Questões de Reading comprehension (atribuição de fala) no ITA
18 no total
Uma amostra das questões. Crie uma conta para resolver todas com correção e comentário.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 25InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Facil
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
[…] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. […] The obvious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. […]
So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. […]
So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.
More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.
Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.
Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them.
Adaptado de: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people/>. Acesso em: ago. 2018.
De acordo com o texto, em comparação com 1976, atualmente nós compramos
A)50% a mais de leite fresco.
B)3% a mais de cereais matinais.
C)39 vezes menos sobremesas lácteas.
D)uma quantidade três vezes maior de sorvete.
E)uma quantidade três vezes menor de batatas fritas.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 26InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
[…] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. […] The obvious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. […]
So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. […]
So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.
More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.
Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.
Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them.
Adaptado de: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people/>. Acesso em: ago. 2018.
De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que
A)atualmente consumimos 2.130 quilocalorias por dia, ao passo que em 1976 o consumo diário era de 2.280 quilocalorias, incluindo doces e álcool.
B)os dados indicam que, em comparação com 1976, nosso consumo de açúcar de forma indireta sofreu um declínio acentuado.
C)somente existem dados referentes ao consumo indireto de açúcar incluindo bebidas e produtos de confeitaria até o ano de 1992.
D)a indústria alimentícia tem recorrido à contratação de cientistas para orientar a população em relação às verdadeiras causas da obesidade.
E)a discussão desencadeada pela foto de 1976 sinaliza que a estratégia de culpar o obeso por sua própria condição tem se revelado eficaz.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 27InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
[…] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. […] The obvious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. […]
So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. […]
So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.
More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.
Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.
Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them.
Adaptado de: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people/>. Acesso em: ago. 2018.
De acordo com o texto,
A)o posicionamento dos legisladores em relação à obesidade é embasado em dados das pesquisas mais recentes em neurociências.
B)apenas menos de 10% dos legisladores não acreditam que a motivação pessoal exerça forte influência no aumento da obesidade.
C)os legisladores são capazes de apontar todos os mecanismos que são considerados responsáveis pela perda de força de vontade.
D)o sobrepeso e a obesidade, que atualmente afetam 61% da população inglesa, são atribuídos, pelos legisladores, a fatores como estresse e ansiedade.
E)as explicações fornecidas pelos legisladores acerca das causas do aumento da obesidade são plausíveis e encontram respaldo em evidências.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 28InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Dificil
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
[…] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. […] The obvious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. […]
So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. […]
So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.
More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.
Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.
Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them.
Adaptado de: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people/>. Acesso em: ago. 2018.
De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que o autor sustenta que
A)cada pessoa deve assumir a responsabilidade por seu peso, uma vez que ninguém é obrigado a consumir alimentos prejudiciais à saúde.
B)as pessoas são preguiçosas e não se preocupam com a saúde, pois sentem que têm direito assegurado a assistência médica gratuita.
C)nos países ricos há menos pessoas obesas do que em países mais pobres, pois a ciência evidencia que a causa da obesidade reside no baixo poder de compra.
D)a força de vontade, bem como a responsabilidade pessoal, devem ser exercidas; porém, pelos governantes e legisladores, respectivamente.
E)o governo deve controlar as fraquezas descobertas nos obesos, da mesma forma que controla problemas como o desemprego.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 30InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Facil
Leia a tirinha a seguir para responder à questão.
De acordo com a tirinha,
Imagens anexadas
A)o chefe está criticando seu jornal concorrente por não verificar fatos, não se apoiar nas fontes confiáveis e usar títulos sensacionalistas.
B)o jornalista justifica a seu chefe o porquê de escrever matérias que não respeitam o código de ética dos jornalistas.
C)o jornalista salienta que aquele tipo de matéria é o que causa mais repercussão; ainda assim, seu chefe desaprova seu uso.
D)após a crítica do chefe, o jornalista concorda em seguir o código de ética dos jornalistas e zelar pelo conteúdo de suas matérias.
E)o chefe do jornalista está zangado porque seguir os princípios éticos do jornalismo causa prejuízos para a sua empresa.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 31InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Facil
Leia a tirinha a seguir para responder à questão.
No último quadrinho, o chefe do jornalista
Imagens anexadas
A)solicita que ele lhe mostre as imagens da matéria que está escrevendo.
B)fica entusiasmado porque ele concorda que as imagens são sensacionalistas.
C)demonstra interesse e pede que ele lhe mostre os dados do teste mencionado.
