Questões de Inglês

In the following sentence, taken from the text: And an 18-year-old black man from Chicago told the president that his brother’s life had been lost, as well as the lives of “countless family and friends” to gun violence, the boldfaced fragment shows:

WASHINGTON — In an intense but civil town-hall-style event broadcast live on television, gun rights activists repeatedly pressed President Obama on Thursday night to justify his gun control efforts, putting him on the defensive over an issue that has divided the nation’s capital and the presidential campaign trail.

The blunt exchanges came on the same day that Mr. Obama pledged in an Op-Ed article published by The New York Times that he would not “campaign for, vote for or support” any candidates, including Democrats, who do not support “commonsense” gun control measures. 

Taken together, the twin publicrelations efforts reflect the president’s desire to demonstrate for his supporters a commitment to gun control even as he seeks to reassure gun owners that he has no intention of seizing their weapons. 

In the article, Mr. Obama urged Americans who agree with him on gun control measures to join him in pushing to elect new lawmakers in Congress. 

He said the effort to confront gun violence would require the same “relentless focus” of civil rights campaigns in the past.

“We need the vast majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us after every mass shooting, who support common-sense gun safety and who feel that their views are not being properly represented, to stand with us and demand that leaders heed the voices of the people they are supposed to represent,” Mr.Obama wrote.

Aides to the president have long been frustrated that his push for new gun laws — which began in the days after the Sandy HookElementary School massacre in 2012 — has been characterized by some gun rights activists as part of a conspiracy intended to seize their guns and take away their freedom.

The bluntness of the questioners selected by CNN, which proposed and moderated the forum, created an environment for Mr. Obama that is rare for a president who is more often surrounded by loyal aides, allies and handpicked supporters.

But it also served a purpose that White House officials said they wanted: to let Mr. Obama respond to what he believes are incorrect or misleading arguments about his positions.

Mr. Obama was polite but firm throughout the event, insisting that his efforts to improve the existing background check system would have no real effect on the ability to purchase guns. He rejected accusations that he wants to confiscate guns, calling that a ridiculous idea.

The session was held at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., a suburb of Washington. In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama urged firearm owners, hunters and other gun rights activists to join him in support of tougher laws that would target criminals while preserving the Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Doing otherwise, the president said, would condemn the United States to continue suffering through mass shootings, suicides, gang violence, domestic abuse and accidental shootings that have killed tens of thousands of Americans.

In his Op-Ed article, Mr. Obama was unsparing in his criticism of gun manufacturers and their allies, accusing the industry of being “almost entirely unaccountable” for gun violence, and he said Americans needed to stand up to “the gun lobby’s lies.”

The presence at the event of gun rights advocates was expected to lead to sharp exchanges, and the session did just that.

But the forum also provided an opportunity for supporters of Mr. Obama’s position to express their views. A priest from a Chicago church thanked Mr. Obama for his efforts to expand background checks. And an 18-year-old black man from Chicago told the president that his brother’s life had been lost, as well as the lives of “countless family and friends” to gun violence. He asked for Mr. Obama’s advice about growing up surrounded by poverty and violence. Mr. Obama urged him to be a role model and to resist peer pressure. 

“You’re really important to the future of this country,” Mr. Obama said, but he added that “I think it is critical in this debate to understand that it’s not just inner-city kids who are at risk in these situations.”

(Adapted from www.nytimes.com , January, 7th, 2016)

In the following words: relentless, bluntness, environment and accountable, all taken from the text, which boldfaced endings are suffixes?

WASHINGTON — In an intense but civil town-hall-style event broadcast live on television, gun rights activists repeatedly pressed President Obama on Thursday night to justify his gun control efforts, putting him on the defensive over an issue that has divided the nation’s capital and the presidential campaign trail.

The blunt exchanges came on the same day that Mr. Obama pledged in an Op-Ed article published by The New York Times that he would not “campaign for, vote for or support” any candidates, including Democrats, who do not support “commonsense” gun control measures. 

