Questões de Inglês

READ THE FOLLOWING TEXT AND CHOOSE THE OPTION WHICH BEST COMPLETES EACH QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE TEXT:

What selfies really tell us about ourselves

Psychologists, technologists and behavioral economists differ in their interpretations of the selfie and the risks people are prepared to take socially and physically to snap them. But there is general agreement that selfies are a form of expression that may reveal more than the taker intended, no matter how flattering the filter used.

“We are so bombarded by media telling us how we should look and how we should be,” stated Jacquelyn Morie, a researcher at the University of Southern California. “With selfies you have this authority and autonomy that you don’t have in other parts of your life.” She said selfies are essentially avatars and foresees a day when they will be constructed even more to our liking. As we conduct more of our life online she suspects they will become more how we see ourselves than our real selves. Of course, selfies can also create a historical record of our life, if maybe a little better than reality. They show the world what you are doing and who you are with and how incredibly fun it all is. You often hear the refrain, “Selfies or you don’t exist,” which may explain some people’s compulsion to document their actions even if doing so diminishes their experience and engagement in the real world.

The need to be recognised, or even adored, is perhaps why so many have become their own Hollywood directors, attaching cameras to sticks and sometimes drones to improve the production value of their lives. Recent selfie-stick bans have been interpreted by some who study the selfie phenomenon as more a cultural movement in favour of authenticity than the elimination of a possible safety threat. There’s also the argument that rather than conferring power, selfies transfer control to viewers because in the end they are the ones who decide whether to post an encouraging or insulting comment, press “like” or ignore your existence all together.

Moreover, as facial recognition software continues to improve, frequent selfie takers may also be giving away their very identity. The more you post pictures of yourself online, the better companies, government agencies and criminals can identify you, not only online but sitting in a restaurant or walking down the street.

(Adapted from: www.thenewyorktimes.com. Access: 07/03/ 2018.)

Leia a entrevista a seguir e responda à questão.

Vaccines and the Anti-Vaccination Movement: An Interview with Dr. Paul Offit

Lindsay Beyerstein

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia

Beyerstein: What is herd immunity, and what kind of vaccination rate do we need to sustain to keep herd immunity strong for measles?

Offit: Herd immunity just means that enough people are vaccinated in the population so that the virus or the bacteria has a lot of trouble spreading from one person to the next because so many people are vaccinated. In terms of the level of herd immunity that’s necessary, it depends on the nature and contagiousness of the virus or bacteria you’re trying to prevent. For these highly contagious viruses like measles, mumps, or chicken pox, you really need to have between 92 and 94 percent of the population immunized in order to prevent that spread.

For diseases that are less contagious, you don’t need as high of a percentage because what happens is that when herd immunity starts to fade, you see exactly what you’re seeing now—which is the most contagious diseases come back first: measles, mumps, whooping cough. It’s just what you would expect.

Beyerstein: Many of the anti-vaccination parents are well educated and affluent. Why do you think that they’re such fertile ground for these crazy ideas?

Offit: I think they don’t fear the disease. I think it’s that simple. I think in Southern California, you’re living this wealthy, upper middle class, upper-class environment. You’re eating well, you’re exercising. You don’t see this disease so you think this is not going to happen to me, until it happens to you. That’s the way it always works with these diseases.

Beyerstein: There is this group that you’ve identified as the vaccine hesitant parents, and you said that they have a big role to play in improving public health outcomes for vaccinations. Who are they and what can we do to get them on our side?

Offit: Most people, there’s just an anti-vaccine sentiment. They don’t see the disease; they’re not scared of the disease; they’ve read scary stuff on the Internet. They’re not sure what they should do. I think those people are, for the most part, convincible. I think we just have to be a little more compelling in the way we try and convince them.

Beyerstein: Are people more friendly toward, say, polio vaccinations because they know that polio means paralysis? I get the sense that people are less likely to want to refuse that ththem on our side?an a measles vaccine or a diphtheria vaccine, or pertussis, that they don’t even know what the disease really is.

Offit: It’s interesting, isn’t it? People are hesitant to get an HPV vaccine, human papilloma virus vaccine, to prevent a disease that causes twenty-five thousand cases of cancer, four thousand deaths a year. Yet, they’re happy to get a polio vaccine. We haven’t had a case of polio in the United States since 1979. You’re right. I think we’re not very good at judging risk.

Beyerstein: There was an opinion editorial in USA Today recently that was arguing that parents who refuse to vaaccinate for mandatory vaccines should be jailed. Do you think that is acceptable or necessary?

