Todas as questões do ENEM

Os estábulos de uma fazenda estavam infestados de moscas. Para combater os insetos, o fazendeiro pulverizou inseticida. De início, obteve sucesso, já que os invasores desapareceram. Após certo tempo, as moscas ressurgiram. Inicialmente em pequenas quantidades o que justificou novas pulverizações. No entanto, o número de moscas aumentava mesmo que as doses de inseticida fossem cada vez maiores.

Sobre o fato, analise as afirmativas.

I - Os insetos em questão foram capazes de se modificar em resposta a uma mudança ambiental.

II - A aplicação do inseticida favoreceu a pequena população de moscas resistentes que sobreviveram e se reproduziram.

III - A resistência é devido a um caráter genético que favorece alguns indivíduos.

Está correto o que se afirma em

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

DADOS QUE PODEM SER USADOS NESTA PROVA

O SARS-CoV-2, vírus da Covid-19, é formado por material genético de RNA, que tem um glicídio chamado de ribose (C5H10O5), além de ser classificado como um parasita intracelular obrigatório envelopado, tendo uma capa formada por um lipídio da classe dos fosfolipídios, haja vista o fato de este ser proveniente dos fosfatos e dos ácidos graxos. Com relação a essa informação, assinale a alternativa correta.

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

DADOS QUE PODEM SER USADOS NESTA PROVA

Foi realizada uma experiência, denominada de “Mudança instantânea de cor”, cujo procedimento foi o seguinte:

1) Dissolveu-se uma pastilha de permanganato de potássio (KMnO4) em um becker contendo 40mL de água destilada, com formação da cor violeta.

2) A seguir, adicionou-se neste becker, 20mL de vinagre incolor, permanecendo a cor violeta.

3) Neste mesmo becker, adicionou-se 20mL de água oxigenada, H2O2 (10 vol.), e imediatamente a cor violeta desapareceu, ficando incolor.

4) Em outro becker, repetiu-se a etapa 1 desse procedimento, e logo a seguir adicionou-se 20mL de água oxigenada (10 vol.), ocorrendo a mudança da cor violeta para marrom.

Com relação a essa experiência, assinale a alternativa correta.

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

     Critics haven’t been kind to Adam McKay’s eco-satire, but many climate experts are lauding it. Here four give their views

     Rarely has a film been as divisive as Adam McKay’s climate satire Don’t Look Up. Although it has been watched by millions, and is already Netflix’s third most watched film ever, the response from critics was largely negative. Many found its story of scientists who discover an asteroid heading for Earth a clumsy allegory for the climate crisis, while others just found it boring. But many in the climate movement have praised the film, and audience reviews have been generally positive.

     We asked four climate experts to give their views on the film. Warning: spoilers ahead.

      After 17 years of reporting on the climate crisis, I doubted at first that the film had much to tell me about the frustrations of communicating a hypothetical catastrophe. As the film’s scientists first struggled to clothe their data in sober, measured terms, then broke into swearing, armwaving shrieks about provable imminent apocalypse, I nodded along. Yes, that’s what it feels like, and no, no one listens, not until it is too late.

      Yet it was illuminating in unexpected ways – something I’ve always struggled with is how rational people can fail to grasp the scale of climate breakdown, how we could leave it so late. As the film shows, it’s partly because vested interests keep it that way, but it’s also just because we’re human. Believing in disaster before it strikes is fundamentally not how we work. 

     The role of the techno-loon, played by Mark Rylance, struck another chord. Cop26 was not a failure, though on the surface that was the obvious conclusion – it was more nuanced than that. Soon after the Cop26 circus left Glasgow, the danger of painting the outcome in such blackand-white terms became apparent, as wellmeaning experts concluded – in all seriousness – as talking didn’t work, our best hope would be for billionaires to bypass the UN and geoengineer the climate from space. Because obviously the answer to a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere is to conduct a vast uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere.

    How Kate Dibiasky, the postgraduate student played by Jennifer Lawrence who discovered the comet, is portrayed as an unhinged hysterical woman, will resonate with many female climate scientists and activists whose crucial knowledge has been sidelined. The scene where her parents declare that they’re in favour of the jobs the comet will provide will resonate with millions of people, including me, trying to deal with relatives who have bought into political lies.

        […]

     Damian Carrington: ‘It highlights the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away’

      I loved Don’t Look Up, both as an entertainment and as a climate crisis parable. But the movie has been panned by many critics, with the main charge being that it is heavy-handed, blunt and too obvious. But that is exactly the point.

      Scientists have been issuing blunt warnings about obvious dangers of global heating for years and have been ignored – carbon emissions are still rising. The film perfectly skewers the key ways in which they have been ignored: for short-term political expediency and short-term corporate profit.

    In particular, the movie beautifully portrays the incredulity of scientists that their carefully constructed evidence can be dismissed with bluster such as “we’ll sit tight and assess” by leaders more concerned about today’s political weather and a media more interested in the minutiae of celebrities’ lives.

        […] 

The point of the film is savagely highlighting the absurdity of staring disaster in the face, then looking away rather than acting. In that respect, it is a triumph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/08/dont-look-upfour-climate-experts-on-the-polarising-disaster-film. Access: 08/01/2022.

DADOS QUE PODEM SER USADOS NESTA PROVA

O etanal, responsável pelo cheiro de muitos frutos maduros, pode ser obtido por oxidação do etanol, recorrendo à ação de enzimas, como a Saccharomyces cerevisiae, obtida de vários frutos. Assinale a opção correta que apresenta a equação química dessa oxidação

Em relação aos movimentos de rotação da Terra e orbital da Terra em torno do Sol, assinale a afirmativa correta.

DADOS QUE PODEM SER USADOS NESTA PROVA

Como o monóxido de carbono (CO) causa vários danos à saúde, sua presença no ar atmosférico deve ser controlada. A principal fonte de emissão desse gás é a queima incompleta de combustíveis derivados de petróleo, como a gasolina e o diesel. O quadro a seguir mostra a relação do monóxido de carbono na atmosfera com os sintomas em seres humanos.

 

O teor desse gás na atmosfera em uma sala, um edifício, um veículo ou em qualquer espaço fechado deve ser mantido a não mais de 0,0039% como um nível de exposição média de oito horas. Baseando-se no quadro anterior, o que poderá acontecer com um indivíduo que ficar em exposição durante um período de oito horas se o nível de monóxido de carbono atingir 0,083%?

Segundo informou a Rede Brasil, um vazamento de gás tóxico matou uma mulher de 38 anos, deixou ao menos duas pessoas em estado grave e atingiu dezenas de moradores de Pontal, no interior paulista, na noite de 4 de outubro de 2022. As primeiras informações sinalizam que se trata do gás cloro. Sobre o cloro, marque a alternativa verdadeira.

A pressão atmosférica é o peso, por unidade de área, de uma camada de ar que se estende desde a superfície da Terra até centenas de quilômetros de altitude e vale aproximadamente 10.000 kgf/m2 ao nível do mar. Para baixas altitudes, a densidade do ar é praticamente constante e vale aproximadamente 1 kg/m3 . A partir dos dados acima e considerando a altitude de um local em Mato Grosso igual a 200 m, qual a pressão atmosférica nesse local?

Dados:

Um determinado composto orgânico é formado pelos elementos carbono, hidrogênio e oxigênio, contendo ¼ de mol de moléculas, e pesa 15,0 g. Sabendo que o número de átomos de hidrogênio na molécula é o dobro do número de átomos de carbono e de oxigênio, o composto sugerido é um