Questões de Inglês

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  

entrepreneurs who write them plays an important but often hidden role in shaping who is awarded funding  

and why.[…] We were given access to government venture capital decision making meetings in Sweden and  

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  

have very real consequences for those seeking funding — and for society in general.  

  […] Worldwide, government venture capital is important for bridging significant financial gaps and  

supporting innovation and growth, as VCs can take risks where banks are not allowed to. When uncertainty is  

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.  

  In Sweden, about one-third of businesses are owned and run by women, although they are not granted  

a corresponding proportion of government funding. In fact, women-owned businesses receive much less — 

only 13%–18%, the rest going to male-owned companies.  

  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  

entrepreneurs applying for funding. […] We observed closed-room, face-to-face discussions leading final  

funding decisions for 125 venture applications. Of these, 99 (79%) were from male entrepreneurs and 26  

(21%) were from female entrepreneurs. The group of government venture capitalists observed included  

seven individuals: two women and five men. […] 

[20]   Aside from a few exceptions, the financiers rhetorically produce stereotypical images of women as  

having qualities opposite to those considered important to being an entrepreneur, with VCs questioning their  

credibility, trustworthiness, experience, and knowledge.  

  Conversely, when assessing male entrepreneurs, financiers leaned on stereotypical beliefs about men  

that reinforced their entrepreneurial potential. Male entrepreneurs were commonly described as being  

[25] assertive, innovative, competent, experienced, knowledgeable, and having established networks.  

  We developed male and female entrepreneur personas based on our findings […]. These personas  

highlight a few key differences in how the entrepreneurs were perceived depending on their gender. Men  

were characterized as having entrepreneurial potential, while the entrepreneurial potential for women was  

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  

viewed as aggressive or arrogant, while women’s experience and excitement were tempered by discussions  

of their emotional shortcomings. Similarly, cautiousness was viewed very differently depending on the gender  

of the entrepreneur.  

  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  

received, on average, 52% of what they asked for. Women were also denied financing to a greater extent 

than men, with close to 53% of women having their applications dismissed, compared with 38% of men. […]  

  Such stereotyping will inevitably influence the distribution of financing, but could also have other major  

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  

businesses that have the highest potential. This isn’t only damaging for women entrepreneurs; it’s potentially  

damaging for society as a whole. 

Fonte: Adaptado de Harvard Business Review . Acesso em: 17 mai. 2017. 

Marque a opção que lista qualidades expostas no texto que foram colocadas em dúvida em relação às empreendedoras.

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  

entrepreneurs who write them plays an important but often hidden role in shaping who is awarded funding  

and why.[…] We were given access to government venture capital decision making meetings in Sweden and  

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  

have very real consequences for those seeking funding — and for society in general.  

  […] Worldwide, government venture capital is important for bridging significant financial gaps and  

supporting innovation and growth, as VCs can take risks where banks are not allowed to. When uncertainty is  

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.  

  In Sweden, about one-third of businesses are owned and run by women, although they are not granted  

a corresponding proportion of government funding. In fact, women-owned businesses receive much less — 

only 13%–18%, the rest going to male-owned companies.  

  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  

entrepreneurs applying for funding. […] We observed closed-room, face-to-face discussions leading final  

funding decisions for 125 venture applications. Of these, 99 (79%) were from male entrepreneurs and 26  

(21%) were from female entrepreneurs. The group of government venture capitalists observed included  

seven individuals: two women and five men. […] 

[20]   Aside from a few exceptions, the financiers rhetorically produce stereotypical images of women as  

having qualities opposite to those considered important to being an entrepreneur, with VCs questioning their  

credibility, trustworthiness, experience, and knowledge.  

  Conversely, when assessing male entrepreneurs, financiers leaned on stereotypical beliefs about men  

that reinforced their entrepreneurial potential. Male entrepreneurs were commonly described as being  

[25] assertive, innovative, competent, experienced, knowledgeable, and having established networks.  

  We developed male and female entrepreneur personas based on our findings […]. These personas  

highlight a few key differences in how the entrepreneurs were perceived depending on their gender. Men  

were characterized as having entrepreneurial potential, while the entrepreneurial potential for women was  

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  

viewed as aggressive or arrogant, while women’s experience and excitement were tempered by discussions  

of their emotional shortcomings. Similarly, cautiousness was viewed very differently depending on the gender  

of the entrepreneur.  

  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  

received, on average, 52% of what they asked for. Women were also denied financing to a greater extent 

than men, with close to 53% of women having their applications dismissed, compared with 38% of men. […]  

  Such stereotyping will inevitably influence the distribution of financing, but could also have other major  

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  

businesses that have the highest potential. This isn’t only damaging for women entrepreneurs; it’s potentially  

damaging for society as a whole. 