Offit: No, I think that goes too far. We have three ways that you can choose not to get a vaccine in this country and one is a medical exemption. I think that’s fine. I think this so-called personal belief exemption is nonsensical. Vaccines aren’t a belief system. They’re an evidence-based system. There’s abundant evidence that shows they are what they claim to be.

(Adaptado de: BEYERSTEIN, L. Vaccines and the Anti-Vaccination Movement: An Interview with Dr. Paul Offit, Skeptical Inquirer (online) Volume 39.3, Maio/Jun.2015. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 5 jun. 2018.)

Leia a entrevista a seguir e responda à questão.

Vaccines and the Anti-Vaccination Movement: An Interview with Dr. Paul Offit

Lindsay Beyerstein

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia

Beyerstein: What is herd immunity, and what kind of vaccination rate do we need to sustain to keep herd immunity strong for measles?

Offit: Herd immunity just means that enough people are vaccinated in the population so that the virus or the bacteria has a lot of trouble spreading from one person to the next because so many people are vaccinated. In terms of the level of herd immunity that’s necessary, it depends on the nature and contagiousness of the virus or bacteria you’re trying to prevent. For these highly contagious viruses like measles, mumps, or chicken pox, you really need to have between 92 and 94 percent of the population immunized in order to prevent that spread.

For diseases that are less contagious, you don’t need as high of a percentage because what happens is that when herd immunity starts to fade, you see exactly what you’re seeing now—which is the most contagious diseases come back first: measles, mumps, whooping cough. It’s just what you would expect.

Beyerstein: Many of the anti-vaccination parents are well educated and affluent. Why do you think that they’re such fertile ground for these crazy ideas?

Offit: I think they don’t fear the disease. I think it’s that simple. I think in Southern California, you’re living this wealthy, upper middle class, upper-class environment. You’re eating well, you’re exercising. You don’t see this disease so you think this is not going to happen to me, until it happens to you. That’s the way it always works with these diseases.

Beyerstein: There is this group that you’ve identified as the vaccine hesitant parents, and you said that they have a big role to play in improving public health outcomes for vaccinations. Who are they and what can we do to get them on our side?

Offit: Most people, there’s just an anti-vaccine sentiment. They don’t see the disease; they’re not scared of the disease; they’ve read scary stuff on the Internet. They’re not sure what they should do. I think those people are, for the most part, convincible. I think we just have to be a little more compelling in the way we try and convince them.

Beyerstein: Are people more friendly toward, say, polio vaccinations because they know that polio means paralysis? I get the sense that people are less likely to want to refuse that ththem on our side?an a measles vaccine or a diphtheria vaccine, or pertussis, that they don’t even know what the disease really is.

Offit: It’s interesting, isn’t it? People are hesitant to get an HPV vaccine, human papilloma virus vaccine, to prevent a disease that causes twenty-five thousand cases of cancer, four thousand deaths a year. Yet, they’re happy to get a polio vaccine. We haven’t had a case of polio in the United States since 1979. You’re right. I think we’re not very good at judging risk.

Beyerstein: There was an opinion editorial in USA Today recently that was arguing that parents who refuse to vaaccinate for mandatory vaccines should be jailed. Do you think that is acceptable or necessary?

Offit: No, I think that goes too far. We have three ways that you can choose not to get a vaccine in this country and one is a medical exemption. I think that’s fine. I think this so-called personal belief exemption is nonsensical. Vaccines aren’t a belief system. They’re an evidence-based system. There’s abundant evidence that shows they are what they claim to be.

(Adaptado de: BEYERSTEIN, L. Vaccines and the Anti-Vaccination Movement: An Interview with Dr. Paul Offit, Skeptical Inquirer (online) Volume 39.3, Maio/Jun.2015. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 5 jun. 2018.)

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

“Nobody, but nobody, is going to stop breathing on me.”

Today is the birthday of Dr. Virginia Apgar, who has helped make many, many, many birthdays possible. The pioneering doctor lived from June 7, 1909, to August 7, 1974, and is the subject of today’s Google Doodle. You can’t really go through medical school without knowing Apgar’s name, at least her last name. Here’s why

In 1952, Dr. Apgar unveiled the Apgar score. Besides being her last name, Apgar stands for the following five domains “Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration” of the score. Basically 1 minute and 5 minutes after a baby is born, doctors, nurses, and midwives will score the baby from 0 to 2 (with 2 being the best) for each of these domains.