D)muda de ideia e demanda que ele exiba as ilustrações dos jornais concorrentes.
E)rende-se à lógica das redes sociais, após checar a repercussão das fotos publicadas.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 33InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Dificil
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
Assinale a alternativa INCORRETA. No texto, o autor afirma que
Imagens anexadas
A)os legisladores precisam compreender a inteligência artificial para que possam criar regulamentações que nos mantenham seguros, porém sem refrear a inovação.
B)embora haja a necessidade de uma agência reguladora, ele preferiria que ela funcionasse como uma parceria público-privada, contando com consultores da indústria tecnológica.
C)estamos no início de uma nova era, na qual a governança é definida por software, o que leva à necessidade de um novo tipo de agência, que inclua tanto software quanto seres humanos.
D)as empresas públicas, em especial, são incentivadas a se automonitorar e se autorregular a fim de que seus algoritmos maximizem ora metas financeiras, ora metas sociais.
E)por ser um investidor em tecnologia, ele não deseja que um Congresso mal informado crie regulamentações que tornem as empresas de tecnologia burocráticas demais.
ITA20191a faseQuestao 34InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Dificil
Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.
O autor defende uma regulação definida por software, pois
I. a considera mais adequada para monitorar indústrias orientadas por software do que regulações impostas por equipes de reguladores humanos.
II. algoritmos podem procurar por detalhes e padrões que os seres humanos talvez nunca pudessem descobrir, mas que, não obstante, são indicativos de abusos.
III. precisamos de tecnologia que seja capaz de identificar comportamentos como o do Facebook que, ao explorar vieses políticos, difundiu manchetes de partidos conservadores.
IV. é importante que algoritmos monitorem o papel dos seres humanos em empresas orientadas por software para evitar que minorias sejam prejudicadas na utilização de serviços.
Estão corretas apenas
Imagens anexadas
A)I e II.
B)I, II e IV.
C)I, III e IV.
D)II, III e IV.
E)II e IV.
ITA20181a faseQuestao 1InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
As questões de 1 a 6 referem-se ao texto a seguir:
GOODBYE THINGS, HELLO MINIMALISM: CAN LIVING WITH LESS MAKE YOU HAPPIER?
Fumio Sasaki owns a roll-up mattress, three shirts and four pairs of socks. After deciding to scorn
possessions, he began feeling happier. He explains why.
1 Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm 35 years old, male, single, never been married. I work as an
2 editor at a publishing company. I recently moved from the Nakameguro neighbourhood in Tokyo, where I
3 lived for a decade, to a neighbourhood called Fudomae in a different part of town. The rent is cheaper, but
4 the move pretty much wiped out my savings.
5 Some of you may think that I'm a loser: an unmarried adult with not much money. The old me would
6 have been way too embarrassed to admit all this. I was filled with useless pride. But I honestly don't care
7 about things like that any more. The reason is very simple: I'm perfectly happy just as I am. The reason? I got
8 rid of most of my material possessions.
9 Minimalism is a lifestyle in which you reduce your possessions to the least possible. Living with only
10 the bare essentials has not only provided superficial benefits such as the pleasure of a tidy room or the
11 simple ease of cleaning, it has also led to a more fundamental shift. It's given me a chance to think about
12 what it really means to be happy.
13 We think that the more we have, the happier we will be. We never know what tomorrow might bring, so
14 we collect and save as much as we can. This means we need a lot of money, so we gradually start judging
15 people by how much money they have. You convince yourself that you need to make a lot of money so you
16 don't miss out on success. And for you to make money, you need everyone else to spend their money. And
17 so it goes.
18 So I said goodbye to a lot of things, many of which I'd had for years. And yet now I live each day with a
19 happier spirit. I feel more content now than I ever did in the past.
20 I wasn't always a minimalist. I used to buy a lot of things, believing that all those possessions would
21 increase my self-worth and lead to a happier life. I loved collecting a lot of useless stuff, and I couldn't throw
22 anything away. I was a natural hoarder of knick-knacks that I thought made me an interesting person.
23 At the same time, though, I was always comparing myself with other people who had more or better
24 things, which often made me miserable. I couldn't focus on anything, and I was always wasting time. Alcohol
25 was my escape, and I didn't treat women fairly. I didn't try to change; I thought this was all just part of who I
26 was, and I deserved to be unhappy.
