Questões de Inglês

U.S. IMPEACHMENT

By Ursula Hacket

 

[1]   President Donald Trump’s business dealings, unhinged [malucos] tweets and conflicts of interest, coupled with lurid sexual allegations and whispers
of Russian links have led some to dream that impeachment could be just around the corner. The chatter started even before he took office, and by January’s
end half a million people had signed the “Impeach Trump Now” petition. It’s all very wishful thinking.
[2]   Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers… shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives must vote upon an impeachment resolution
and the Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation. If the House then accepts the impeachment charges, the action moves to the Senate, where a trial
takes place. To convict an impeached president a full two-thirds of the Senate must find him guilty. The first of these steps (Committee investigation) has
taken place three times: in 1868 (President Andrew Johnson), 1974 (Richard Nixon) and 1998 (Bill Clinton). The second (House vote and Senate trial),
twice— for Presidents Johnson and Clinton, but not Nixon, who resigned before trial. The third (conviction) has never taken place.
[3]   In conscious opposition to the ancient maxim "the king can do no wrong," the Founding Fathers created a presidency that was not shielded from
responsibility for wrongdoing. In early Constitutional drafts only treason and bribery were impeachable. One founder – George Mason – suggested adding
"maladministration," but James Madison objected that this loose formulation would hand a weapon to politically-motivated enemies of the president.
They compromised with "high crimes and misdemeanors." But Madison's fears proved well founded: impeachment has never truly been a legal process,
and always a political one. The political battleground? Defining "high crimes and misdemeanors.”
[4]   Unlike well-defined treason or bribery, the "high crimes" test is entirely elastic. The President's supporters take a restrictive view, his opponents an
expansive one. Presidents may wish things were clearer, and sometimes claim that they are. "You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that
the constitution is very precise in defining what is an impeachable offence," whimpered a besieged Nixon in 1974. But he was wrong: the Founders did not
specify a list of specific offences, nor even require any actual criminal offence be proved. His successor, Gerald Ford, was closer to the truth when he claimed
that "an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Impeachable
"misdemeanors" could include inaction, chronic ineptitude and abuse of powers, especially when aggregated into a pattern of behaviour. All this makes
impeachment a fundamentally political act – defined in terms dictated by partisan actors – and thus, where those actors are sufficiently hostile, a more
plausible outcome.
[5]   Partisanship and political calculation, then, are all-important – not formal legal standards. For example, both Johnson’s and Clinton’s impeachment
votes split along party lines. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd even stated at Clinton’s trial that although he was certain the Democratic president had
committed perjury, his vote would be cast “in the best interest of the nation.”
[6]   Impeachment efforts have always occurred when rival tribes control the White House and Capitol Hill [site of the U.S. Congress]. And the Republican
Trump will not be impeached unless most members of a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and a supermajority of a Republican-dominated
Senate judge it to be in their own best interests.
Adapted from Prospect, March 2017. 

With respect to President Richard Nixon, the article most supports which of the following?

U.S. IMPEACHMENT

By Ursula Hacket

 