You then sum the 5 domain scores to get a sense of the baby’s overall health. If you do the math, you will see that the total score can range from a 0 to a 10 with a higher score being better. A baby rarely scores a 10, because most babies have at least blue hands and feet when they are born (hey, life ain’t easy and not everyone is the best at everything). A score of 7 or higher is normal. Lower than 7 merits immediate medical attention such as potentially oxygen, clearing out the airway, or physical stimulation to get the heart beating faster. Time may be all that the baby needs, since low scores at 1 minute frequently become normal at 5 minutes. Sometimes a doctor, nurse, or midwife may check an Apgar score 10 minutes after birth if any questions remain.

Of course, an Apgar score is only an immediate assessment and usually does not forecast either good or bad health in the future. So putting your good Apgar score on your resume will impress no one. A high Apgar score doesn’t necessarily mean that everything will be beer and candies from thereon. Similarly babies with low initial Apgar scores can go on to have very healthy lives.

While it may seem routine now, using a standardized way to check a baby’s health was not standard practice before Dr. Apgar invented the score. Newborn care was a lot more haphazard, making survival among infants, especially those born prematurely, more challenging.

It was an accomplishment for Dr. Apgar even to get to a position to make such an important invention. Back when she graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1929 and then from the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1933, the “Apgar” score for the medical careers of women and minorities was very, very low. Very few were even allowed into medical school, let alone progress in their careers afterwards. But Dr. Apgar was a persistent pioneer, eventually becoming the first woman to achieve the rank of full professor at her medical university in 1949. Things aren’t smooth sailing for women and minorities today in medical and academic careers. But you can thank Dr. Apgar for at least making some initial inroads.

Therefore, if you entered this world after the 1950’s (and assuming that you were born rather than spontaneously generated), you can use Dr. Apgar’s birthday to thank Dr. Apgar for people checking you on your birthday.

(Adaptado de: LEE, B. Y. How Today’s Google Doodle, Dr. Virginia Apgar, Made A Big Difference In: Forbes (online) Pharma and Healthcare. 7 jun. 2018. Disponível em: Acesso em: 18 ago. 2018.)

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

“Nobody, but nobody, is going to stop breathing on me.”

Today is the birthday of Dr. Virginia Apgar, who has helped make many, many, many birthdays possible. The pioneering doctor lived from June 7, 1909, to August 7, 1974, and is the subject of today’s Google Doodle. You can’t really go through medical school without knowing Apgar’s name, at least her last name. Here’s why

In 1952, Dr. Apgar unveiled the Apgar score. Besides being her last name, Apgar stands for the following five domains “Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration” of the score. Basically 1 minute and 5 minutes after a baby is born, doctors, nurses, and midwives will score the baby from 0 to 2 (with 2 being the best) for each of these domains.

You then sum the 5 domain scores to get a sense of the baby’s overall health. If you do the math, you will see that the total score can range from a 0 to a 10 with a higher score being better. A baby rarely scores a 10, because most babies have at least blue hands and feet when they are born (hey, life ain’t easy and not everyone is the best at everything). A score of 7 or higher is normal. Lower than 7 merits immediate medical attention such as potentially oxygen, clearing out the airway, or physical stimulation to get the heart beating faster. Time may be all that the baby needs, since low scores at 1 minute frequently become normal at 5 minutes. Sometimes a doctor, nurse, or midwife may check an Apgar score 10 minutes after birth if any questions remain.

Of course, an Apgar score is only an immediate assessment and usually does not forecast either good or bad health in the future. So putting your good Apgar score on your resume will impress no one. A high Apgar score doesn’t necessarily mean that everything will be beer and candies from thereon. Similarly babies with low initial Apgar scores can go on to have very healthy lives.

While it may seem routine now, using a standardized way to check a baby’s health was not standard practice before Dr. Apgar invented the score. Newborn care was a lot more haphazard, making survival among infants, especially those born prematurely, more challenging.

It was an accomplishment for Dr. Apgar even to get to a position to make such an important invention. Back when she graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 1929 and then from the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1933, the “Apgar” score for the medical careers of women and minorities was very, very low. Very few were even allowed into medical school, let alone progress in their careers afterwards. But Dr. Apgar was a persistent pioneer, eventually becoming the first woman to achieve the rank of full professor at her medical university in 1949. Things aren’t smooth sailing for women and minorities today in medical and academic careers. But you can thank Dr. Apgar for at least making some initial inroads.

Therefore, if you entered this world after the 1950’s (and assuming that you were born rather than spontaneously generated), you can use Dr. Apgar’s birthday to thank Dr. Apgar for people checking you on your birthday.

(Adaptado de: LEE, B. Y. How Today’s Google Doodle, Dr. Virginia Apgar, Made A Big Difference In: Forbes (online) Pharma and Healthcare. 7 jun. 2018. Disponível em: Acesso em: 18 ago. 2018.)