Taken together, the twin publicrelations efforts reflect the president’s desire to demonstrate for his supporters a commitment to gun control even as he seeks to reassure gun owners that he has no intention of seizing their weapons. 

In the article, Mr. Obama urged Americans who agree with him on gun control measures to join him in pushing to elect new lawmakers in Congress. 

He said the effort to confront gun violence would require the same “relentless focus” of civil rights campaigns in the past.

“We need the vast majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us after every mass shooting, who support common-sense gun safety and who feel that their views are not being properly represented, to stand with us and demand that leaders heed the voices of the people they are supposed to represent,” Mr.Obama wrote.

Aides to the president have long been frustrated that his push for new gun laws — which began in the days after the Sandy HookElementary School massacre in 2012 — has been characterized by some gun rights activists as part of a conspiracy intended to seize their guns and take away their freedom.

The bluntness of the questioners selected by CNN, which proposed and moderated the forum, created an environment for Mr. Obama that is rare for a president who is more often surrounded by loyal aides, allies and handpicked supporters.

But it also served a purpose that White House officials said they wanted: to let Mr. Obama respond to what he believes are incorrect or misleading arguments about his positions.

Mr. Obama was polite but firm throughout the event, insisting that his efforts to improve the existing background check system would have no real effect on the ability to purchase guns. He rejected accusations that he wants to confiscate guns, calling that a ridiculous idea.

The session was held at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., a suburb of Washington. In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama urged firearm owners, hunters and other gun rights activists to join him in support of tougher laws that would target criminals while preserving the Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Doing otherwise, the president said, would condemn the United States to continue suffering through mass shootings, suicides, gang violence, domestic abuse and accidental shootings that have killed tens of thousands of Americans.

In his Op-Ed article, Mr. Obama was unsparing in his criticism of gun manufacturers and their allies, accusing the industry of being “almost entirely unaccountable” for gun violence, and he said Americans needed to stand up to “the gun lobby’s lies.”

The presence at the event of gun rights advocates was expected to lead to sharp exchanges, and the session did just that.

But the forum also provided an opportunity for supporters of Mr. Obama’s position to express their views. A priest from a Chicago church thanked Mr. Obama for his efforts to expand background checks. And an 18-year-old black man from Chicago told the president that his brother’s life had been lost, as well as the lives of “countless family and friends” to gun violence. He asked for Mr. Obama’s advice about growing up surrounded by poverty and violence. Mr. Obama urged him to be a role model and to resist peer pressure. 

“You’re really important to the future of this country,” Mr. Obama said, but he added that “I think it is critical in this debate to understand that it’s not just inner-city kids who are at risk in these situations.”

(Adapted from www.nytimes.com , January, 7th, 2016)

To which group of people is Mr. Obama pleading for backing?

WASHINGTON — In an intense but civil town-hall-style event broadcast live on television, gun rights activists repeatedly pressed President Obama on Thursday night to justify his gun control efforts, putting him on the defensive over an issue that has divided the nation’s capital and the presidential campaign trail.

The blunt exchanges came on the same day that Mr. Obama pledged in an Op-Ed article published by The New York Times that he would not “campaign for, vote for or support” any candidates, including Democrats, who do not support “commonsense” gun control measures. 

Taken together, the twin publicrelations efforts reflect the president’s desire to demonstrate for his supporters a commitment to gun control even as he seeks to reassure gun owners that he has no intention of seizing their weapons. 

In the article, Mr. Obama urged Americans who agree with him on gun control measures to join him in pushing to elect new lawmakers in Congress. 

He said the effort to confront gun violence would require the same “relentless focus” of civil rights campaigns in the past.

“We need the vast majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us after every mass shooting, who support common-sense gun safety and who feel that their views are not being properly represented, to stand with us and demand that leaders heed the voices of the people they are supposed to represent,” Mr.Obama wrote.

