Questões de Inglês

Which option completes the paragraph below correctly?

 

    A lawyer I worked            told me he was impressed because I wasn't afraid            anything. I had no idea what he was talking           . I'm scared            evervihing.

(Adapted from www .hrexaminer.com)

Based on the text below, answer question that follow it. The paragraphs of the text are numbered.

 

If children lose contact with nature they wont't fight for it

 

    [1] According to recent research, even if the present rate of global decarbonisation were to double, we would still be on course for 6°C of warming by the end of the century. Limiting the rise to 2°C, which is the target of current policies, requires a six-time reduction in carbon intensity.

    [2] A new report shows that the UK has lost 20% of its breeding birds since 1966: once common species such as willow tits, lesser spotted woodpeckers and turtle doves have all but collapsed; even house sparrows have fallen by two thirds. Ash dieback is just one of many terrifying plant diseases, mostly spread by trade. They now threaten our oaks, pines and chestnuts.

    [3] While the surveys show that the great majority of people would like to see the living planet protected, few are prepared to take action. This, I think, reflects a second environmental crisis: the removal of children from the natural world. The young people we might have expected to lead the defence of nature have less and less to do with it.

    [4] We don't have to undervalue the indoor world, which has its own rich ecosystem, to lament children's disconnection from the outdoor world. But the experiences the two spheres offer are entirely different. There is no substitute for what takes place outdoors, mostly because the greatest joys of nature are unplanned. The thought that most of our children will never swim among phosphorescent plankton at night, will never be startled by a salmon leaping, or a dolphin breaching is almost as sad as the thought that their children might not have the opportunity.

    [5] The remarkable collapse of children's engagement with nature - which is even faster than the collapse of the natural world - is recorded in Richard Louv's book Last Child in the Woods, and in a report published recently by the National Trust, Since the 1970s the area in which children may roam without supervision has decreased by almost 90%. In one generation the proportion of children regularly playing in wild places in the UK has fallen from more than half to fewer than one in 10. In the US, in just six years (1997-2008) children with particular outdoor hobbies fell by half. Eleven- to 15-year- olds in Britain now spend, on average, half their waking day in front of a screen.

    [6] There are several reasons for this collapse: parents' irrational fear of strangers and rational fear of traffic, the destruction of the fortifying lands where previous generations played, the quality of indoor entertainment, the structuring of children's time, the criminalisation of natural play. The great indoors, as a result, has become a far more dangerous place than the diminished world beyond.

    [7] The rise of obesity and asthma and the decline in cardio-respiratory fitness are well documented. Louv also links the indoor life to an increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other mental ill health. Research conducted at the University of Illinois suggests that playing among trees and grass is associated with a marked reduction in indications of ADHD, while playing indoors appears to increase them. The disorder, Louv suggests, “may be a set of symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature”. Perhaps it's the environment, not the child, that has gone wrong.

    [8] In her famous essay the Ecology of Imagination in Childhood, Edith Cobb proposed that contact with nature stimulates creativity. Reviewing the biographies of 300 “geniuses", she exposed a common theme: intense experiences of the natural world .in the middle age of childhood (between five and 12). Animals and plants, she argued, are among "the figures of speech in the rhetoric of play... which the genius, in particular of later life, seems to remember”.

    [9] Studies in several nations show that children's games are more creative in green places than in concrete playgrounds. Natural spaces encourage fantasy and roleplay, reasoning and observation. The social standing of children there depends less on physical dominance, more on inventiveness and language skills.

    [10] And here we meet the other great loss. Most of those I know who fight for nature are people who spent their childhoods immersed in it. Without a feel for the texture and function of the natural world, without an intensity of engagement almost impossible in the absence of early experience, people will not devote their lives to its protection.

    [11] Forest Schools, Outward Bound, Woodcraft Folk, the John Muir-Award, the Campaign for Adventure, Natural Connections, family nature clubs and many others are trying to bring children and the natural world back together. But all of them are fighting forces which, if they cannot be changed, will deprive the living planet of the wonder and delight that for millennia have attracted Children to the wilds.

(Adapted from: https://www theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/children-lose- contact-with-nature)

According to the text, which option is correct?

Based on the text below, answer question that follow it. The paragraphs of the text are numbered.