[1]   President Donald Trump’s business dealings, unhinged [malucos] tweets and conflicts of interest, coupled with lurid sexual allegations and whispers
of Russian links have led some to dream that impeachment could be just around the corner. The chatter started even before he took office, and by January’s
end half a million people had signed the “Impeach Trump Now” petition. It’s all very wishful thinking.
[2]   Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers… shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives must vote upon an impeachment resolution
and the Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation. If the House then accepts the impeachment charges, the action moves to the Senate, where a trial
takes place. To convict an impeached president a full two-thirds of the Senate must find him guilty. The first of these steps (Committee investigation) has
taken place three times: in 1868 (President Andrew Johnson), 1974 (Richard Nixon) and 1998 (Bill Clinton). The second (House vote and Senate trial),
twice— for Presidents Johnson and Clinton, but not Nixon, who resigned before trial. The third (conviction) has never taken place.
[3]   In conscious opposition to the ancient maxim "the king can do no wrong," the Founding Fathers created a presidency that was not shielded from
responsibility for wrongdoing. In early Constitutional drafts only treason and bribery were impeachable. One founder – George Mason – suggested adding
"maladministration," but James Madison objected that this loose formulation would hand a weapon to politically-motivated enemies of the president.
They compromised with "high crimes and misdemeanors." But Madison's fears proved well founded: impeachment has never truly been a legal process,
and always a political one. The political battleground? Defining "high crimes and misdemeanors.”
[4]   Unlike well-defined treason or bribery, the "high crimes" test is entirely elastic. The President's supporters take a restrictive view, his opponents an
expansive one. Presidents may wish things were clearer, and sometimes claim that they are. "You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that
the constitution is very precise in defining what is an impeachable offence," whimpered a besieged Nixon in 1974. But he was wrong: the Founders did not
specify a list of specific offences, nor even require any actual criminal offence be proved. His successor, Gerald Ford, was closer to the truth when he claimed
that "an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Impeachable
"misdemeanors" could include inaction, chronic ineptitude and abuse of powers, especially when aggregated into a pattern of behaviour. All this makes
impeachment a fundamentally political act – defined in terms dictated by partisan actors – and thus, where those actors are sufficiently hostile, a more
plausible outcome.
[5]   Partisanship and political calculation, then, are all-important – not formal legal standards. For example, both Johnson’s and Clinton’s impeachment
votes split along party lines. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd even stated at Clinton’s trial that although he was certain the Democratic president had
committed perjury, his vote would be cast “in the best interest of the nation.”
[6]   Impeachment efforts have always occurred when rival tribes control the White House and Capitol Hill [site of the U.S. Congress]. And the Republican
Trump will not be impeached unless most members of a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and a supermajority of a Republican-dominated
Senate judge it to be in their own best interests.
Adapted from Prospect, March 2017. 

Which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?

U.S. IMPEACHMENT

By Ursula Hacket

 

[1]   President Donald Trump’s business dealings, unhinged [malucos] tweets and conflicts of interest, coupled with lurid sexual allegations and whispers
of Russian links have led some to dream that impeachment could be just around the corner. The chatter started even before he took office, and by January’s
end half a million people had signed the “Impeach Trump Now” petition. It’s all very wishful thinking.
[2]   Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers… shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives must vote upon an impeachment resolution
and the Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation. If the House then accepts the impeachment charges, the action moves to the Senate, where a trial
takes place. To convict an impeached president a full two-thirds of the Senate must find him guilty. The first of these steps (Committee investigation) has
taken place three times: in 1868 (President Andrew Johnson), 1974 (Richard Nixon) and 1998 (Bill Clinton). The second (House vote and Senate trial),
twice— for Presidents Johnson and Clinton, but not Nixon, who resigned before trial. The third (conviction) has never taken place.
[3]   In conscious opposition to the ancient maxim "the king can do no wrong," the Founding Fathers created a presidency that was not shielded from
responsibility for wrongdoing. In early Constitutional drafts only treason and bribery were impeachable. One founder – George Mason – suggested adding
"maladministration," but James Madison objected that this loose formulation would hand a weapon to politically-motivated enemies of the president.
They compromised with "high crimes and misdemeanors." But Madison's fears proved well founded: impeachment has never truly been a legal process,
and always a political one. The political battleground? Defining "high crimes and misdemeanors.”
[4]   Unlike well-defined treason or bribery, the "high crimes" test is entirely elastic. The President's supporters take a restrictive view, his opponents an
expansive one. Presidents may wish things were clearer, and sometimes claim that they are. "You don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that
the constitution is very precise in defining what is an impeachable offence," whimpered a besieged Nixon in 1974. But he was wrong: the Founders did not
specify a list of specific offences, nor even require any actual criminal offence be proved. His successor, Gerald Ford, was closer to the truth when he claimed
that "an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Impeachable
"misdemeanors" could include inaction, chronic ineptitude and abuse of powers, especially when aggregated into a pattern of behaviour. All this makes
impeachment a fundamentally political act – defined in terms dictated by partisan actors – and thus, where those actors are sufficiently hostile, a more
plausible outcome.
[5]   Partisanship and political calculation, then, are all-important – not formal legal standards. For example, both Johnson’s and Clinton’s impeachment
votes split along party lines. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd even stated at Clinton’s trial that although he was certain the Democratic president had
committed perjury, his vote would be cast “in the best interest of the nation.”
[6]   Impeachment efforts have always occurred when rival tribes control the White House and Capitol Hill [site of the U.S. Congress]. And the Republican
Trump will not be impeached unless most members of a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and a supermajority of a Republican-dominated
Senate judge it to be in their own best interests.
Adapted from Prospect, March 2017. 

