Questões de Inglês

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

Cholera issues in Haiti

When the leader of the United Nations apologized to Haitians for the cholera epidemic that has ravaged their country for more than six years – caused by infected peacekeepers sent to protect them – he proclaimed a “moral responsibility” to make things right. The apology, announced in December along with a $400 million strategy to combat the epidemic and “provide material assistance and support” for victims, amounted to a rare public act of contrition by the United Nations. Under its secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon, the organization had resisted any acceptance of blame for the epidemic, one of the worst cholera outbreaks in modern times.
Cholera, a waterborne bacterial scourge that can cause acute diarrhea and fatal dehydration if not treated quickly, has killed nearly 10,000 people and sickened nearly 800,000 in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country, since it was introduced there in 2010 by infected Nepalese members of a United Nations peacekeeping force. This year, as of late February, nearly 2,000 new cases had been reported, amounting to hundreds a week. 

Studies have traced the highly contagious disease to sloppy sanitation that had leached fecal waste laced with cholera germs from latrines used by the Nepalese peacekeepers into the water supply.
Compared with other disasters confronting the United Nations, like the Syria refugee crisis and famines threatening 20 million people in Yemen and parts of Africa, the Haiti crisis may not loom as large. But unlike the others, the direct cause in Haiti was traced to the United Nations. This fact weighed on Mr. Ban until near the end of his tenure. He finally acted after the organization’s independent investigator on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said in a scathing report that the United Nations’ failure to take responsibility for the cholera crisis was “morally unconscionable, legally indefensible and politically selfdefeating.” But Mr. Ban’s apology for Haiti’s cholera epidemic also clearly reflected an assumption that all members were responsible for the success of the new strategy to defeat it. “For the sake of the Haitian people, but also for the sake of the United Nations itself, we have a moral responsibility to act,” he told the General Assembly on Dec. 1. “And we have a collective responsibility to deliver.”

(Rick Gladstone. www.nytimes.com, 19.03.2017. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

Cholera issues in Haiti

When the leader of the United Nations apologized to Haitians for the cholera epidemic that has ravaged their country for more than six years – caused by infected peacekeepers sent to protect them – he proclaimed a “moral responsibility” to make things right. The apology, announced in December along with a $400 million strategy to combat the epidemic and “provide material assistance and support” for victims, amounted to a rare public act of contrition by the United Nations. Under its secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon, the organization had resisted any acceptance of blame for the epidemic, one of the worst cholera outbreaks in modern times.
Cholera, a waterborne bacterial scourge that can cause acute diarrhea and fatal dehydration if not treated quickly, has killed nearly 10,000 people and sickened nearly 800,000 in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country, since it was introduced there in 2010 by infected Nepalese members of a United Nations peacekeeping force. This year, as of late February, nearly 2,000 new cases had been reported, amounting to hundreds a week. 

Studies have traced the highly contagious disease to sloppy sanitation that had leached fecal waste laced with cholera germs from latrines used by the Nepalese peacekeepers into the water supply.
Compared with other disasters confronting the United Nations, like the Syria refugee crisis and famines threatening 20 million people in Yemen and parts of Africa, the Haiti crisis may not loom as large. But unlike the others, the direct cause in Haiti was traced to the United Nations. This fact weighed on Mr. Ban until near the end of his tenure. He finally acted after the organization’s independent investigator on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said in a scathing report that the United Nations’ failure to take responsibility for the cholera crisis was “morally unconscionable, legally indefensible and politically selfdefeating.” But Mr. Ban’s apology for Haiti’s cholera epidemic also clearly reflected an assumption that all members were responsible for the success of the new strategy to defeat it. “For the sake of the Haitian people, but also for the sake of the United Nations itself, we have a moral responsibility to act,” he told the General Assembly on Dec. 1. “And we have a collective responsibility to deliver.”

(Rick Gladstone. www.nytimes.com, 19.03.2017. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

Cholera issues in Haiti

When the leader of the United Nations apologized to Haitians for the cholera epidemic that has ravaged their country for more than six years – caused by infected peacekeepers sent to protect them – he proclaimed a “moral responsibility” to make things right. The apology, announced in December along with a $400 million strategy to combat the epidemic and “provide material assistance and support” for victims, amounted to a rare public act of contrition by the United Nations. Under its secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon, the organization had resisted any acceptance of blame for the epidemic, one of the worst cholera outbreaks in modern times.
Cholera, a waterborne bacterial scourge that can cause acute diarrhea and fatal dehydration if not treated quickly, has killed nearly 10,000 people and sickened nearly 800,000 in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country, since it was introduced there in 2010 by infected Nepalese members of a United Nations peacekeeping force. This year, as of late February, nearly 2,000 new cases had been reported, amounting to hundreds a week. 

