Questões de Inglês

os possuidores/ os não possuidores.

The text allows us to infer that it brings to the reader

Las Vegas was the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history. Here's why 'modern' is so important

In the days since Sunday's shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas, as Americans have struggled to comprehend the meaning of the event, one fact has been a stark reminder of the act's impact: that, with at least 59 dead and more than 520 injured, it was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

That phrasing has been inescapable this week, but it also raises a question: in this context, what does modern mean and why does that descriptor matter?

That word's inclusion is key because mass deaths caused by guns have long been a part of American history. But describing those events and recent ones accurately is more complicated than simply drawing a chronological line between them.

"Mass shooting is really a new name for a very old, familiar problem," says criminologist Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History.

On Easter Sunday of 1873 in Colfax, La., white citizens gunned down and hung perhaps as many as 150 African Americans. On Dec. 29, 1890, U.S. Army soldiers killed 200 Lakota Native Americans with machine guns at South Dakota's Wounded Knee Creek. And some historians now believe that more than 300 people died in Tulsa, Okla., between May 31 and June 1, 1921, when whites torched the area's African-American neighborhoods, driving out victims like Mary J. Parrish, who described fleeing with her baby daughter in hand "amidst showers of bullets from the machine gun."

Then why separate modern American history from what came before? Why not include all of these events on a given list?

In practical terms, one reason is that it's difficult to determine the exact number of victims murdered in the 19th century — a problem that persists today, too. There's also a vocabulary issue, as different words used to describe similar events can affect perceptions of their significance. "The mid-2000s is around the time that the phrase 'mass shootings' started being used more and more," Duwe says, "whereas during the 1980s and the 1990s, the phrase 'mass murder' is used." (His research uses the term mass public shooting to describe incidents in which four or more victims are killed with a gun in a public location.)

And on a deeper level, the matter of who the victims are underscores why terms like "modern" are used to clarify statements about shootings, as a reminder that even if earlier such events are hard to count they did happen.

Many have argued this week and in the past that events like the Colfax Massacre and Wounded Knee are seen as separate because, within American history, the deaths of Native Americans and African Americans have not been seen the same as the deaths of white people — and that failing to specify "modern" history while talking about events like Las Vegas only underscores that idea by implying that earlier shootings don't count. That goes for other minority groups too: For example, on Sept. 2, 1885, white miners in Wyoming went after Chinese miners with guns and hatchets and torched their neighborhoods, killing at least 28 by some counts in what's known as the Rock Springs massacre.

The fact that the earlier shootings in question targeted minorities illustrates what Duwe says is a noteworthy shift in the motives for such crimes.

"Prior to the 20th century a lot of mass killings were [orchestrated by] the 'haves' murdering the 'have nots,'" he says. In more recent history, "what we’ve seen is people who have perceived themselves as 'have-nots' murdering those they perceive as the 'haves.'"

This shift fosters perception that there are two separate eras of mass shootings, "modern" and pre-modern, even though they are all examples of times when many people were killed by guns. It also means, Duwe points out, that many of these earlier cases were tacitly or explicitly condoned — the killers were the ones in power, after all — so criminal charges were rare.

That's not to say that mass public shootings of the "modern" type didn't exist before the last few decades. As Duwe notes, increased urbanization after the industrial revolution is correlated with a rise in mass public shootings, because cities mean more people tend to be together in a close area, and such events go back at least to the beginning of the 20th century. For example, a man named Gilbert Twigg killed nine when he fired into a crowd at a concert in Winfield, Kans., in 1903, an event the New York Times called a massacre.

These two types of mass shootings — by haves and have-nots — thus overlap chronologically, raising the question of where to draw the line for the beginning of modern American history. One possible starting point could be the 1966 Texas Tower shooting. Because that event was captured on television and came following a period of relative domestic tranquility, in terms of violent crime in the U.S., it felt to many people as if it were an "unprecedented" new phenomenon, Duwe says.

According to his research, there have been more than 180 mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1900, but the vast majority of them (more than 80%) have taken place since 1966.

And yet it's clear that there's no easy way to compare current atrocities to past ones, especially as news stories continue to evolve. One solution to the problem was proposed in the wake of the 2016 mass public shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists: avoiding such superlatives completely, as comparing a new tragedy to those in history "does it no justice."

Adapted from: http://time.com/4968108/las-vegas-deadliest-shooting-modern-us-history/?xid=homepage. Acesso em out. 2017.

Leia o trecho abaixo, retirado do texto.

 

"Prior to the 20th century a lot of mass killings were [orchestrated by] the 'haves' murdering the 'have nots,'" he says. In more recent history, "what we’ve seen is people who have perceived themselves as 'have-nots' murdering those they perceive as the 'haves.'"