Fonte: Adaptado de Harvard Business Review . Acesso em: 17 mai. 2017. 

De acordo com as observações dos pesquisadores, para os investidores (VCs)

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  

entrepreneurs who write them plays an important but often hidden role in shaping who is awarded funding  

and why.[…] We were given access to government venture capital decision making meetings in Sweden and  

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  

have very real consequences for those seeking funding — and for society in general.  

  […] Worldwide, government venture capital is important for bridging significant financial gaps and  

supporting innovation and growth, as VCs can take risks where banks are not allowed to. When uncertainty is  

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.  

  In Sweden, about one-third of businesses are owned and run by women, although they are not granted  

a corresponding proportion of government funding. In fact, women-owned businesses receive much less — 

only 13%–18%, the rest going to male-owned companies.  

  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  

entrepreneurs applying for funding. […] We observed closed-room, face-to-face discussions leading final  

funding decisions for 125 venture applications. Of these, 99 (79%) were from male entrepreneurs and 26  

(21%) were from female entrepreneurs. The group of government venture capitalists observed included  

seven individuals: two women and five men. […] 

[20]   Aside from a few exceptions, the financiers rhetorically produce stereotypical images of women as  

having qualities opposite to those considered important to being an entrepreneur, with VCs questioning their  

credibility, trustworthiness, experience, and knowledge.  

  Conversely, when assessing male entrepreneurs, financiers leaned on stereotypical beliefs about men  

that reinforced their entrepreneurial potential. Male entrepreneurs were commonly described as being  

[25] assertive, innovative, competent, experienced, knowledgeable, and having established networks.  

  We developed male and female entrepreneur personas based on our findings […]. These personas  

highlight a few key differences in how the entrepreneurs were perceived depending on their gender. Men  

were characterized as having entrepreneurial potential, while the entrepreneurial potential for women was  

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  

viewed as aggressive or arrogant, while women’s experience and excitement were tempered by discussions  

of their emotional shortcomings. Similarly, cautiousness was viewed very differently depending on the gender  

of the entrepreneur.  

  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  

received, on average, 52% of what they asked for. Women were also denied financing to a greater extent 

than men, with close to 53% of women having their applications dismissed, compared with 38% of men. […]  

  Such stereotyping will inevitably influence the distribution of financing, but could also have other major  

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  

businesses that have the highest potential. This isn’t only damaging for women entrepreneurs; it’s potentially  

damaging for society as a whole. 

Fonte: Adaptado de Harvard Business Review . Acesso em: 17 mai. 2017. 

De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que

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  

entrepreneurs who write them plays an important but often hidden role in shaping who is awarded funding  

and why.[…] We were given access to government venture capital decision making meetings in Sweden and  

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  

have very real consequences for those seeking funding — and for society in general.  

  […] Worldwide, government venture capital is important for bridging significant financial gaps and  

supporting innovation and growth, as VCs can take risks where banks are not allowed to. When uncertainty is  

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.  

  In Sweden, about one-third of businesses are owned and run by women, although they are not granted  

a corresponding proportion of government funding. In fact, women-owned businesses receive much less — 

only 13%–18%, the rest going to male-owned companies.  

  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  

entrepreneurs applying for funding. […] We observed closed-room, face-to-face discussions leading final  

funding decisions for 125 venture applications. Of these, 99 (79%) were from male entrepreneurs and 26  

(21%) were from female entrepreneurs. The group of government venture capitalists observed included  

seven individuals: two women and five men. […] 

[20]   Aside from a few exceptions, the financiers rhetorically produce stereotypical images of women as  

having qualities opposite to those considered important to being an entrepreneur, with VCs questioning their  

credibility, trustworthiness, experience, and knowledge.  

  Conversely, when assessing male entrepreneurs, financiers leaned on stereotypical beliefs about men  

that reinforced their entrepreneurial potential. Male entrepreneurs were commonly described as being  

[25] assertive, innovative, competent, experienced, knowledgeable, and having established networks.  

  We developed male and female entrepreneur personas based on our findings […]. These personas  

highlight a few key differences in how the entrepreneurs were perceived depending on their gender. Men  

were characterized as having entrepreneurial potential, while the entrepreneurial potential for women was  

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  

viewed as aggressive or arrogant, while women’s experience and excitement were tempered by discussions  

of their emotional shortcomings. Similarly, cautiousness was viewed very differently depending on the gender  

of the entrepreneur.  

  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  

received, on average, 52% of what they asked for. Women were also denied financing to a greater extent 

than men, with close to 53% of women having their applications dismissed, compared with 38% of men. […]  

  Such stereotyping will inevitably influence the distribution of financing, but could also have other major  

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  

businesses that have the highest potential. This isn’t only damaging for women entrepreneurs; it’s potentially  

damaging for society as a whole. 