Our fiction addiction: Why humans need stories

By David Robson

    Although we have no firm evidence of storytelling
before the advent of writing, we can assume that
narratives have been central to human life for
thousands of years. Cave paintings in France from
[5] 30,000 years ago appear to depict dramatic scenes
that were probably accompanied by oral storytelling.
Today, we may not gather around the camp fire, but
the average adult is still thought to spend at least 6%
of the waking day engrossed in fictional stories on our
[10] various screens.
    From an evolutionary point of view, that would be
an awful lot of time and energy to expend on pure
escapism, but psychologists and literary theorists
have now identified many potential benefits to this
[15] fiction addiction.
    One common idea is that storytelling is a form of
cognitive play that hones our minds, allowing us to
simulate the world around us and imagine different
strategies, particularly in social situations. “It teaches
[20] us about other people and it’s a practice in empathy
and theory of mind,” says Joseph Carroll at the
University of Missouri-St Louis.
    Providing some evidence for this theory, brain
scans have shown that reading or hearing stories
[25] activates various areas of the cortex that are known
to be involved in social and emotional processing, and
the more people read fiction, the easier they find it to
empathise with other people.
    Crucially, evolutionary psychologists believe that
[30] our prehistoric preoccupations still shape the form
of the stories we enjoy. As humans evolved to live in
bigger societies, for instance, we needed to learn how
to cooperate, without being a ‘free rider’ who takes too
much and gives nothing, or overbearing individuals
[35] abusing their dominance to the detriment of the
group’s welfare. Our capacity for storytelling – and the
tales we tell – may have therefore also evolved as a
way of communicating the right social norms.
    Along these lines, various studies have identified
[40] cooperation as a core theme in popular narratives
across the world. The anthropologist Daniel Smith of
University College London recently visited 18 groups
of hunter-gatherers of the Philippines. He found
nearly 80% of their tales concerned moral decision
[45] making and social dilemmas. Crucially, this then
appeared to translate to their real-life behaviour; the
groups that appeared to invest the most in storytelling
also proved to be the most cooperative during various
experimental tasks – exactly as the evolutionary
[50] theory would suggest.

    You might assume that our interest in cooperation
would have dwindled with the increasing individualism
of the Industrial Revolution, but these themes were
still prevalent in some of the most beloved British
[55] novels from the 19th and early 20th Centuries.
    Asking a panel of readers to rate the principal
characters in more than 200 novels, researchers
found that the antagonists’ major flaw was most
often a quest for social dominance at the expense of
[60] others or an abuse of their existing power, while the
protagonists appeared to be less individualistic and
ambitious.
    Evolutionary theory can also shed light on the
staples of romantic fiction, including the heroines’
[65] preferences for stable ‘dad’ figures or flighty ‘cads’.
The ‘dads’ might be the better choice for the long-term
security and protection of your children, but according
to an evolutionary theory known as the ‘sexy son
hypothesis’, falling for an unfaithful cad can have his
[70] own advantages since they can pass on their good
looks, cunning and charm to his own children, who
may then also enjoy greater sexual success.
    There are many more insights to be gained
from these readings, including, for instance, a recent
[75] analysis of the truly evil figures in fantasy and horror
stories. Common features include a grotesque
appearance and appear to be designed to trigger our
evolved fear of contagion and disease, and given our
innate tribalism, villains often carry signs that they are
[80] a member of an “out-group” – hence the reason that
so many Hollywood baddies have foreign accents.
Once again, the idea is that a brush with these evil
beings ultimately reinforces our own sense of altruism
and loyalty to the group.
[85]     The novelist Ian McEwan is one of the most
celebrated literary voices to have embraced these
evolutionary readings of literature, and argues that
many common elements of plot can even be found in
the machinations of our primate cousins. “If one reads
[90] accounts of the systematic nonintrusive observations
of troops of bonobo,” he wrote in a book of essays on
the subject, The Literary Animal, “one sees rehearsed
all the major themes of the English 19th-Century
novel: alliances made and broken, individuals rising
[95] while others fall, plots hatched, revenge, gratitude,
injured pride, successful and unsuccessful courtship,
bereavement and mourning.”
    McEwan argues we should celebrate these
evolved tendencies as the very source of fiction’s
[100] power to cross the continents and the centuries.
“It would not be possible to enjoy literature from
a time remote from our own, or from a culture that
was profoundly different from our own, unless we
shared some common emotional ground, some deep
[105] reservoir of assumptions, with the writer,” he added.

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180503-our-fi ction- -addiction-why-humans-need-stories. Retrieved on: 3 May 2018. Adapted.