Which of the following is most supported in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?

Read the text below.

 

  It is important to emphasize that it isn’t a question of changing an ethnocentric focus wellmarked from European root by an African, but rather of broadening the focus on the school curricula to the Brazilian cultural, racial, social, and economic diversity. For this, it is necessary to be sure that Art. 26-A added to Law n. 9.394/ 1996 provokes much more than an inclusion of new contents, it requires rethinking about ethnic-racial, social, pedagogical relations, teaching procedures, conditions offered for learning, tacit and explicit goals of the education offered by schools (BRASIL, 2014).

  The multiculturalism in art teaching implies a broad conception of art, capable of encompassing multiple and differentiated artistic manifestations, and the same is placed on a specific field of musical education. A broad conception of music is, on the one hand, a necessary condition for that musical education can respond to the multicultural perspective. On the other hand, the conception of multiculturality contributes to the expansion of the conception of music that guides our educational position. In its origins, the multicultural movement is basically linked to ethnic issues, but little by little it "gives space to other aspects of cultural domination"

(GONÇALVES; SILVA, 2000, p. 28). PENNA, Maura. Poéticas musicais e práticas sociais: reflexões sobre a educação musical diante da diversidade. Revista da ABEM, Porto Alegre, V. 13, 7-16, set. 2005. Adaptado. Versão nossa.

 

Considering the presented text, evaluate the following statements and the relation proposed between them.

 

I - The multiculturalist posture must embrace the diversity of artistic and musical productions, linked to different social groups that produce or adopt certain musical poetics such as theirs, whether these groups are marked by particularities of class, region or generation, for example. As a consequence of this position, the references to pedagogical practices in music education can’t be restricted to classical music, which is rooted in European culture. It is essential to embrace the diversity of musical manifestations, including the popular ones and those of the media.

 

BECAUSE

 

II - The music, as well, in the play of its configurations, presents modes of engenderment that are typical from the poetic function of language, namely projections of similarity, in their most diverse possibilities of updating, on the axis of contiguity. [...] Poetry and music are constructions of forms, games of structuring, echoes and reverberations, progressions and retrogradations, overlaps, inversions, in short, poets and musicians are visual designers of the language

(SANTAELLA, 2002, p. 46-47, versão nossa).

 

Regarding these statements, mark the correct alternative:

Read the text below.

LATEST NEWS 

 

Efforts grow to help students evaluate what they see online 

BY RYAN J. FOLEY

Associated Press

DECEMBER 30, 2017 05:30 PM

UPDATED DECEMBER 30, 2017 09:25 PM

IOWA CITY, IOWA - Alarmed by the proliferation of false content online, state lawmakers around the country are pushing schools to put more emphasis on teaching students how to tell fact from fiction.

 

Lawmakers in sverak states gave introduced or passed bills calling on public schol systems to do more to teach media literacy skills that they say are critical to democracy. The effort has been bipartisan but has received little attentiondespite successful legislation in Washington state, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Mexico.

 

Several more states are expected to consider such bills in the coming year, including Arizona, New York and Hawaii.

Available at: http://www.thenewstribune.com/latest-news/article192287799.html>. Adapted.

 

Taking the news into account, consider the following statements.

 

I - Jennifer Rocca, a high school librarian in Brookfield, Connecticut, was among several supporters who urged lawmakers to pass the legislation.

II - Jennifer Rocca’s digital literacy course, a requirement for freshmen, challenges students to evaluate the credibility of online sources so they can spot falsehoods and biased information. She requires students to cite their sources when conducting research and explain why each would have the authority to be credible.

III - The Lawmakers have pushed schools to incorporate media literacy — including the ability to evaluate and analyze sources of information.

IV - Studies show many children spend hours every day online but struggle to comprehend the content that comes at them.

 

It is correct what is stated on:

The alternatives below present groups of four verbs that belong to the same semantic field, EXCEPT: