Questões de Inglês

Texto para responder à questão.

 

DEATH PENALTY STILL AN OPTION FOR ‘BATMAN’ MOVIE SHOOTER

 

    After discussing Holmes' case for two hours on Monday, members of the jury in Centennial, Colorado decided that his mental illness was not enough to spare him from a possible death penalty.

    According to the prosecution, Holmes made a conscious decision to massacre and then hid his preparations from everyone. He could not be allowed to use his mental illness as a “shield,” the district attorney said. Prosecution lawyers are seeking capital punishment for the convicted killer.

    Earlier, jurors found the shooter guilty on all 165 counts of murder, attempted murder and explosives charges related to the mass shooting in a multiplex in Aurora, near Denver, in July 2012.

    […]

    Holmes, 27, has been in police custody since the night of the mass murder, in which 12 people were killed during the midnight premier of the Batman sequel “The Dark Knight Rises.” Seventy people were wounded in the attack.

Disponível em:  http://www.dw.com/en/death-penalty-stillan-option-for-batman-movie-shooter/a-18625094> Acesso em 5 ago. 2015. Adaptado.

 

According to the text, we can infer that:

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Adam Hadhazy

 

[1]   Venoms, the debilitating chemical cocktails animals unleash to defend themselves or obtain a meal, are subject to an evolutionary arms race. Those creatures that are targets of toxins eventually develop beneficial mutations, granting them some degree of resistance. In response, animals that emit venoms undergo changes so their poisons remain effective.

[2]   This action-reaction narrative of venom evolution is incomplete, however, as evolutionary biologists Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran of Hebrew University in Jerusalem have shown in a new study. They realized that many venom studies have focused on snakes and cone snails — comparatively "young" animal groups, evolutionarily speaking, only going back roughly 50 million years. Over these groups’ histories, their venomous arsenals have expanded considerably, bolstering the arms race analogy, also known as positive, or Darwinian, selection.

[3]   Sunagar and Moran cast a wider net, looking at over 3,500 gene families for venom production in newer and older animal groups. The ancient animal types included spiders, scorpions, centipedes, octopus, squid, jellyfish, and sea anemones.

[4]   The scientists found that these ancient animals exhibited surprisingly low levels of genetic variation in their venoms. Sunagar and Moran reasoned that the venoms of primordial creatures had undergone substantial negative, or purifying, selection — evolutionary pressure to keep their potently optimized toxins roughly the same. “Negative selection filters out certain mutations that alter structure or function,” explained Moran. For species in long-established ecological niches, it makes sense to maintain what works.

[5]   Evolution does favor more radical experimentation, though, when creatures enter new habitats and begin adapting to the novel environment. As they find their place in local food chains, venomous animals’ toxic pharmacopeia should undergo rapid diversification — the better to catch strange new prey and withstand the attacks of previously unencountered predators. Yet over time, these adapting species settle into tried-and-true formulae.

[6]   The researchers call this model of venom evolution “two-speed,” with the venoms of old species evolving slowly and those of the new species evolving quickly. “Our analysis of numerous toxin families, covering the ample scope of the animal kingdom, has revealed a striking contrast between the evolution of venom in ancient and evolutionarily young animal groups,” said Sunagar.

Adapted from Natural History, February 2016.

According to the information in the article,

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Adam Hadhazy

 

[1]   Venoms, the debilitating chemical cocktails animals unleash to defend themselves or obtain a meal, are subject to an evolutionary arms race. Those creatures that are targets of toxins eventually develop beneficial mutations, granting them some degree of resistance. In response, animals that emit venoms undergo changes so their poisons remain effective.

[2]   This action-reaction narrative of venom evolution is incomplete, however, as evolutionary biologists Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran of Hebrew University in Jerusalem have shown in a new study. They realized that many venom studies have focused on snakes and cone snails — comparatively "young" animal groups, evolutionarily speaking, only going back roughly 50 million years. Over these groups’ histories, their venomous arsenals have expanded considerably, bolstering the arms race analogy, also known as positive, or Darwinian, selection.