27 My apartment wasn't horribly messy; if my girlfriend was coming over for the weekend, I could do
28 enough tidying up to make it look presentable. On a usual day, however, there were books stacked
29 everywhere because there wasn't enough room on my bookshelves. Most I had thumbed through once or
30 twice, thinking that I would read them when I had the time.
31 The closet was crammed with what used to be my favourite clothes, most of which I'd only worn a few
32 times. The room was filled with all the things I'd taken up as hobbies and then gotten tired of. A guitar and
33 amplifier, covered with dust. Conversational English workbooks I'd planned to study once I had more free
34 time. Even a fabulous antique camera, which of course I had never once put a roll of film in.
35 It may sound as if I'm exaggerating when I say I started to become a new person. Someone said to
36 me: "All you did is throw things away," which is true. But by having fewer things around, I've started feeling
37 happier each day. I'm slowly beginning to understand what happiness is.
38 If you are anything like I used to be miserable, constantly comparing yourself with others, or just
39 believing your life sucks I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. [...] Everyone wants
40 to be happy. But trying to buy happiness only makes us happy for a little while.
———
De acordo com o texto, Fumio
A)já foi casado, mas está solteiro no momento.
B)morou em Nakameguro por 10 anos.
C)mudou-se de Tóquio recentemente.
D)é editor em uma agência de publicidade.
E)mudou-se porque precisava quitar dívidas.
ITA20181a faseQuestao 2InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
As questões de 1 a 6 referem-se ao texto a seguir:
GOODBYE THINGS, HELLO MINIMALISM: CAN LIVING WITH LESS MAKE YOU HAPPIER?
Fumio Sasaki owns a roll-up mattress, three shirts and four pairs of socks. After deciding to scorn
possessions, he began feeling happier. He explains why.
1 Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm 35 years old, male, single, never been married. I work as an
2 editor at a publishing company. I recently moved from the Nakameguro neighbourhood in Tokyo, where I
3 lived for a decade, to a neighbourhood called Fudomae in a different part of town. The rent is cheaper, but
4 the move pretty much wiped out my savings.
5 Some of you may think that I'm a loser: an unmarried adult with not much money. The old me would
6 have been way too embarrassed to admit all this. I was filled with useless pride. But I honestly don't care
7 about things like that any more. The reason is very simple: I'm perfectly happy just as I am. The reason? I got
8 rid of most of my material possessions.
9 Minimalism is a lifestyle in which you reduce your possessions to the least possible. Living with only
10 the bare essentials has not only provided superficial benefits such as the pleasure of a tidy room or the
11 simple ease of cleaning, it has also led to a more fundamental shift. It's given me a chance to think about
12 what it really means to be happy.
13 We think that the more we have, the happier we will be. We never know what tomorrow might bring, so
14 we collect and save as much as we can. This means we need a lot of money, so we gradually start judging
15 people by how much money they have. You convince yourself that you need to make a lot of money so you
16 don't miss out on success. And for you to make money, you need everyone else to spend their money. And
17 so it goes.
18 So I said goodbye to a lot of things, many of which I'd had for years. And yet now I live each day with a
19 happier spirit. I feel more content now than I ever did in the past.
20 I wasn't always a minimalist. I used to buy a lot of things, believing that all those possessions would
21 increase my self-worth and lead to a happier life. I loved collecting a lot of useless stuff, and I couldn't throw
22 anything away. I was a natural hoarder of knick-knacks that I thought made me an interesting person.
23 At the same time, though, I was always comparing myself with other people who had more or better
24 things, which often made me miserable. I couldn't focus on anything, and I was always wasting time. Alcohol
25 was my escape, and I didn't treat women fairly. I didn't try to change; I thought this was all just part of who I
26 was, and I deserved to be unhappy.
27 My apartment wasn't horribly messy; if my girlfriend was coming over for the weekend, I could do
28 enough tidying up to make it look presentable. On a usual day, however, there were books stacked
29 everywhere because there wasn't enough room on my bookshelves. Most I had thumbed through once or
30 twice, thinking that I would read them when I had the time.
31 The closet was crammed with what used to be my favourite clothes, most of which I'd only worn a few
32 times. The room was filled with all the things I'd taken up as hobbies and then gotten tired of. A guitar and
33 amplifier, covered with dust. Conversational English workbooks I'd planned to study once I had more free
34 time. Even a fabulous antique camera, which of course I had never once put a roll of film in.