 

If children lose contact with nature they wont't fight for it

 

    [1] According to recent research, even if the present rate of global decarbonisation were to double, we would still be on course for 6°C of warming by the end of the century. Limiting the rise to 2°C, which is the target of current policies, requires a six-time reduction in carbon intensity.

    [2] A new report shows that the UK has lost 20% of its breeding birds since 1966: once common species such as willow tits, lesser spotted woodpeckers and turtle doves have all but collapsed; even house sparrows have fallen by two thirds. Ash dieback is just one of many terrifying plant diseases, mostly spread by trade. They now threaten our oaks, pines and chestnuts.

    [3] While the surveys show that the great majority of people would like to see the living planet protected, few are prepared to take action. This, I think, reflects a second environmental crisis: the removal of children from the natural world. The young people we might have expected to lead the defence of nature have less and less to do with it.

    [4] We don't have to undervalue the indoor world, which has its own rich ecosystem, to lament children's disconnection from the outdoor world. But the experiences the two spheres offer are entirely different. There is no substitute for what takes place outdoors, mostly because the greatest joys of nature are unplanned. The thought that most of our children will never swim among phosphorescent plankton at night, will never be startled by a salmon leaping, or a dolphin breaching is almost as sad as the thought that their children might not have the opportunity.

    [5] The remarkable collapse of children's engagement with nature - which is even faster than the collapse of the natural world - is recorded in Richard Louv's book Last Child in the Woods, and in a report published recently by the National Trust, Since the 1970s the area in which children may roam without supervision has decreased by almost 90%. In one generation the proportion of children regularly playing in wild places in the UK has fallen from more than half to fewer than one in 10. In the US, in just six years (1997-2008) children with particular outdoor hobbies fell by half. Eleven- to 15-year- olds in Britain now spend, on average, half their waking day in front of a screen.

    [6] There are several reasons for this collapse: parents' irrational fear of strangers and rational fear of traffic, the destruction of the fortifying lands where previous generations played, the quality of indoor entertainment, the structuring of children's time, the criminalisation of natural play. The great indoors, as a result, has become a far more dangerous place than the diminished world beyond.

    [7] The rise of obesity and asthma and the decline in cardio-respiratory fitness are well documented. Louv also links the indoor life to an increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other mental ill health. Research conducted at the University of Illinois suggests that playing among trees and grass is associated with a marked reduction in indications of ADHD, while playing indoors appears to increase them. The disorder, Louv suggests, “may be a set of symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature”. Perhaps it's the environment, not the child, that has gone wrong.

    [8] In her famous essay the Ecology of Imagination in Childhood, Edith Cobb proposed that contact with nature stimulates creativity. Reviewing the biographies of 300 “geniuses", she exposed a common theme: intense experiences of the natural world .in the middle age of childhood (between five and 12). Animals and plants, she argued, are among "the figures of speech in the rhetoric of play... which the genius, in particular of later life, seems to remember”.

    [9] Studies in several nations show that children's games are more creative in green places than in concrete playgrounds. Natural spaces encourage fantasy and roleplay, reasoning and observation. The social standing of children there depends less on physical dominance, more on inventiveness and language skills.

    [10] And here we meet the other great loss. Most of those I know who fight for nature are people who spent their childhoods immersed in it. Without a feel for the texture and function of the natural world, without an intensity of engagement almost impossible in the absence of early experience, people will not devote their lives to its protection.

    [11] Forest Schools, Outward Bound, Woodcraft Folk, the John Muir-Award, the Campaign for Adventure, Natural Connections, family nature clubs and many others are trying to bring children and the natural world back together. But all of them are fighting forces which, if they cannot be changed, will deprive the living planet of the wonder and delight that for millennia have attracted Children to the wilds.

(Adapted from: https://www theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/children-lose- contact-with-nature)

Whats the meaning of the word “engagement” in paragraph 5?