[3]   Sunagar and Moran cast a wider net, looking at over 3,500 gene families for venom production in newer and older animal groups. The ancient animal types included spiders, scorpions, centipedes, octopus, squid, jellyfish, and sea anemones.

[4]   The scientists found that these ancient animals exhibited surprisingly low levels of genetic variation in their venoms. Sunagar and Moran reasoned that the venoms of primordial creatures had undergone substantial negative, or purifying, selection — evolutionary pressure to keep their potently optimized toxins roughly the same. “Negative selection filters out certain mutations that alter structure or function,” explained Moran. For species in long-established ecological niches, it makes sense to maintain what works.

[5]   Evolution does favor more radical experimentation, though, when creatures enter new habitats and begin adapting to the novel environment. As they find their place in local food chains, venomous animals’ toxic pharmacopeia should undergo rapid diversification — the better to catch strange new prey and withstand the attacks of previously unencountered predators. Yet over time, these adapting species settle into tried-and-true formulae.

[6]   The researchers call this model of venom evolution “two-speed,” with the venoms of old species evolving slowly and those of the new species evolving quickly. “Our analysis of numerous toxin families, covering the ample scope of the animal kingdom, has revealed a striking contrast between the evolution of venom in ancient and evolutionarily young animal groups,” said Sunagar.

Adapted from Natural History, February 2016.

According to the information in the article, which of the following is most likely to happen when a venomous animal group enters a new habitat?

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Adam Hadhazy

 

[1]   Venoms, the debilitating chemical cocktails animals unleash to defend themselves or obtain a meal, are subject to an evolutionary arms race. Those creatures that are targets of toxins eventually develop beneficial mutations, granting them some degree of resistance. In response, animals that emit venoms undergo changes so their poisons remain effective.

[2]   This action-reaction narrative of venom evolution is incomplete, however, as evolutionary biologists Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran of Hebrew University in Jerusalem have shown in a new study. They realized that many venom studies have focused on snakes and cone snails — comparatively "young" animal groups, evolutionarily speaking, only going back roughly 50 million years. Over these groups’ histories, their venomous arsenals have expanded considerably, bolstering the arms race analogy, also known as positive, or Darwinian, selection.

[3]   Sunagar and Moran cast a wider net, looking at over 3,500 gene families for venom production in newer and older animal groups. The ancient animal types included spiders, scorpions, centipedes, octopus, squid, jellyfish, and sea anemones.

[4]   The scientists found that these ancient animals exhibited surprisingly low levels of genetic variation in their venoms. Sunagar and Moran reasoned that the venoms of primordial creatures had undergone substantial negative, or purifying, selection — evolutionary pressure to keep their potently optimized toxins roughly the same. “Negative selection filters out certain mutations that alter structure or function,” explained Moran. For species in long-established ecological niches, it makes sense to maintain what works.

[5]   Evolution does favor more radical experimentation, though, when creatures enter new habitats and begin adapting to the novel environment. As they find their place in local food chains, venomous animals’ toxic pharmacopeia should undergo rapid diversification — the better to catch strange new prey and withstand the attacks of previously unencountered predators. Yet over time, these adapting species settle into tried-and-true formulae.

[6]   The researchers call this model of venom evolution “two-speed,” with the venoms of old species evolving slowly and those of the new species evolving quickly. “Our analysis of numerous toxin families, covering the ample scope of the animal kingdom, has revealed a striking contrast between the evolution of venom in ancient and evolutionarily young animal groups,” said Sunagar.

Adapted from Natural History, February 2016.

With respect to evolutionary pressure, which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Adam Hadhazy

 

[1]   Venoms, the debilitating chemical cocktails animals unleash to defend themselves or obtain a meal, are subject to an evolutionary arms race. Those creatures that are targets of toxins eventually develop beneficial mutations, granting them some degree of resistance. In response, animals that emit venoms undergo changes so their poisons remain effective.

