Questões de Inglês

TEXT A

Don’t panic. Kill mosquitoes

Pandemics make for good horror films. Few things are scarier than a dangerous, incurable new disease that spreads quickly. And globalisation means that plagues can travel far, wide and terrifyingly fast. […] The newest horror is Zika. This mosquito borne virus, which originated in Africa, was spotted in Brazil last year. It is now moving across Latin America and the Caribbean, with cases in more than 20 countries. Originally, it was thought to cause little worse than a rash and fever. Now, propelling the disease into the realm of nightmares, doctors suspect that when pregnant women catch it, their babies may be permanently damaged. Zika is the prime suspect for a sharp increase in the number of babies with microcephaly in Brazil. Children are born with abnormally small heads and are likely to be brain-damaged. They may suffer severe learning difficulties, seizures and other problems. Many will die young.

Scientists are trying to confirm the link between Zika and microcephaly. Some suspect that the virus may also occasionally cause serious damage to nerves and the immune system in infected adults. Though a mosquito bite is the main way to catch it, there are fears that it can also be transmitted sexually. [...]

Zika has no cure and a vaccine will not be available for at least a decade. But that is no cause for despair. […] Two things are known for certain. The first is that the main, possibly only, transmission route is via mosquitoes, which pick up the virus from infected people and pass it on when the pests next take a meal. The second is how to cut the number of mosquitoes – and preferably eradicate them. […]

Research into novel ways to kill mosquitoes […] deserves more funding. Genetic modification, which produces mosquitoes that are sterile but still attractive to other mosquitoes, shows promise. A trial in Brazil suggests that releasing swarms of modified insects can reduce the unmodified population in months.

All this will be pricey. But it would bring not one, but several, dread diseases under control. Aedes aegypti does not carry malaria, but the methods used to kill it will also kill Anopheles, which does. The moment has come again to take the fight to the mosquitoes – and this time to finish the job.

How long would it take to develop a vaccine against Zika, according to TEXT A?

TEXT A

Don’t panic. Kill mosquitoes

Pandemics make for good horror films. Few things are scarier than a dangerous, incurable new disease that spreads quickly. And globalisation means that plagues can travel far, wide and terrifyingly fast. […] The newest horror is Zika. This mosquito borne virus, which originated in Africa, was spotted in Brazil last year. It is now moving across Latin America and the Caribbean, with cases in more than 20 countries. Originally, it was thought to cause little worse than a rash and fever. Now, propelling the disease into the realm of nightmares, doctors suspect that when pregnant women catch it, their babies may be permanently damaged. Zika is the prime suspect for a sharp increase in the number of babies with microcephaly in Brazil. Children are born with abnormally small heads and are likely to be brain-damaged. They may suffer severe learning difficulties, seizures and other problems. Many will die young.

Scientists are trying to confirm the link between Zika and microcephaly. Some suspect that the virus may also occasionally cause serious damage to nerves and the immune system in infected adults. Though a mosquito bite is the main way to catch it, there are fears that it can also be transmitted sexually. [...]

Zika has no cure and a vaccine will not be available for at least a decade. But that is no cause for despair. […] Two things are known for certain. The first is that the main, possibly only, transmission route is via mosquitoes, which pick up the virus from infected people and pass it on when the pests next take a meal. The second is how to cut the number of mosquitoes – and preferably eradicate them. […]

Research into novel ways to kill mosquitoes […] deserves more funding. Genetic modification, which produces mosquitoes that are sterile but still attractive to other mosquitoes, shows promise. A trial in Brazil suggests that releasing swarms of modified insects can reduce the unmodified population in months.

All this will be pricey. But it would bring not one, but several, dread diseases under control. Aedes aegypti does not carry malaria, but the methods used to kill it will also kill Anopheles, which does. The moment has come again to take the fight to the mosquitoes – and this time to finish the job.

TEXT A informs us that Zika can affect

Text

 

President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

 

[1]   Seventy-one years ago, on a bright  

cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and  

the world was changed. A flash of light and a  

wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated  

[5] that mankind possessed the means to destroy  

itself. 

  It is not the fact of war that sets  

Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent  

conflict appeared with the very first man. Our  

[10] early ancestors having learned to make blades  

from flint and spears from wood used these  

tools not just for hunting but against their  

own kind. On every continent, the history of  

civilization is filled with war, whether driven  

[15] by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, comp

elled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. 

Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have  

been subjugated and liberated. And at each  

juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless  

[20] toll, their names forgotten by time. 

  The world war that reached its brutal  

end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought  

among the wealthiest and most powerful of  

nations. Their civilizations had given the world  

[25] great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers  

had advanced ideas of justice and harmony  

and truth. And yet the war grew out of the  

same base instinct for domination or conquest  

that had caused conflicts among the simplest  

[30] tribes, an old pattern amplified by new  

capabilities and without new constraints. 

  In the image of a mushroom cloud that  

rose into these skies, we are most starkly 

reminded of humanity’s core contradiction.  

[35] How the very spark that marks us as a  

species, our thoughts, our imagination, our  

language, our toolmaking, our ability to set  

ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our  

will — those very things also give us the  

[40] capacity for unmatched destruction. 