Aides to the president have long been frustrated that his push for new gun laws — which began in the days after the Sandy HookElementary School massacre in 2012 — has been characterized by some gun rights activists as part of a conspiracy intended to seize their guns and take away their freedom.

The bluntness of the questioners selected by CNN, which proposed and moderated the forum, created an environment for Mr. Obama that is rare for a president who is more often surrounded by loyal aides, allies and handpicked supporters.

But it also served a purpose that White House officials said they wanted: to let Mr. Obama respond to what he believes are incorrect or misleading arguments about his positions.

Mr. Obama was polite but firm throughout the event, insisting that his efforts to improve the existing background check system would have no real effect on the ability to purchase guns. He rejected accusations that he wants to confiscate guns, calling that a ridiculous idea.

The session was held at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., a suburb of Washington. In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama urged firearm owners, hunters and other gun rights activists to join him in support of tougher laws that would target criminals while preserving the Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Doing otherwise, the president said, would condemn the United States to continue suffering through mass shootings, suicides, gang violence, domestic abuse and accidental shootings that have killed tens of thousands of Americans.

In his Op-Ed article, Mr. Obama was unsparing in his criticism of gun manufacturers and their allies, accusing the industry of being “almost entirely unaccountable” for gun violence, and he said Americans needed to stand up to “the gun lobby’s lies.”

The presence at the event of gun rights advocates was expected to lead to sharp exchanges, and the session did just that.

But the forum also provided an opportunity for supporters of Mr. Obama’s position to express their views. A priest from a Chicago church thanked Mr. Obama for his efforts to expand background checks. And an 18-year-old black man from Chicago told the president that his brother’s life had been lost, as well as the lives of “countless family and friends” to gun violence. He asked for Mr. Obama’s advice about growing up surrounded by poverty and violence. Mr. Obama urged him to be a role model and to resist peer pressure. 

“You’re really important to the future of this country,” Mr. Obama said, but he added that “I think it is critical in this debate to understand that it’s not just inner-city kids who are at risk in these situations.”

(Adapted from www.nytimes.com , January, 7th, 2016)

 

The article above:

The science myths that will not die

False beliefs and wishful thinking about the human experience are common. They are hurting people — and holding back science.

 

In 1997, physicians in southwest Korea began to offer ultrasound screening for early detection of thyroid cancer. News of the programme spread, and soon physicians around the region began to offer the service. Eventually it went nationwide, piggybacking on a government initiative to screen for other cancers. Hundreds of thousands took the test for just US$30–50.

Across the country, detection of thyroid cancer soared, from 5 cases per 100,000 people in 1999 to 70 per 100,000 in 2011. Two-thirds of those diagnosed had their thyroid glands removed and were placed on lifelong drug regimens, both of which carry risks.

Such a costly and extensive publichealth programme might be expected to save lives. Yet, this one did not. Thyroid cancer is now the most common type of cancer diagnosed in South Korea, but the number of people who die from it has remained exactly the same — about 1 per 100,000. Even when some physicians in Korea realized that, and suggested that thyroid screening be stopped in 2014, the Korean Thyroid Association, a professional society of endocrinologists and thyroid surgeons, argued that screening and treatment were basic human rights. In Korea, as elsewhere, the idea that the early detection of any cancer saves lives had become an unshakeable belief.

This blind faith in cancer screening is an example of how ideas about human biology and behaviour can persist among people — including scientists — even though the scientific evidence shows the concepts to be false. “Scientists think they’re too objective to believe in something as folklore-ish as a myth,” says Nicholas Spitzer, director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at the University of California, San Diego. Yet they do.

These myths often blossom from a seed of a fact — early detection does save lives for some cancers — and thrive on human desires or anxieties, such as a fear of death. But they can do harm by, for instance, driving people to pursue unnecessary treatment or spend money on unproven products. They can also derail or forestall promising research by distracting scientists or monopolizing funding. And dispelling them is tricky.