35 It may sound as if I'm exaggerating when I say I started to become a new person. Someone said to
36 me: "All you did is throw things away," which is true. But by having fewer things around, I've started feeling
37 happier each day. I'm slowly beginning to understand what happiness is.
38 If you are anything like I used to be miserable, constantly comparing yourself with others, or just
39 believing your life sucks I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. [...] Everyone wants
40 to be happy. But trying to buy happiness only makes us happy for a little while.
———
Antes da mudança, Fumio acumulava bens materiais porque
A)queria vendê-los quando chegasse à velhice.
B)costumava julgar as pessoas pelos carros que possuíam.
C)queria desfrutar deles sem se preocupar com o futuro.
D)acreditava que as posses aumentariam a sua autoestima e felicidade.
E)desejava impressionar a mulher que amava por meio de suas posses.
ITA20181a faseQuestao 3InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
As questões de 1 a 6 referem-se ao texto a seguir:
GOODBYE THINGS, HELLO MINIMALISM: CAN LIVING WITH LESS MAKE YOU HAPPIER?
Fumio Sasaki owns a roll-up mattress, three shirts and four pairs of socks. After deciding to scorn
possessions, he began feeling happier. He explains why.
1 Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm 35 years old, male, single, never been married. I work as an
2 editor at a publishing company. I recently moved from the Nakameguro neighbourhood in Tokyo, where I
3 lived for a decade, to a neighbourhood called Fudomae in a different part of town. The rent is cheaper, but
4 the move pretty much wiped out my savings.
5 Some of you may think that I'm a loser: an unmarried adult with not much money. The old me would
6 have been way too embarrassed to admit all this. I was filled with useless pride. But I honestly don't care
7 about things like that any more. The reason is very simple: I'm perfectly happy just as I am. The reason? I got
8 rid of most of my material possessions.
9 Minimalism is a lifestyle in which you reduce your possessions to the least possible. Living with only
10 the bare essentials has not only provided superficial benefits such as the pleasure of a tidy room or the
11 simple ease of cleaning, it has also led to a more fundamental shift. It's given me a chance to think about
12 what it really means to be happy.
13 We think that the more we have, the happier we will be. We never know what tomorrow might bring, so
14 we collect and save as much as we can. This means we need a lot of money, so we gradually start judging
15 people by how much money they have. You convince yourself that you need to make a lot of money so you
16 don't miss out on success. And for you to make money, you need everyone else to spend their money. And
17 so it goes.
18 So I said goodbye to a lot of things, many of which I'd had for years. And yet now I live each day with a
19 happier spirit. I feel more content now than I ever did in the past.
20 I wasn't always a minimalist. I used to buy a lot of things, believing that all those possessions would
21 increase my self-worth and lead to a happier life. I loved collecting a lot of useless stuff, and I couldn't throw
22 anything away. I was a natural hoarder of knick-knacks that I thought made me an interesting person.
23 At the same time, though, I was always comparing myself with other people who had more or better
24 things, which often made me miserable. I couldn't focus on anything, and I was always wasting time. Alcohol
25 was my escape, and I didn't treat women fairly. I didn't try to change; I thought this was all just part of who I
26 was, and I deserved to be unhappy.
27 My apartment wasn't horribly messy; if my girlfriend was coming over for the weekend, I could do
28 enough tidying up to make it look presentable. On a usual day, however, there were books stacked
29 everywhere because there wasn't enough room on my bookshelves. Most I had thumbed through once or
30 twice, thinking that I would read them when I had the time.
31 The closet was crammed with what used to be my favourite clothes, most of which I'd only worn a few
32 times. The room was filled with all the things I'd taken up as hobbies and then gotten tired of. A guitar and
33 amplifier, covered with dust. Conversational English workbooks I'd planned to study once I had more free
34 time. Even a fabulous antique camera, which of course I had never once put a roll of film in.
35 It may sound as if I'm exaggerating when I say I started to become a new person. Someone said to
36 me: "All you did is throw things away," which is true. But by having fewer things around, I've started feeling
37 happier each day. I'm slowly beginning to understand what happiness is.
38 If you are anything like I used to be miserable, constantly comparing yourself with others, or just
39 believing your life sucks I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. [...] Everyone wants
40 to be happy. But trying to buy happiness only makes us happy for a little while.
———
Sobre Fumio, é correto afirmar que
A)a mudança para o novo apartamento fez com que suas reservas financeiras aumentassem.
B)seu antigo apartamento era tão bagunçado que ele não podia sequer receber a namorada.
C)desperdiçava tempo e não conseguia manter o foco, antes de aderir ao minimalismo.
D)orgulhava-se de ter um salário mais alto do que todos os seus amigos.
E)era alcoólatra e violento com as pessoas, antes de mudar o estilo de vida.
ITA20181a faseQuestao 7InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)Media
As questões de 7 a 12 referem-se ao texto a seguir:
WE RECORDED VCs CONVERSATIONS AND ANALYZED HOW DIFFERENTLY
THEY TALK ABOUT FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS
1 When venture capitalists (VCs) evaluate investment proposals, the language they use to describe the
2 entrepreneurs who write them plays an important but often hidden role in shaping who is awarded funding
3 and why.[...] We were given access to government venture capital decision making meetings in Sweden and
4 were able to observe the types of language that VCs used over a two-year period. One major thing stuck out:
5 The language used to describe male and female entrepreneurs was radically different. And these differences
6 have very real consequences for those seeking funding -- and for society in general.
7 [...] Worldwide, government venture capital is important for bridging significant financial gaps and
8 supporting innovation and growth, as VCs can take risks where banks are not allowed to. When uncertainty is
9 high regarding assessment of product and market potential, for example, the assessment of the
10 entrepreneur's potential becomes highly central in government VCs' decision making.
11 In Sweden, about one-third of businesses are owned and run by women, although they are not granted
12 a corresponding proportion of government funding. In fact, women-owned businesses receive much less --
13 only 13%18%, the rest going to male-owned companies.
14 This brings us back to our research. From 2009 to 2010 we were invited to silently observe
15 governmental VC decision-making meetings and, more important, the conversations they had about
16 entrepreneurs applying for funding. [...] We observed closed-room, face-to-face discussions leading final
17 funding decisions for 125 venture applications. Of these, 99 (79%) were from male entrepreneurs and 26
18 (21%) were from female entrepreneurs. The group of government venture capitalists observed included
19 seven individuals: two women and five men. [...]
20 Aside from a few exceptions, the financiers rhetorically produce stereotypical images of women as
21 having qualities opposite to those considered important to being an entrepreneur, with VCs questioning their
22 credibility, trustworthiness, experience, and knowledge.
23 Conversely, when assessing male entrepreneurs, financiers leaned on stereotypical beliefs about men
24 that reinforced their entrepreneurial potential. Male entrepreneurs were commonly described as being
25 assertive, innovative, competent, experienced, knowledgeable, and having established networks.
26 We developed male and female entrepreneur personas based on our findings [...]. These personas
27 highlight a few key differences in how the entrepreneurs were perceived depending on their gender. Men
28 were characterized as having entrepreneurial potential, while the entrepreneurial potential for women was
29 diminished. Many of the young men and women were described as being young, though youth for men was
30 viewed as promising, while young women were considered inexperienced. Men were praised for being
31 viewed as aggressive or arrogant, while women's experience and excitement were tempered by discussions
32 of their emotional shortcomings. Similarly, cautiousness was viewed very differently depending on the gender
33 of the entrepreneur.
34 Unsurprisingly, these stereotypes seem to have played a role in who got funding and who didn't.
35 Women entrepreneurs were only awarded, on average, 25% of the applied-for amount, whereas men
36 received, on average, 52% of what they asked for. Women were also denied financing to a greater extent
37 than men, with close to 53% of women having their applications dismissed, compared with 38% of men. [...]
38 Such stereotyping will inevitably influence the distribution of financing, but could also have other major
39 consequences. Because the purpose of government venture capital is to use tax money to stimulate growth
40 and value creation for society as a whole, gender bias presents the risk that the money isn't being invested in
41 businesses that have the highest potential. This isn't only damaging for women entrepreneurs; it's potentially
42 damaging for society as a whole.
———
De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que
A)o número de propostas feitas por mulheres representava um terço do total de pedidos de investimento.
B)em virtude dos estereótipos de gênero, somente 16 das candidatas receberam financiamento.
C)as empreendedoras que foram aprovadas receberam somente 53% do total que requereram.
D)os homens conseguiram mais do que o dobro de financiamento se comparados às mulheres.
E)52% dos requerentes do gênero masculino tiveram seus pedidos de financiamento aprovados.
No Presarium Militares, você resolve essas questões com correção na hora, comentário e um painel que cruza a incidência com o seu desempenho — e monta sua lista de prioridade automaticamente.