No contexto do texto, os termos que aparecem em destaque no trecho acima são melhor traduzidos po

Las Vegas was the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history. Here's why 'modern' is so important

In the days since Sunday's shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas, as Americans have struggled to comprehend the meaning of the event, one fact has been a stark reminder of the act's impact: that, with at least 59 dead and more than 520 injured, it was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

That phrasing has been inescapable this week, but it also raises a question: in this context, what does modern mean and why does that descriptor matter?

That word's inclusion is key because mass deaths caused by guns have long been a part of American history. But describing those events and recent ones accurately is more complicated than simply drawing a chronological line between them.

"Mass shooting is really a new name for a very old, familiar problem," says criminologist Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History.

On Easter Sunday of 1873 in Colfax, La., white citizens gunned down and hung perhaps as many as 150 African Americans. On Dec. 29, 1890, U.S. Army soldiers killed 200 Lakota Native Americans with machine guns at South Dakota's Wounded Knee Creek. And some historians now believe that more than 300 people died in Tulsa, Okla., between May 31 and June 1, 1921, when whites torched the area's African-American neighborhoods, driving out victims like Mary J. Parrish, who described fleeing with her baby daughter in hand "amidst showers of bullets from the machine gun."

Then why separate modern American history from what came before? Why not include all of these events on a given list?

In practical terms, one reason is that it's difficult to determine the exact number of victims murdered in the 19th century — a problem that persists today, too. There's also a vocabulary issue, as different words used to describe similar events can affect perceptions of their significance. "The mid-2000s is around the time that the phrase 'mass shootings' started being used more and more," Duwe says, "whereas during the 1980s and the 1990s, the phrase 'mass murder' is used." (His research uses the term mass public shooting to describe incidents in which four or more victims are killed with a gun in a public location.)

And on a deeper level, the matter of who the victims are underscores why terms like "modern" are used to clarify statements about shootings, as a reminder that even if earlier such events are hard to count they did happen.

Many have argued this week and in the past that events like the Colfax Massacre and Wounded Knee are seen as separate because, within American history, the deaths of Native Americans and African Americans have not been seen the same as the deaths of white people — and that failing to specify "modern" history while talking about events like Las Vegas only underscores that idea by implying that earlier shootings don't count. That goes for other minority groups too: For example, on Sept. 2, 1885, white miners in Wyoming went after Chinese miners with guns and hatchets and torched their neighborhoods, killing at least 28 by some counts in what's known as the Rock Springs massacre.

The fact that the earlier shootings in question targeted minorities illustrates what Duwe says is a noteworthy shift in the motives for such crimes.

"Prior to the 20th century a lot of mass killings were [orchestrated by] the 'haves' murdering the 'have nots,'" he says. In more recent history, "what we’ve seen is people who have perceived themselves as 'have-nots' murdering those they perceive as the 'haves.'"

This shift fosters perception that there are two separate eras of mass shootings, "modern" and pre-modern, even though they are all examples of times when many people were killed by guns. It also means, Duwe points out, that many of these earlier cases were tacitly or explicitly condoned — the killers were the ones in power, after all — so criminal charges were rare.

That's not to say that mass public shootings of the "modern" type didn't exist before the last few decades. As Duwe notes, increased urbanization after the industrial revolution is correlated with a rise in mass public shootings, because cities mean more people tend to be together in a close area, and such events go back at least to the beginning of the 20th century. For example, a man named Gilbert Twigg killed nine when he fired into a crowd at a concert in Winfield, Kans., in 1903, an event the New York Times called a massacre.

These two types of mass shootings — by haves and have-nots — thus overlap chronologically, raising the question of where to draw the line for the beginning of modern American history. One possible starting point could be the 1966 Texas Tower shooting. Because that event was captured on television and came following a period of relative domestic tranquility, in terms of violent crime in the U.S., it felt to many people as if it were an "unprecedented" new phenomenon, Duwe says.

According to his research, there have been more than 180 mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1900, but the vast majority of them (more than 80%) have taken place since 1966.

And yet it's clear that there's no easy way to compare current atrocities to past ones, especially as news stories continue to evolve. One solution to the problem was proposed in the wake of the 2016 mass public shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists: avoiding such superlatives completely, as comparing a new tragedy to those in history "does it no justice."

Adapted from: http://time.com/4968108/las-vegas-deadliest-shooting-modern-us-history/?xid=homepage. Acesso em out. 2017.

Read the following statements.

 

I. Deaths caused by guns always made part of American history.

II. The researchers surely said it is possible to determine that more people were killed in the 19th century than in the 20th century.

III. In the 80s and 90s decades, the term mass murder was used to describe incidents which more than four people were killed with a gun.