Fonte: Adaptado de Harvard Business Review . Acesso em: 17 mai. 2017. 

De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que

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  

editor at a publishing company. I recently moved from the Nakameguro neighbourhood in Tokyo, where I  

lived for a decade, to a neighbourhood called Fudomae in a different part of town. The rent is cheaper, but  

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  

have been way too embarrassed to admit all this. I was filled with useless pride. But I honestly don’t care  

about things like that any more. The reason is very simple: I’m perfectly happy just as I am. The reason? I got  

rid of most of my material possessions. 

  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  

simple ease of cleaning, it has also led to a more fundamental shift. It’s given me a chance to think about  

what it really means to be happy. 

  We think that the more we have, the happier we will be. We never know what tomorrow might bring, so  

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  

don’t miss out on success. And for you to make money, you need everyone else to spend their money. And  

so it goes. 

  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  

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  

increase my self-worth and lead to a happier life. I loved collecting a lot of useless stuff, and I couldn’t throw  

anything away. I was a natural hoarder of knick-knacks that I thought made me an interesting person. 

At the same time, though, I was always comparing myself with other people who had more or better  

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  

was, and I deserved to be unhappy.  

  My apartment wasn’t horribly messy; if my girlfriend was coming over for the weekend, I could do  

enough tidying up to make it look presentable. On a usual day, however, there were books stacked  

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. 

The closet was crammed with what used to be my favourite clothes, most of which I’d only worn a few 

times. The room was filled with all the things I’d taken up as hobbies and then gotten tired of. A guitar and  

amplifier, covered with dust. Conversational English workbooks I’d planned to study once I had more free  

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  

me: “All you did is throw things away,” which is true. But by having fewer things around, I’ve started feeling  

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  

believing your life sucks – I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. […] Everyone wants  

to be happy. But trying to buy happiness only makes us happy for a little while.  

Fonte: adaptado de . Acesso em: 21 mai. 2017.

Marque a opção correta de acordo com o sentido com que os verbos modais sublinhados são empregados no texto.

I. Can living with less make you happier? (título) → para indicar uma possibilidade.

II. We never know what tomorrow might bring, (linha 13) → para indicar um estado contrário à realidade.

III. It may sound as if I’m exaggerating… (linha 35) → para indicar uma probabilidade.

IV. I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. (linha 39) → para dar um conselho.

Estão corretas 

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  

editor at a publishing company. I recently moved from the Nakameguro neighbourhood in Tokyo, where I  

lived for a decade, to a neighbourhood called Fudomae in a different part of town. The rent is cheaper, but  

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  

have been way too embarrassed to admit all this. I was filled with useless pride. But I honestly don’t care  

about things like that any more. The reason is very simple: I’m perfectly happy just as I am. The reason? I got  

rid of most of my material possessions. 

  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  

simple ease of cleaning, it has also led to a more fundamental shift. It’s given me a chance to think about  

what it really means to be happy. 

  We think that the more we have, the happier we will be. We never know what tomorrow might bring, so  

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  

don’t miss out on success. And for you to make money, you need everyone else to spend their money. And  

so it goes. 

  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  

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  

increase my self-worth and lead to a happier life. I loved collecting a lot of useless stuff, and I couldn’t throw  

anything away. I was a natural hoarder of knick-knacks that I thought made me an interesting person. 

At the same time, though, I was always comparing myself with other people who had more or better  

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  

was, and I deserved to be unhappy.  

  My apartment wasn’t horribly messy; if my girlfriend was coming over for the weekend, I could do  

enough tidying up to make it look presentable. On a usual day, however, there were books stacked  

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. 

The closet was crammed with what used to be my favourite clothes, most of which I’d only worn a few 

times. The room was filled with all the things I’d taken up as hobbies and then gotten tired of. A guitar and  

amplifier, covered with dust. Conversational English workbooks I’d planned to study once I had more free  

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  

me: “All you did is throw things away,” which is true. But by having fewer things around, I’ve started feeling  

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  

believing your life sucks – I think you should try saying goodbye to some of your things. […] Everyone wants  

to be happy. But trying to buy happiness only makes us happy for a little while.  

Fonte: adaptado de . Acesso em: 21 mai. 2017.

As palavras sublinhadas nos excertos da coluna I foram utilizadas tendo os referentes respectivamente indicados na coluna II.

Coluna I                                                                                       Coluna II

I. ...it has also led to a more fundamental shift. (linha 11)     living with only the bare essentials

II. …which often made me miserable. (linha 24)                  other people who had more or better things 

III. ...I would read them when I had the time. (linha 30)               my bookshelves

IV. …which of course I had never once … (linha 34)                   a fabulous antique camera

Estão corretas