Todas as questões do ENEM

(KURZ, R., in Folha de São Paulo, 3 jan. 1999, p. 5)

Com base no texto acima, considere as assertivas abaixo.

I. O trabalho na sociedade feudal era estruturado na servidão, que mantinha os indivíduos presos à terra, tendo que pagar uma série de obrigações em taxas e serviços. Apesar disso, o servo era preso à terra e não podia ser negociado como mercadoria, diferentemente do trabalhador no sistema capitalista, facilmente descartado e substituído.

II. As sociedades existentes antes da Revolução Industrial eram quase todas de caráter aristocrático e hierarquizadas. A economia era primordialmente agrícola, em que o comércio ocupava um papel complementar. O objetivo máximo era suprir as necessidades da sociedade como um todo. Com o advento da economia de mercado capitalista, o objetivo era a obtenção do lucro, mesmo que fosse necessário transformar a força de trabalho em mercadoria.

III. A sociedade capitalista é uma organização social regida pelas necessidades das leis de mercado, não apenas para satisfazer às necessidades humanas. Nelas os trabalhadores modernos são livres, pois não estão sujeitos à autoridade de um senhor, como antigamente, porém, na economia de mercado atual, os empregados só têm participação como vendedores de sua força de trabalho.

Assinale

Sob mesma pressão atmosférica, foram analisados volume iguais das seguintes soluções aquosas, cada uma com as concentrações apontadas na tabela a seguir

A respeito do comportamento dessas soluções, são realizadas algumas afirmações.

I. A solução de glicose é aquela cuja condução de corrente elétrica será a maior sob mesma temperatura.

II. Os pontos de ebulição das soluções salinas serão iguais.

III. Todas as soluções apresentarão a mesma concentração de partículas dissolvidas.

Das afirmações acima,

Uma das contribuições mais relevantes para a organização dos elementos químicos foi realizada pelo russo Dmitri Mendeleev em 1869. Ele foi o primeiro a reconhecer que a relação dos elementos químicos, conhecidos até então, estava incompleta e que novos elementos seriam descobertos futuramente. Assim, Mendeleev deixou lacunas na sua tabela, que seriam preenchidas posteriormente, mas o mais surpreendente foi que ele previu com precisão as propriedades dos elementos que faltavam. Posteriormente, o modelo da tabela periódica de Mendeleev foi aprimorado pelo britânico Henry Moseley.

Neste ano, celebram-se 150 anos da organização da tabela periódica, realizada por Mendeleev e, de acordo com os seus conhecimentos a respeito da tabela periódica atual, pode-se afirmar que

Disponível em: http://www.ib.usp.br

Leia o texto e observe o mapa.

Adap. <http://jornal.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/20170209_00_floresta_amazonica.jpg> Acesso em 29 set. 2019.

Os países sul-americanos 1, 2, 3 e 4, por onde se estendem áreas da “Amazônia Internacional”, apresentadas no mapa, são, respectivamente,    

Quantos números distintos de 4 algarismos são tais que o produto de seus algarismos é igual a 420?

O valor de m, real, para que exista o arco que satisfaz a igualdade cos x = 2m – 5 é

SOURCE: http://www.englishact.com.br/2018/04/calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.html access on Oct 7th, 2019.

From the strip we can infer that:

O trecho abaixo é um fragmento do capítulo de abertura do romance Memórias póstumas de Brás Cubas, de Machado de Assis.

A partir da leitura do trecho de abertura do romance Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas, indique qual característica elencada abaixo está completamente ausente do trecho.

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

   The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.

(Audrey B. Champagne.)

    Science education in the United States of America is in the midst of an unprecedented reform movement-unprecedented because the movement is driven by national standards developed with support from the federal government. The standards for science education are redefining the character of science education from kindergarten to the postgraduate education of scientists and science teachers. Unlike the education in most countries of the world, education of students in kindergarten through grade twelve in the United States is not the responsibility of the federal government but is controlled by the individual states. States have the right to regulate all elements of the curriculum-the content all students are expected to learn, the structural organization of programs across all grades, the structural organization of the yearly curriculum in each subject, teaching methods, and textbooks. Historically, and even now, the states jealously guard all their rights and resist efforts by the federal government to exercise control over matters that are the responsibility of the states. The federal government's involvement in education has been to identify matters of national priority and to provide funds and other resources to the states to meet the national priorities. So, for instance, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States felt that its perceived preeminence in scientific research and its national safety were threatened, science education was identified as a national priority. The primary purpose of the federal government's initiatives was to encourage and upgrade the science education of young people who would become practicing scientists. This effort was not perceived by the states as an erosion of their rights because it was a response to a threat to the nation and was targeted on the science education of a relatively few students. The current situation is quite different.

    The federal government's underwriting of the development of national standards for education has the potential for shifting the control of the curriculum from the states to the federal government. This initiative, supported by the National Association of Governors, is the result of the concern of political, business and industrial leaders with the poor quality of education across the nation and with the effect this poor quality has on the U.S. position in the world economy. The goal of the standards movement from the prospective of political, business, and industrial leaders is to strengthen education so that the schools will produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required of them to be productive in the workplace.

   The pedagogy and attitudes of many teachers and professors alike has been that science is for the few. So little concern or effort was applied to make science interesting or to make learning it easy. Consequently, only highly motivated and highly intelligent students survived science courses. Thus it appears education in the natural sciences develops individuals who reason well, are critical thinkers, are creative problem solvers-in short, are intelligent. But, we must ask, does education in the natural sciences produce smarter people or do smart people survive science as it is taught? While historically the answer to the question may well have been survival, the national standards are based on the beliefs that science is for all and can produce smarter people.