IV. In American history, the events which involved deaths of Native and African Americans have had the same significance as the deaths of white people.

V. Mass public shootings did not exist before the last few decades.

Which choice contains only true alternatives, according to the text?

In breakthrough, scientists edit a dangerous mutation from genes in human embryos

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists have long feared the unforeseen medical consequences of making inherited changes to human DNA. The cultural implications may be just as disturbing: Some experts have warned that unregulated genetic engineering may lead to a new form of eugenics, in which people with means pay to have children with enhanced traits even as those with disabilities are devalued.

“We’ve always said in the past gene editing shouldn’t be done, mostly because it couldn’t be done safely,” said Richard Hynes, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s still true, but now it looks like it’s going to be done safely soon,” he said, adding that the research is “a big breakthrough.

Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, with colleagues in California, China and South Korea, reported that they repaired dozens of embryos, fixing a mutation that causes a common heart condition that can lead to sudden death later in life.

If embryos with the repaired mutation were allowed to develop into babies, they would not only be disease-free but also would not transmit the disease to descendants.

The researchers avert two important safety problems: They produced embryos in which all cells — not just some — were mutation-free, and they avoided creating unwanted extra mutations.

Much more research is needed before the method could be tested in clinical trials, currently impermissible under federal law. But if the technique is found to work safely with this and other mutations, it might help some couples who could not otherwise have healthy children.

The researchers also discovered something unexpected: a previously unknown way that embryos repair themselves. In other cells in the body, the editing process is carried out by genes that copy a DNA template introduced by scientists. In these embryos, the sperm cell’s mutant gene ignored that template and instead copied the healthy DNA sequence from the egg cell.

And some embryos had cells that did not get repaired — a phenomenon called mosaicism that could result in the mutation being passed on — as well as unplanned mutations that could cause other health problems.

In February, a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee endorsed modifying embryos, but only to correct mutations that cause “a serious disease or condition” and when no “reasonable alternatives” exist.

Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University, said the main uncertainty about the new technique was whether “reasonable alternatives” to gene editing already exist.

As the authors themselves noted, many couples use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to screen embryos at fertility clinics, allowing only healthy ones to be implanted. For these parents, gene editing could help by repairing mutant embryos so that more disease-free embryos would be available for implantation.

The larger issue is so-called germline engineering, which refers to changes made to embryo that are inheritable.

“If you’re in one camp, it’s a horror to be avoided, and if you’re in the other camp, it’s desirable,” Dr. Greely said.

“That’s going to continue to be the fight, whether it’s a feature or a bug.”

For now, the fight is theoretical. Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from considering clinical trials involving germline engineering.

The authors say they hope that once the method is optimized and studied with other mutations, officials in the United States or another country will allow regulated clinical trials.

Adapted from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html?emc=eta1. Acesso em out. 2017.

Considerando o texto em questão, leia as afirmativas apresentadas abaixo.

 

I. A técnica estudada não funcionará caso ambos os pais tenham cópias genéticas defeituosas.

II. Foi endossada a modificação de embriões, mas somente para corrigir mutações que poderiam causar “uma doença ou condição séria” e quando não houver “alternativa razoável”.

III. Foi proibido o fomento de pesquisa de edição de genes em embriões humanos.

IV. Muitos casais usam o diagnóstico genético pré-implantação para selecionar embriões em clínicas de fertilização, garantindo que somente os saudáveis possam ser implantados.

V. Os autores do estudo não sabem explicar a razão pela qual o gene masculino copiou a sequência genética saudável do gene feminino.

VI. Os pesquisadores descobriram que alguns embriões tinham células que não foram reparadas.

NÃO são informações apresentadas no texto aquelas que aparecem em

In breakthrough, scientists edit a dangerous mutation from genes in human embryos

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists have long feared the unforeseen medical consequences of making inherited changes to human DNA. The cultural implications may be just as disturbing: Some experts have warned that unregulated genetic engineering may lead to a new form of eugenics, in which people with means pay to have children with enhanced traits even as those with disabilities are devalued.

“We’ve always said in the past gene editing shouldn’t be done, mostly because it couldn’t be done safely,” said Richard Hynes, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s still true, but now it looks like it’s going to be done safely soon,” he said, adding that the research is “a big breakthrough.

Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, with colleagues in California, China and South Korea, reported that they repaired dozens of embryos, fixing a mutation that causes a common heart condition that can lead to sudden death later in life.

If embryos with the repaired mutation were allowed to develop into babies, they would not only be disease-free but also would not transmit the disease to descendants.

The researchers avert two important safety problems: They produced embryos in which all cells — not just some — were mutation-free, and they avoided creating unwanted extra mutations.