Studies have traced the highly contagious disease to sloppy sanitation that had leached fecal waste laced with cholera germs from latrines used by the Nepalese peacekeepers into the water supply.
Compared with other disasters confronting the United Nations, like the Syria refugee crisis and famines threatening 20 million people in Yemen and parts of Africa, the Haiti crisis may not loom as large. But unlike the others, the direct cause in Haiti was traced to the United Nations. This fact weighed on Mr. Ban until near the end of his tenure. He finally acted after the organization’s independent investigator on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said in a scathing report that the United Nations’ failure to take responsibility for the cholera crisis was “morally unconscionable, legally indefensible and politically selfdefeating.” But Mr. Ban’s apology for Haiti’s cholera epidemic also clearly reflected an assumption that all members were responsible for the success of the new strategy to defeat it. “For the sake of the Haitian people, but also for the sake of the United Nations itself, we have a moral responsibility to act,” he told the General Assembly on Dec. 1. “And we have a collective responsibility to deliver.”

(Rick Gladstone. www.nytimes.com, 19.03.2017. Adaptado.)

Read the text below to answer Question.

Explaining the Placebo Effect

    ^1. Studies of new drugs traditionally involve at least two groups of people. The people in one of those
groups are given only what they think is the drug. Really they get a placebo - an inactive substance. The drug
is proven effective if it performs better than the placebo.
    ^2. Some researchers do not think drug studies should use placebos. They say it makes more sense to
compare new medicines to drugs already on the market. Then people would know if a new drug is any better.
    ^3. "Placebo" is Latin for "I shall please." It may contain nothing more than sugar.
    ^4. Yet some people who are given a placebo experience improvements in their health. This is called the
placebo effect.
    ^5. Some doctors use the placebo effect in their treatments. An influential study published in nineteen
fifty-five said placebo treatments made patients feel better thirty-five percent of the time.
    ^6. But in two thousand one, Danish researchers reported that they had examined more than one hundred
studies. They found little evidence of healing as a result of placebos.
    ^7. Still, there is continued belief in the placebo effect.
    8^. A Swedish study published last year suggested that a placebo can reduce the emotional effects of
unpleasant experiences. The study involved people who looked at images of dead bodies and other unpleasant
pictures. The findings appeared in the journal Neuron.
    ^9. The researchers said the effects in the brain were similar to those seen when placebos have been used
as a pain treatment. In both cases, they said, expectations of improvement are a major influence.
    ^10. But more than expectations might explain why placebos appear effective sometimes.
    ^11. Researchers led by Scot Simpson at the University of Alberta, in Canada, just had a report published
in the British Medical Journal. They examined twenty-one studies. These compared death rates between
patients who always took their medicine and those who did not.
    ^12. Even patients who took placebos had better results than those who did not follow doctor's orders.
The researchers see this finding as support for the idea of a so-called healthy adherer effect. That is, a person
who takes a drug treatment as directed may also do other things to live a healthy life. 

Source: http://www.manythings.org/voa/medical/5075.html, by Katherine Cole.

TEXTO 

Arandir — Posso ir?

Comissário Barros — Pode.

Arandir (recuando, com sofrida humildade) — Então, boa tarde, boa tarde.

Cunha — Um minutinho.
Arandir (incerto) — Comigo?
Cunha — Um momento.
Barros — Já prestou declarações.

Cunha (entre divertido e ameaçador) — Sei. Agora vai conversar comigo

Aruba (baixo e veemente para Arandir) — O delegado.

Amado — Senta.

Arandir (sentindo a pressão de novo ambiente) — Mas é que eu estou com um pouquinho de pressa. (Arandir começa a ter medo. Ele próprio não sabe de quê.)

Cunha (com o riso ofegante) — Rapaz, a polícia não tem pressa.

Amado — Mas senta. (Arandir olha em torno, como um bicho apavorado. Senta-se, finalmente.)

Arandir (sem ter de quê) — Obrigado.

Barros (baixo e reverente, para o delegado) — Ele é apenas testemunha

Cunha — Não te mete.

(Arandir ergue-se, sôfrego.)