  How often does material advancement  

or social innovation blind us to this truth? How  

easily we learn to justify violence in the name  

of some higher cause. 

[45]   Every great religion promises a pathway  

to love and peace and righteousness, and yet  

no religion has been spared from believers  

who have claimed their faith as a license to  

kill. 

[50]   Nations arise telling a story that binds  

people together in sacrifice and cooperation,  

allowing for remarkable feats. But those same  

stories have so often been used to oppress  

and dehumanize those who are different. 

[55]   Science allows us to communicate  

across the seas and fly above the clouds, to  

cure disease and understand the cosmos, but  

those same discoveries can be turned into  

ever more efficient killing machines. 

[60]   The wars of the modern age teach us  

this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth.  

Technological progress without an equivalent  

progress in human institutions can doom us.  

The scientific revolution that led to the  

[65] splitting of an atom requires a moral  

revolution as well. 

  Mere words cannot give voice to such  

suffering. But we have a shared responsibility  

to look directly into the eye of history and ask  

[70] what we must do differently to curb such  

suffering again. 

  Since that fateful day, we have made  

choices that give us hope. The United States  

and Japan have forged not only an alliance but  

[75] a friendship that has won far more for our  

people than we could ever claim through war.  

The nations of Europe built a union that  

replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce  

and democracy. Oppressed people and nations  

[80] won liberation. An international community  

established institutions and treaties that work  

to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll  

back and ultimately eliminate the existence of  

nuclear weapons. 

[85]   Still, every act of aggression between  

nations, every act of terror and corruption and  

cruelty and oppression that we see around the  

world shows our work is never done. We may  

not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do  

[90] evil, so nations and the alliances that we form

must possess the means to defend ourselves.

But among those nations like my own that

hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the

courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue

[95] a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my

lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the

possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a

course that leads to the destruction of these

[100] stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new

nations and secure deadly materials from

fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see

around the world today how even the crudest

[105] rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence

on a terrible scale. We must change our mindset

about war itself. To prevent conflict

through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts

after they’ve begun. To see our growing

[110] interdependence as a cause for peaceful

cooperation and not violent competition. To

define our nations not by our capacity to

destroy but by what we build. And perhaps,

above all, we must reimagine our connection

[115] to one another as members of one human

race.

For this, too, is what makes our species

unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to

repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn.

[120] We can choose. We can tell our children a

different story, one that describes a common

humanity, one that makes war less likely and

cruelty less easily accepted.

My own nation’s story began with

[125] simple words: All men are created equal and

endowed by our creator with certain

unalienable rights including life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal

has never been easy, even within our own

[130] borders, even among our own citizens. But

staying true to that story is worth the effort. It

is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that

extends across continents and across oceans.

The irreducible worth of every person, the

[135] insistence that every life is precious, the

radical and necessary notion that we are part

of a single human family — that is the story

that we all must tell.

Ordinary people understand this, I

[140] think. They do not want more war. They

would rather that the wonders of science be

focused on improving life and not eliminating

it. When the choices made by nations, when

the choices made by leaders, reflect this

[145] simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima

is done.

The world was forever changed here,

but today the children of this city will go

through their day in peace. What a precious

[150] thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then

extending to every child. That is a future we

can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and

Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of

atomic warfare but as the start of our own

[155] moral awakening.

From:www.nytimes.com 

 

The verb tenses in “Their civilizations had given the world great cities” (lines 24-25) and “the war grew out of the same base instinct” (lines 27- 28) are respectively

Text

 

President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

 

[1]   Seventy-one years ago, on a bright  

cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and  

the world was changed. A flash of light and a  

wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated  

[5] that mankind possessed the means to destroy  

itself. 

  It is not the fact of war that sets  

Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent  

conflict appeared with the very first man. Our  

[10] early ancestors having learned to make blades  

from flint and spears from wood used these  

tools not just for hunting but against their  

own kind. On every continent, the history of  

civilization is filled with war, whether driven  

[15] by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, comp

elled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. 

Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have  

been subjugated and liberated. And at each  

juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless  

[20] toll, their names forgotten by time. 

  The world war that reached its brutal  

end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought  

among the wealthiest and most powerful of  

nations. Their civilizations had given the world  

[25] great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers  

had advanced ideas of justice and harmony  

and truth. And yet the war grew out of the  

same base instinct for domination or conquest  

that had caused conflicts among the simplest  

[30] tribes, an old pattern amplified by new  

capabilities and without new constraints. 

  In the image of a mushroom cloud that  

rose into these skies, we are most starkly 

reminded of humanity’s core contradiction.  

[35] How the very spark that marks us as a  

species, our thoughts, our imagination, our  

language, our toolmaking, our ability to set  

ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our  

will — those very things also give us the  

[40] capacity for unmatched destruction. 

  How often does material advancement  

or social innovation blind us to this truth? How  

easily we learn to justify violence in the name  

of some higher cause. 

[45]   Every great religion promises a pathway  

to love and peace and righteousness, and yet  

no religion has been spared from believers  

who have claimed their faith as a license to  

kill. 

[50]   Nations arise telling a story that binds  

people together in sacrifice and cooperation,  

allowing for remarkable feats. But those same  

stories have so often been used to oppress  

and dehumanize those who are different. 

[55]   Science allows us to communicate  

across the seas and fly above the clouds, to  

cure disease and understand the cosmos, but  

those same discoveries can be turned into  

ever more efficient killing machines. 

[60]   The wars of the modern age teach us  

this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth.  

Technological progress without an equivalent  

progress in human institutions can doom us.  

The scientific revolution that led to the  

[65] splitting of an atom requires a moral  

revolution as well. 

  Mere words cannot give voice to such  

suffering. But we have a shared responsibility  

to look directly into the eye of history and ask  

[70] what we must do differently to curb such  

suffering again. 

  Since that fateful day, we have made  

choices that give us hope. The United States  

and Japan have forged not only an alliance but  

[75] a friendship that has won far more for our  

people than we could ever claim through war.  

The nations of Europe built a union that  

replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce  

and democracy. Oppressed people and nations  

[80] won liberation. An international community  

established institutions and treaties that work  

to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll  

back and ultimately eliminate the existence of  

nuclear weapons. 

[85]   Still, every act of aggression between  

nations, every act of terror and corruption and  

cruelty and oppression that we see around the  

world shows our work is never done. We may  

not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do  

[90] evil, so nations and the alliances that we form

must possess the means to defend ourselves.

But among those nations like my own that

hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the

courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue

[95] a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my

lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the

possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a

course that leads to the destruction of these

[100] stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new

nations and secure deadly materials from

fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see

around the world today how even the crudest

[105] rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence

on a terrible scale. We must change our mindset

about war itself. To prevent conflict

through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts

after they’ve begun. To see our growing

[110] interdependence as a cause for peaceful

cooperation and not violent competition. To

define our nations not by our capacity to

destroy but by what we build. And perhaps,

above all, we must reimagine our connection

[115] to one another as members of one human

race.

For this, too, is what makes our species

unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to

repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn.

[120] We can choose. We can tell our children a

different story, one that describes a common

humanity, one that makes war less likely and

cruelty less easily accepted.

My own nation’s story began with

[125] simple words: All men are created equal and

endowed by our creator with certain

unalienable rights including life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal

has never been easy, even within our own

[130] borders, even among our own citizens. But

staying true to that story is worth the effort. It

is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that

extends across continents and across oceans.

The irreducible worth of every person, the

[135] insistence that every life is precious, the

radical and necessary notion that we are part

of a single human family — that is the story

that we all must tell.

Ordinary people understand this, I

[140] think. They do not want more war. They

would rather that the wonders of science be

focused on improving life and not eliminating

it. When the choices made by nations, when

the choices made by leaders, reflect this

[145] simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima

is done.

The world was forever changed here,

but today the children of this city will go

through their day in peace. What a precious

[150] thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then

extending to every child. That is a future we

can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and

Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of

atomic warfare but as the start of our own

[155] moral awakening.

From:www.nytimes.com 

 

In the phrases “filled with war” (line 14), “driven by scarcity” (lines 14-15) and “compelled by nationalist fervor” (lines 15-16) the verbs are in the 

Scientific literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and

processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural

affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities.

Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to

questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person

has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy

entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular

press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions.

Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national

and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically

informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific

information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific

literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence

 

and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.

 

Fonte: Disponível em: <http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html>. Acesso em: 16 set. 2016.

Assinale a alternativa que NÃO contempla uma habilidade da pessoa cientificamente letrada. 

 Shoes with high heels are the fashion choice for many women around the world. However, a new study by Stanford University in the USA proves that wearing high heels over a long period of time can permanently injure the body. The study by a biomotion team from the University scanned the knees of healthy women as they walked at a normal pace in flat shoes, 1.5 inch heels and 3.5 inch heels. The results send a warning to women who want to wear high heels that they risk permanent damage to their knees. The researchers found that when women wear high heels, their knees are held in an awkward, bent position causing the joints to perform as though aged or damaged joints would – increasing the risk the condition known as osteoarthritis, which could require surgery.

 

 Britain’s Daily Express newspaper reports a recent survey of 1,200 women that shows how popular high heels are. It said 93 per cent of women felt sexier and more feminine when they wore heels, 88 per cent said they considered themselves more stylish and 77 per cent said their heels made them feel slimmer. Most women prefer to ignore health warnings, and even the pain and discomfort of wearing heels, to look and feel good.

 

 A British doctor, Tim Allardyce, said he regularly treats women with problems caused by wearing heels. “Because of the odd angle at which the feet are held in high-heeled shoes, it increases the downward pressure on the knees by 25 per cent, placing significant stress on the kneecaps, even when you’re standing still,” he explains. He added: “Standing and walking on the balls of your feet throws the skeleton out of its usual, healthy alignment, which means muscles and joints throughout the body have to compensate to maintain its centre of gravity and keep the body upright.”

(www.breakingnewsenglish.com / www.express.co.uk. Adaptado.)

In the fragment from the second paragraph “77 per cent said their heels made them feel slimmer”, the word “them” refers to