Much more research is needed before the method could be tested in clinical trials, currently impermissible under federal law. But if the technique is found to work safely with this and other mutations, it might help some couples who could not otherwise have healthy children.

The researchers also discovered something unexpected: a previously unknown way that embryos repair themselves. In other cells in the body, the editing process is carried out by genes that copy a DNA template introduced by scientists. In these embryos, the sperm cell’s mutant gene ignored that template and instead copied the healthy DNA sequence from the egg cell.

And some embryos had cells that did not get repaired — a phenomenon called mosaicism that could result in the mutation being passed on — as well as unplanned mutations that could cause other health problems.

In February, a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee endorsed modifying embryos, but only to correct mutations that cause “a serious disease or condition” and when no “reasonable alternatives” exist.

Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University, said the main uncertainty about the new technique was whether “reasonable alternatives” to gene editing already exist.

As the authors themselves noted, many couples use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to screen embryos at fertility clinics, allowing only healthy ones to be implanted. For these parents, gene editing could help by repairing mutant embryos so that more disease-free embryos would be available for implantation.

The larger issue is so-called germline engineering, which refers to changes made to embryo that are inheritable.

“If you’re in one camp, it’s a horror to be avoided, and if you’re in the other camp, it’s desirable,” Dr. Greely said.

“That’s going to continue to be the fight, whether it’s a feature or a bug.”

For now, the fight is theoretical. Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from considering clinical trials involving germline engineering.

The authors say they hope that once the method is optimized and studied with other mutations, officials in the United States or another country will allow regulated clinical trials.

Adapted from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html?emc=eta1. Acesso em out. 2017.

The researchers also discovered something unexpected:

In breakthrough, scientists edit a dangerous mutation from genes in human embryos

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists for the first time have successfully edited genes in human embryos to repair a common and serious disease-causing mutation, producing apparently healthy embryos.

Scientists have long feared the unforeseen medical consequences of making inherited changes to human DNA. The cultural implications may be just as disturbing: Some experts have warned that unregulated genetic engineering may lead to a new form of eugenics, in which people with means pay to have children with enhanced traits even as those with disabilities are devalued.

“We’ve always said in the past gene editing shouldn’t be done, mostly because it couldn’t be done safely,” said Richard Hynes, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s still true, but now it looks like it’s going to be done safely soon,” he said, adding that the research is “a big breakthrough.

Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, with colleagues in California, China and South Korea, reported that they repaired dozens of embryos, fixing a mutation that causes a common heart condition that can lead to sudden death later in life.

If embryos with the repaired mutation were allowed to develop into babies, they would not only be disease-free but also would not transmit the disease to descendants.

The researchers avert two important safety problems: They produced embryos in which all cells — not just some — were mutation-free, and they avoided creating unwanted extra mutations.

Much more research is needed before the method could be tested in clinical trials, currently impermissible under federal law. But if the technique is found to work safely with this and other mutations, it might help some couples who could not otherwise have healthy children.

The researchers also discovered something unexpected: a previously unknown way that embryos repair themselves. In other cells in the body, the editing process is carried out by genes that copy a DNA template introduced by scientists. In these embryos, the sperm cell’s mutant gene ignored that template and instead copied the healthy DNA sequence from the egg cell.

And some embryos had cells that did not get repaired — a phenomenon called mosaicism that could result in the mutation being passed on — as well as unplanned mutations that could cause other health problems.

In February, a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee endorsed modifying embryos, but only to correct mutations that cause “a serious disease or condition” and when no “reasonable alternatives” exist.

Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University, said the main uncertainty about the new technique was whether “reasonable alternatives” to gene editing already exist.

As the authors themselves noted, many couples use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to screen embryos at fertility clinics, allowing only healthy ones to be implanted. For these parents, gene editing could help by repairing mutant embryos so that more disease-free embryos would be available for implantation.

The larger issue is so-called germline engineering, which refers to changes made to embryo that are inheritable.

“If you’re in one camp, it’s a horror to be avoided, and if you’re in the other camp, it’s desirable,” Dr. Greely said.

“That’s going to continue to be the fight, whether it’s a feature or a bug.”

For now, the fight is theoretical. Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from considering clinical trials involving germline engineering.

The authors say they hope that once the method is optimized and studied with other mutations, officials in the United States or another country will allow regulated clinical trials.

Adapted from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html?emc=eta1. Acesso em out. 2017.

Scientists for the first time have successfully

I. created a disease-free mutation of embryos.

II. developed embryos with a repaired mutation into babies.

III. edited genes in human embryos.

IV. produced apparently healthy embryos.

V. repaired a common and serious disease-causing mutation.

 

In relation to the text, which choice contains only true statements to complete the clause above?