Arandir — Posso telefonar?
Cunha — Mais tarde.
(Amado cutuca o fotógrafo.)

Amado — Bate agora! (flash estoura. Arandir toma um choque.)

Arandir — Retrato?

Amado — Nervoso, rapaz?
(Arandir senta-se, une os joelhos.)

Arandir — Absolutamente!

Cunha (lançando a pergunta como uma chicotada) — Você é casado, rapaz?

Arandir — Não ouvi.

Cunha (num berro) — Tira a cera dos ouvidos!

Amado (inclinando-se para o rapaz) — Casado ou solteiro?

Arandir — Casado.

Cunha — Casado. Muito bem. (vira-se para Amado, com segunda intenção) O homem é casado. (para o Comissário Barros) Casado.

Barros — Eu sabia.

Arandir (com sofrida humildade) — O senhor deixa dar um telefonema rápido para minha mulher?

Cunha (rápido e incisivo) — Gosta de sua mulher, rapaz?

(Arandir, por um momento, acompanha o movimento do fotógrafo que se prepara para bater uma nova fotografia.)

Arandir — Naturalmente!

Cunha (com agressividade policial) — E não usa nada no dedo, por quê?

Arandir (atarantado) — Um dia, no banheiro, caiu. Caiu a aliança. No ralo do banheiro.

Amado — O que é que você estava fazendo na praça da Bandeira?

Arandir — Bem. Fui lá e...
Cunha (num berro) — Não gagueja, rapaz!
Arandir (falando rápido) — Fui levar uma joia.
Cunha (alto) — Joia!

Arandir — Joia. Aliás, empenhar uma joia na Caixa Econômica. (Amado e Cunha cruzam as perguntas para confundir e levar Arandir ao desespero.)

Amado — Casado há quanto tempo?
Arandir — Eu?
Cunha — Gosta de mulher, rapaz?
ARANDIR (desesperado) — Quase um ano!
Cunha (mais forte) — Gosta de mulher?

Arandir (quase chorando) — Casado há um ano. (Cunha muda de voz, sem transição. Põe a mão no joelho do rapaz.)

Cunha (caricioso e ignóbil) — Escuta. O que significa para ti. Sim, o que significa para “você” uma mulher!?

Arandir (lento e olhando em torno) — Mas eu estou preso?

Cunha (sem ouvi-lo e sempre melífluo) — Rapaz, escuta! Uma hipótese. Se aparecesse, aqui, agora, uma mulher, uma “boa”. Nua. Completamente nua. Qual seria. É uma curiosidade. Seria a tua reação? (Arandir olha, ora o Cunha, ora o Amado. Silêncio.)

(RODRIGUES, Nelson. O beijo no asfalto. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1995. p. 23-27.)

 TEXTO 

    Não desejei a morte de minha filha. Ou desejei? Aí é que reside a dúvida, é onde habita o nó que nada nem ninguém no mundo tem o poder de desatar. O inconsciente, desculpe-me a vulgaridade do termo, minha filha, é uma merda. Sendo autônomo, o inconsciente age por si, sem pedir licença nem se revelar. Desejei ou não a morte de minha filha, hein? Você pode responder a essa pergunta? Alguém pode? Eu não posso. Busquei na fonte a resposta e ela não veio. Como minha filha havia feito, busquei nas águas do Cristal a cura imediata para uma dor que parecia infinda. A ferida tinha sido cavada pelas águas, então elas que tratassem de cicatrizá-la. O rio recusou meu corpo, mas não a dor. Nem o aconselhamento. Pediu tempo, apenas. Permaneci plantada no barranco, juntando ao seu caudal minhas lágrimas secas. Disseram que eu tinha enlouquecido, talvez tivesse mesmo. Em diálogo profundo, as águas me fizeram compreender verdades para as quais eu nunca havia me atinado. Todo rio tem seu leito, suas margens, seu limite, toda vez que ele avança além de seu leito original provoca estragos, descalabros. O rio de nossa vida não é diferente. Ele também está sujeito a limitações intransponíveis. Existe você e você; seu campo de visão, a capacidade de administrar o próprio caudal. Tem a hora de abrir e a hora de fechar as comportas. Felicidade ou dor, a escolha é sua, depende do grau de intensidade que você der a cada coisa. Hoje posso dizer que me conheço um pouquinho, mesmo assim, perguntas continuam sem resposta.

(BARROS, Adelice da Silveira. Mesa dos inocentes. Goiânia: Kelps, 2010. p. 23.)