Great Powers. They have exerted defining influence in shaping the rules and norms of global governance. Despite their relative decline (especially with reference to the rising powers), they still have enough power to act as gatekeepers to the inner sanctums of international regimes.

2. In this category are the countries that represent the proverbial grass that gets trampled when elephants fight. They often form the unfortunate terrain on which scrambles for power can occur, but are also occasionally able to exercise powerful leverage by providing the follower base that aspiring leaders seek, and legitimize claims to greater power by securing for those leaders the backing of large numbers.

3. As the shift in the balance of power that we see under way today is not occurring simply between states, this category includes businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged as repositories and brokers of power, effectively harnessed by states at different levels of the hierarchy and harnessing them to serve their own causes in turn.

4. This category recognizes that most international organizations, regimes and networks are seldom ‘actors’ in their own right. But different organizations, networks and regimes, even when made up of similar memberships, show different degrees of adaptability and reform in response to the needs and demands posed by rising powers.