TEXTO:

    What might your office or apartment have in
common with a NASA spaceship? Unfortunately the
answer may be poor air quality. Indoor air pollutants have
been ranked among the top five environmental risks to
[5] public health. Living and working in places rife with air
contaminants and lacking decent ventilation can cause
“Sick Building Syndrome”, which can cause headaches,
dizziness, nausea, and eye, ear, and nose
irritations.Given that people spend more than 90 percent
[10] of their time indoors, air quality matters. Furnishings,
upholstery, synthetic building materials, and cleaning
products in homes and offices can emit a variety of toxic
compounds, like formaldehyde. Indoor air pollution can
also be caused by pollen, bacteria, and molds, as
[15] outdoor air contaminants like car exhaust finds its way
into buildings. All of these are made worse in small
or poorly-ventilated spaces.
    Lucky for us, NASA scientists have been working
to understand this problem and find solutions.The good
[20] news is that there’s an easy and affordable way to
combat the presence of the yucky stuff we may be
breathing in, and it comes right from the natural world:
Use houseplants to clean the air. Plants purify theair,
making them part of what NASA calls “nature’s life
[25] support system,” although plants in bloom may be
contributing their own compounds to the air.
    So, how do houseplants clean the air? Plants
absorb some of the particulates from the air at the same
time that they take in carbon dioxide, which is then
[30] processed into oxygen through photosynthesis. But
that’s not all—microorganisms associated with the
plants are present in the potting soil, and these microbes
are also responsible for much of the cleaning effect.
    Beyond air quality, plants just make people feel
[35] better. For example, hospital patients with plants in their
rooms were more positive and had lower blood pressure
and stress levels. Similarly, indoor plants may make
people smarter by allowing them to stay alert and
reducing mental fatigue.

JANOWIAK, Maria. Disponível em: greatist.com/connect/houseplantsthat-clean-air. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2018. Adaptado.

Considering language use in the text, it’s correct to say:

    Lorcaserin, a weight loss drug, has been hailed
as a “holy grail” in the battle against obesity. It works by
suppressing the appetite and increasing satiety but,
unlike many weight loss drugs, scientists found
[5] lorcaserin did not raise the risk of cardiovascular
problems among at-risk individuals who took part in a
clinical trial.
    Tam Fry of the U.K. said: “I think there will be
several holy grails, but this is a holy grail and one which
[10] has been certainly at the back of the mind of a lot of
specialists for a long time.However, Fry cautioned: “But
all of the other things apply—lifestyle change has got
to be root and branch part of this.”
    To test the safety of lorcaserin, the researchers
[15] recruited 12,000 overweight or obese patients. They
randomly assigned the participants a placebo or
lorcaserin. Over a three-year period, the state of their
health was documented.The study revealed that
patients who took lorcaserin lost 4.2 kilograms on
[20] average (9 pounds), while those on the placebo lost
1.4 kilograms (3 pounds).And participants who took
lorcaserin were at no greater risk of experiencing a
cardiovascular event, like a stroke, when compared with
those who were given the placebo.
[25]    In the past, weight loss drugs have been
discontinued after being found to increase the risk of
heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary hypertension, and
valvular heart disease, the authors emphasized.

Gander, Kashmira. Disponível em: https://www.newsweek.com/ lorcaserin-holy-grail-weight-loss drug-...-1092239. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2018.

“Lorcaserin […] has been hailed as a ‘holy grail’ in the battle against obesity.” (l. 1-2)

This sentence means that lorcaserin is a drug that

    Lorcaserin, a weight loss drug, has been hailed
as a “holy grail” in the battle against obesity. It works by
suppressing the appetite and increasing satiety but,
unlike many weight loss drugs, scientists found
[5] lorcaserin did not raise the risk of cardiovascular
problems among at-risk individuals who took part in a
clinical trial.
    Tam Fry of the U.K. said: “I think there will be
several holy grails, but this is a holy grail and one which
[10] has been certainly at the back of the mind of a lot of
specialists for a long time.However, Fry cautioned: “But
all of the other things apply—lifestyle change has got
to be root and branch part of this.”
    To test the safety of lorcaserin, the researchers
[15] recruited 12,000 overweight or obese patients. They
randomly assigned the participants a placebo or
lorcaserin. Over a three-year period, the state of their
health was documented.The study revealed that
patients who took lorcaserin lost 4.2 kilograms on
[20] average (9 pounds), while those on the placebo lost
1.4 kilograms (3 pounds).And participants who took
lorcaserin were at no greater risk of experiencing a
cardiovascular event, like a stroke, when compared with
those who were given the placebo.
[25]    In the past, weight loss drugs have been
discontinued after being found to increase the risk of
heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary hypertension, and
valvular heart disease, the authors emphasized.

Gander, Kashmira. Disponível em: https://www.newsweek.com/ lorcaserin-holy-grail-weight-loss drug-...-1092239. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2018.

When compared to lorcaserin, previous weight loss drugs have shown to