[2]   This action-reaction narrative of venom evolution is incomplete, however, as evolutionary biologists Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran of Hebrew University in Jerusalem have shown in a new study. They realized that many venom studies have focused on snakes and cone snails — comparatively "young" animal groups, evolutionarily speaking, only going back roughly 50 million years. Over these groups’ histories, their venomous arsenals have expanded considerably, bolstering the arms race analogy, also known as positive, or Darwinian, selection.

[3]   Sunagar and Moran cast a wider net, looking at over 3,500 gene families for venom production in newer and older animal groups. The ancient animal types included spiders, scorpions, centipedes, octopus, squid, jellyfish, and sea anemones.

[4]   The scientists found that these ancient animals exhibited surprisingly low levels of genetic variation in their venoms. Sunagar and Moran reasoned that the venoms of primordial creatures had undergone substantial negative, or purifying, selection — evolutionary pressure to keep their potently optimized toxins roughly the same. “Negative selection filters out certain mutations that alter structure or function,” explained Moran. For species in long-established ecological niches, it makes sense to maintain what works.

[5]   Evolution does favor more radical experimentation, though, when creatures enter new habitats and begin adapting to the novel environment. As they find their place in local food chains, venomous animals’ toxic pharmacopeia should undergo rapid diversification — the better to catch strange new prey and withstand the attacks of previously unencountered predators. Yet over time, these adapting species settle into tried-and-true formulae.

[6]   The researchers call this model of venom evolution “two-speed,” with the venoms of old species evolving slowly and those of the new species evolving quickly. “Our analysis of numerous toxin families, covering the ample scope of the animal kingdom, has revealed a striking contrast between the evolution of venom in ancient and evolutionarily young animal groups,” said Sunagar.

Adapted from Natural History, February 2016.

With respect to older animal groups, which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Adam Hadhazy

 

[1]   Venoms, the debilitating chemical cocktails animals unleash to defend themselves or obtain a meal, are subject to an evolutionary arms race. Those creatures that are targets of toxins eventually develop beneficial mutations, granting them some degree of resistance. In response, animals that emit venoms undergo changes so their poisons remain effective.

[2]   This action-reaction narrative of venom evolution is incomplete, however, as evolutionary biologists Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran of Hebrew University in Jerusalem have shown in a new study. They realized that many venom studies have focused on snakes and cone snails — comparatively "young" animal groups, evolutionarily speaking, only going back roughly 50 million years. Over these groups’ histories, their venomous arsenals have expanded considerably, bolstering the arms race analogy, also known as positive, or Darwinian, selection.

[3]   Sunagar and Moran cast a wider net, looking at over 3,500 gene families for venom production in newer and older animal groups. The ancient animal types included spiders, scorpions, centipedes, octopus, squid, jellyfish, and sea anemones.

[4]   The scientists found that these ancient animals exhibited surprisingly low levels of genetic variation in their venoms. Sunagar and Moran reasoned that the venoms of primordial creatures had undergone substantial negative, or purifying, selection — evolutionary pressure to keep their potently optimized toxins roughly the same. “Negative selection filters out certain mutations that alter structure or function,” explained Moran. For species in long-established ecological niches, it makes sense to maintain what works.

[5]   Evolution does favor more radical experimentation, though, when creatures enter new habitats and begin adapting to the novel environment. As they find their place in local food chains, venomous animals’ toxic pharmacopeia should undergo rapid diversification — the better to catch strange new prey and withstand the attacks of previously unencountered predators. Yet over time, these adapting species settle into tried-and-true formulae.

[6]   The researchers call this model of venom evolution “two-speed,” with the venoms of old species evolving slowly and those of the new species evolving quickly. “Our analysis of numerous toxin families, covering the ample scope of the animal kingdom, has revealed a striking contrast between the evolution of venom in ancient and evolutionarily young animal groups,” said Sunagar.

Adapted from Natural History, February 2016.

According to the information in the article, before Kartik Sunagar and Yehu Moran performed their own venom study, other studies