Scientists should work to discredit myths, but they also have a responsibility to try to prevent new ones from arising, says Paul Howard-Jones, who studies neuroscience and education at the University of Bristol, UK. “We need to look deeper to understand how they come about in the first place and why they’re so prevalent and persistent.”

Some dangerous myths get plenty of air time: vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. But many others swirl about, too, harming people, sucking up money, muddying the scientific enterprise — or simply getting on scientists’ nerves.

Once a myth is here, it is often here to stay. Psychological studies suggest that the very act of attempting to dispel a myth leads to stronger attachment to it. In one experiment, exposure to pro-vaccination messages reduced parents’ intention to vaccinate their children in the United States. In another, correcting misleading claims from politicians increased false beliefs among those who already held them. “Myths are almost impossible to eradicate,” says Spitzer. “The more you disprove it, often the more hard core it becomes.”

(adapted from www.nature.com, December, 16th 2015)

The pronoun them, boldfaced in the sentence “And dispelling them is tricky”, refers to:

The science myths that will not die

False beliefs and wishful thinking about the human experience are common. They are hurting people — and holding back science.

 

In 1997, physicians in southwest Korea began to offer ultrasound screening for early detection of thyroid cancer. News of the programme spread, and soon physicians around the region began to offer the service. Eventually it went nationwide, piggybacking on a government initiative to screen for other cancers. Hundreds of thousands took the test for just US$30–50.

Across the country, detection of thyroid cancer soared, from 5 cases per 100,000 people in 1999 to 70 per 100,000 in 2011. Two-thirds of those diagnosed had their thyroid glands removed and were placed on lifelong drug regimens, both of which carry risks.

Such a costly and extensive publichealth programme might be expected to save lives. Yet, this one did not. Thyroid cancer is now the most common type of cancer diagnosed in South Korea, but the number of people who die from it has remained exactly the same — about 1 per 100,000. Even when some physicians in Korea realized that, and suggested that thyroid screening be stopped in 2014, the Korean Thyroid Association, a professional society of endocrinologists and thyroid surgeons, argued that screening and treatment were basic human rights. In Korea, as elsewhere, the idea that the early detection of any cancer saves lives had become an unshakeable belief.

This blind faith in cancer screening is an example of how ideas about human biology and behaviour can persist among people — including scientists — even though the scientific evidence shows the concepts to be false. “Scientists think they’re too objective to believe in something as folklore-ish as a myth,” says Nicholas Spitzer, director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at the University of California, San Diego. Yet they do.

These myths often blossom from a seed of a fact — early detection does save lives for some cancers — and thrive on human desires or anxieties, such as a fear of death. But they can do harm by, for instance, driving people to pursue unnecessary treatment or spend money on unproven products. They can also derail or forestall promising research by distracting scientists or monopolizing funding. And dispelling them is tricky.

Scientists should work to discredit myths, but they also have a responsibility to try to prevent new ones from arising, says Paul Howard-Jones, who studies neuroscience and education at the University of Bristol, UK. “We need to look deeper to understand how they come about in the first place and why they’re so prevalent and persistent.”

Some dangerous myths get plenty of air time: vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. But many others swirl about, too, harming people, sucking up money, muddying the scientific enterprise — or simply getting on scientists’ nerves.

Once a myth is here, it is often here to stay. Psychological studies suggest that the very act of attempting to dispel a myth leads to stronger attachment to it. In one experiment, exposure to pro-vaccination messages reduced parents’ intention to vaccinate their children in the United States. In another, correcting misleading claims from politicians increased false beliefs among those who already held them. “Myths are almost impossible to eradicate,” says Spitzer. “The more you disprove it, often the more hard core it becomes.”

(adapted from www.nature.com, December, 16th 2015)

The verbs blossom, thrive, derail, and dispel, boldfaced in the text are, respectively: