Questões de Inglês

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    Do all people deserve to be loved? To be
able to answer such a question, we ........
first understand its meaning. The common
view regarding love meets Plato’s view on it
[5] quite nicely. His view as elaborated in his
dialogues Phaedo and Symposium is that
love for someone or something is a type of
desire. Specifically, it is a desire for beauty.
Yet by desiring a certain person or thing, we
[10] must also desire its conservation, its
protection, and its general wellbeing – by
which I simply mean, lack of pain or its non-

destruction. If on the contrary, we want a
certain thing or person to change, that
[15] would necessarily mean that we want it to
be different from the way it is, implying that
we do not love it, at least as it is. Defining
love in this way does satisfy a common belief
on the subject, which is that if someone truly
[20] loves you then they will accept you as you
are and will not desire your alteration.
Counting all this in, my initial question could
be rephrased as: Do all people deserve to be
desired just as they are?
[25]    Evidently, the term ‘deserve’ is an ethical
term. If person A does deserve thing B, then
it is morally correct for A to have B.
Therefore, in order to answer our question,
we must now also find out what we
[30] morally ........ desire. The question then
becomes: is it morally right for all people to
be desired just as they are?
     If something should exist, we call it
‘good’, and contrarily, we call something that
[35] should not exist ‘bad’. So the desire for
something good should itself exist, since it
promotes something that should exist.
Similarly, the desire for something bad
should not exist, or be encouraged to exist.
[40] We can also clearly see that love is not
always good, since it can form for bad
things. So such sayings as ‘Love is love’ in
fact hold no meaning, for they grow from the
assumption that love is always good, which
[45] it isn’t. More than that, we can also see from
this that love is not an intrinsic virtue (as it
is widely claimed to be), for it can be
unhealthy if it is directed towards something
unworthy – which is everything except what
[50] is good.
     ‘Perfect’ is what I call something that is
precisely the way it should be – meaning

that it is totally good. So if something is
imperfect, this means that it is in part bad –
[55] which implies that it should change and not
be as it is. Furthermore, it is rather well
known how rare perfection in humans is, and
if one reaches perfection then they should
be called God rather than human; so we will
[60] say that no human is entirely perfect; so all
humans are in part bad.
    Now we’re ready to draw some
conclusions, which to some ........ seem
outrageous. We have said that something
[65] should be desired only if it is good, not bad,
and then we said that no human is entirely
good. It would follow that no human should
be desired as they are – meaning that no
one should be loved.
[70]    This seems truly tragic. Do we all really
deserve no love? I wouldn’t be so quick to
conclude that.
    St. Augustine said: “Learn not to love so
that you will learn to love.” He is advising us
[75] to stop loving people, for they are all wicked
in part, and to start loving the good itself,
which too is present in all. Humans should
not be the primary object of love – the good
itself should be – but that also means that
[80] everyone does deserve a certain amount of
love, for everyone does contain a certain
amount of good within them, even though
they’re not perfect. This also applies to love
of self, which too ........ not be directed to
[85] ourselves, but to the good we contain (so
the very term ‘self-love’ is misleading).
Meister Eckhart seems to have arrived at the
same conclusion when he said that God, who
in the Judeo-Christian tradition is morally
[90] perfect, ultimately loves only Himself. As
Eckhart’s theology itself explicitly states, God
Himself is ultimately all the good and all the
beauty. So our original question has been
answered: yes, all people deserve to be
[95] loved, at least insofar as they are good.
    I want to underline that this view – which
might not be seen favourably by the
romantics among us – is by no means sad or
ugly, but progressive and just, pushing all
[100] people towards becoming better people.
One must remember: evil is not loved by the
one who is righteous, but by the one who is
wicked, and in need of moral repair.

Adapted from: TANASĂ, Matei. The Unlovable Parts of a Loving Society. 2022. Retrieved from:https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/The_Unlovable_Parts_of_a_Loving_Society.Accessed: 18 Sep. 2025.

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    Do all people deserve to be loved? To be
able to answer such a question, we ........
first understand its meaning. The common
view regarding love meets Plato’s view on it
[5] quite nicely. His view as elaborated in his
dialogues Phaedo and Symposium is that
love for someone or something is a type of
desire. Specifically, it is a desire for beauty.
Yet by desiring a certain person or thing, we
[10] must also desire its conservation, its
protection, and its general wellbeing – by
which I simply mean, lack of pain or its non-

destruction. If on the contrary, we want a
certain thing or person to change, that
[15] would necessarily mean that we want it to
be different from the way it is, implying that
we do not love it, at least as it is. Defining
love in this way does satisfy a common belief
on the subject, which is that if someone truly
[20] loves you then they will accept you as you
are and will not desire your alteration.
Counting all this in, my initial question could
be rephrased as: Do all people deserve to be
desired just as they are?
[25]    Evidently, the term ‘deserve’ is an ethical
term. If person A does deserve thing B, then
it is morally correct for A to have B.
Therefore, in order to answer our question,
we must now also find out what we
[30] morally ........ desire. The question then
becomes: is it morally right for all people to
be desired just as they are?
     If something should exist, we call it
‘good’, and contrarily, we call something that
[35] should not exist ‘bad’. So the desire for
something good should itself exist, since it
promotes something that should exist.
Similarly, the desire for something bad
should not exist, or be encouraged to exist.
[40] We can also clearly see that love is not
always good, since it can form for bad
things. So such sayings as ‘Love is love’ in
fact hold no meaning, for they grow from the
assumption that love is always good, which
[45] it isn’t. More than that, we can also see from
this that love is not an intrinsic virtue (as it
is widely claimed to be), for it can be
unhealthy if it is directed towards something
unworthy – which is everything except what
[50] is good.
     ‘Perfect’ is what I call something that is
precisely the way it should be – meaning

that it is totally good. So if something is
imperfect, this means that it is in part bad –
[55] which implies that it should change and not
be as it is. Furthermore, it is rather well
known how rare perfection in humans is, and
if one reaches perfection then they should
be called God rather than human; so we will
[60] say that no human is entirely perfect; so all
humans are in part bad.
    Now we’re ready to draw some
conclusions, which to some ........ seem
outrageous. We have said that something
[65] should be desired only if it is good, not bad,
and then we said that no human is entirely
good. It would follow that no human should
be desired as they are – meaning that no
one should be loved.
[70]    This seems truly tragic. Do we all really
deserve no love? I wouldn’t be so quick to
conclude that.
    St. Augustine said: “Learn not to love so
that you will learn to love.” He is advising us
[75] to stop loving people, for they are all wicked
in part, and to start loving the good itself,
which too is present in all. Humans should
not be the primary object of love – the good
itself should be – but that also means that
[80] everyone does deserve a certain amount of
love, for everyone does contain a certain
amount of good within them, even though
they’re not perfect. This also applies to love
of self, which too ........ not be directed to
[85] ourselves, but to the good we contain (so
the very term ‘self-love’ is misleading).
Meister Eckhart seems to have arrived at the
same conclusion when he said that God, who
in the Judeo-Christian tradition is morally
[90] perfect, ultimately loves only Himself. As
Eckhart’s theology itself explicitly states, God
Himself is ultimately all the good and all the
beauty. So our original question has been
answered: yes, all people deserve to be
[95] loved, at least insofar as they are good.
    I want to underline that this view – which
might not be seen favourably by the
romantics among us – is by no means sad or
ugly, but progressive and just, pushing all
[100] people towards becoming better people.
One must remember: evil is not loved by the
one who is righteous, but by the one who is
wicked, and in need of moral repair.

Adapted from: TANASĂ, Matei. The Unlovable Parts of a Loving Society. 2022. Retrieved from:https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/The_Unlovable_Parts_of_a_Loving_Society.Accessed: 18 Sep. 2025.

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    Do all people deserve to be loved? To be
able to answer such a question, we ........
first understand its meaning. The common
view regarding love meets Plato’s view on it
[5] quite nicely. His view as elaborated in his
dialogues Phaedo and Symposium is that
love for someone or something is a type of
desire. Specifically, it is a desire for beauty.
Yet by desiring a certain person or thing, we
[10] must also desire its conservation, its
protection, and its general wellbeing – by
which I simply mean, lack of pain or its non-

destruction. If on the contrary, we want a
certain thing or person to change, that
[15] would necessarily mean that we want it to
be different from the way it is, implying that
we do not love it, at least as it is. Defining
love in this way does satisfy a common belief
on the subject, which is that if someone truly
[20] loves you then they will accept you as you
are and will not desire your alteration.
Counting all this in, my initial question could
be rephrased as: Do all people deserve to be
desired just as they are?
[25]    Evidently, the term ‘deserve’ is an ethical
term. If person A does deserve thing B, then
it is morally correct for A to have B.
Therefore, in order to answer our question,
we must now also find out what we
[30] morally ........ desire. The question then
becomes: is it morally right for all people to
be desired just as they are?
     If something should exist, we call it
‘good’, and contrarily, we call something that
[35] should not exist ‘bad’. So the desire for
something good should itself exist, since it
promotes something that should exist.
Similarly, the desire for something bad
should not exist, or be encouraged to exist.
[40] We can also clearly see that love is not
always good, since it can form for bad
things. So such sayings as ‘Love is love’ in
fact hold no meaning, for they grow from the
assumption that love is always good, which
[45] it isn’t. More than that, we can also see from
this that love is not an intrinsic virtue (as it
is widely claimed to be), for it can be
unhealthy if it is directed towards something
unworthy – which is everything except what
[50] is good.
     ‘Perfect’ is what I call something that is
precisely the way it should be – meaning

that it is totally good. So if something is
imperfect, this means that it is in part bad –
[55] which implies that it should change and not
be as it is. Furthermore, it is rather well
known how rare perfection in humans is, and
if one reaches perfection then they should
be called God rather than human; so we will
[60] say that no human is entirely perfect; so all
humans are in part bad.
    Now we’re ready to draw some
conclusions, which to some ........ seem
outrageous. We have said that something
[65] should be desired only if it is good, not bad,
and then we said that no human is entirely
good. It would follow that no human should
be desired as they are – meaning that no
one should be loved.
[70]    This seems truly tragic. Do we all really
deserve no love? I wouldn’t be so quick to
conclude that.
    St. Augustine said: “Learn not to love so
that you will learn to love.” He is advising us
[75] to stop loving people, for they are all wicked
in part, and to start loving the good itself,
which too is present in all. Humans should
not be the primary object of love – the good
itself should be – but that also means that
[80] everyone does deserve a certain amount of
love, for everyone does contain a certain
amount of good within them, even though
they’re not perfect. This also applies to love
of self, which too ........ not be directed to
[85] ourselves, but to the good we contain (so
the very term ‘self-love’ is misleading).
Meister Eckhart seems to have arrived at the
same conclusion when he said that God, who
in the Judeo-Christian tradition is morally
[90] perfect, ultimately loves only Himself. As
Eckhart’s theology itself explicitly states, God
Himself is ultimately all the good and all the
beauty. So our original question has been
answered: yes, all people deserve to be
[95] loved, at least insofar as they are good.
    I want to underline that this view – which
might not be seen favourably by the
romantics among us – is by no means sad or
ugly, but progressive and just, pushing all
[100] people towards becoming better people.
One must remember: evil is not loved by the
one who is righteous, but by the one who is
wicked, and in need of moral repair.

Adapted from: TANASĂ, Matei. The Unlovable Parts of a Loving Society. 2022. Retrieved from:https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/The_Unlovable_Parts_of_a_Loving_Society.Accessed: 18 Sep. 2025.

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    Do all people deserve to be loved? To be
able to answer such a question, we ........
first understand its meaning. The common
view regarding love meets Plato’s view on it
[5] quite nicely. His view as elaborated in his
dialogues Phaedo and Symposium is that
love for someone or something is a type of
desire. Specifically, it is a desire for beauty.
Yet by desiring a certain person or thing, we
[10] must also desire its conservation, its
protection, and its general wellbeing – by
which I simply mean, lack of pain or its non-

destruction. If on the contrary, we want a
certain thing or person to change, that
[15] would necessarily mean that we want it to
be different from the way it is, implying that
we do not love it, at least as it is. Defining
love in this way does satisfy a common belief
on the subject, which is that if someone truly
[20] loves you then they will accept you as you
are and will not desire your alteration.
Counting all this in, my initial question could
be rephrased as: Do all people deserve to be
desired just as they are?
[25]    Evidently, the term ‘deserve’ is an ethical
term. If person A does deserve thing B, then
it is morally correct for A to have B.
Therefore, in order to answer our question,
we must now also find out what we
[30] morally ........ desire. The question then
becomes: is it morally right for all people to
be desired just as they are?
     If something should exist, we call it
‘good’, and contrarily, we call something that
[35] should not exist ‘bad’. So the desire for
something good should itself exist, since it
promotes something that should exist.
Similarly, the desire for something bad
should not exist, or be encouraged to exist.
[40] We can also clearly see that love is not
always good, since it can form for bad
things. So such sayings as ‘Love is love’ in
fact hold no meaning, for they grow from the
assumption that love is always good, which
[45] it isn’t. More than that, we can also see from
this that love is not an intrinsic virtue (as it
is widely claimed to be), for it can be
unhealthy if it is directed towards something
unworthy – which is everything except what
[50] is good.
     ‘Perfect’ is what I call something that is
precisely the way it should be – meaning

that it is totally good. So if something is
imperfect, this means that it is in part bad –
[55] which implies that it should change and not
be as it is. Furthermore, it is rather well
known how rare perfection in humans is, and
if one reaches perfection then they should
be called God rather than human; so we will
[60] say that no human is entirely perfect; so all
humans are in part bad.
    Now we’re ready to draw some
conclusions, which to some ........ seem
outrageous. We have said that something
[65] should be desired only if it is good, not bad,
and then we said that no human is entirely
good. It would follow that no human should
be desired as they are – meaning that no
one should be loved.
[70]    This seems truly tragic. Do we all really
deserve no love? I wouldn’t be so quick to
conclude that.
    St. Augustine said: “Learn not to love so
that you will learn to love.” He is advising us
[75] to stop loving people, for they are all wicked
in part, and to start loving the good itself,
which too is present in all. Humans should
not be the primary object of love – the good
itself should be – but that also means that
[80] everyone does deserve a certain amount of
love, for everyone does contain a certain
amount of good within them, even though
they’re not perfect. This also applies to love
of self, which too ........ not be directed to
[85] ourselves, but to the good we contain (so
the very term ‘self-love’ is misleading).
Meister Eckhart seems to have arrived at the
same conclusion when he said that God, who
in the Judeo-Christian tradition is morally
[90] perfect, ultimately loves only Himself. As
Eckhart’s theology itself explicitly states, God
Himself is ultimately all the good and all the
beauty. So our original question has been
answered: yes, all people deserve to be
[95] loved, at least insofar as they are good.
    I want to underline that this view – which
might not be seen favourably by the
romantics among us – is by no means sad or
ugly, but progressive and just, pushing all
[100] people towards becoming better people.
One must remember: evil is not loved by the
one who is righteous, but by the one who is
wicked, and in need of moral repair.

Adapted from: TANASĂ, Matei. The Unlovable Parts of a Loving Society. 2022. Retrieved from:https://philosophynow.org/issues/148/The_Unlovable_Parts_of_a_Loving_Society.Accessed: 18 Sep. 2025.

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    In the years since she captured the
American imagination, much has been
written about Lucille Ball. While some
accounts portray her life as a romp, others
[5] portray her as chronically miserable, tense,
and unhappy. None of the many books
devoted to her or to I Love Lucy has
explained who she was, her contradictions
and the source of her ambition.

[10]........ her peak, her comedic mastery
seemed effortless, but in fact, in the films
Lucille Ball made in the thirties and forties
with The Three Stooges, The Marx Brothers,
Edgar Bergen, and Harold Lloyd, she was
[15] wooden. She appears to have been no more
aware than her co-stars of her natural gifts.
How did so apparently ordinary a performer
discover her great genius? How did she later
remain so seemingly humble in the face of
[20] her hold on the American public? Lucille Ball
is one of the greatest performing artists
America has produced and probably the
most familiar ........ virtue of the reach of
television. Her work is on a par with that of
[25] Chaplin or Keaton, but because her shows
are rerun every day – several times in some
markets, and even more often ........ cable
systems – her virtuosity may have become
too accessible to achieve the mystique of art.
[30] Admittedly, she did not write and direct her
own material as Chaplin and Keaton did, and
although her greatest character, Lucy
Ricardo, is a brilliant creation, she cannot be
judged profound. While Chaplin's Little
[35] Tramp outwits his betters, and Keaton
stoically bungles into success, both of these
classic clowns remain poignant and heroic
strugglers against life and fate. Lucy
Ricardo, in contrast, rebels the way most
[40] people rebel – without intending to abandon
what is comfortable about her life. That she
is doomed to fail in show business is not a
thing of tragedy, for her talent lies in the
realm of havoc and tricks. A blend of
[45] incompetence and cunning, she inspires
laughter with her subversion of the
conventional, and her exaggerated way with
the commonplace. In sum, Lucy Ricardo
defies the imperatives that mold lesser souls

[50] – reason and judgment, propriety and the
prudent course – and proclaims that one
dogged individual can prevail on her own
illogical terms.

    Biographers seldom have an opportunity
[55] to meet their subjects, but ........ the last day
of June 1986, I met Lucille Ball. Had I never
spent time with her, I doubt I could have
understood what a puzzle she presented.
Each of her changing moods had a force and
[60] intensity that she herself did not entirely
command.

    I went to see her on assignment for
Working Woman magazine. When her maid
answered the door in Beverly Hills, the
[65] theme of I Love Lucy was playing in the
house, as if my ringing the bell had cued the
waiting band. I sat expectantly on a green
armchair in her citrus-colored den until I
heard, "Kathleen! I'm late! Don't shake my
[70] hand, my nails are wet. Shake my elbow!"
Wearing a pink jogging suit, she strutted in,
elbow first. She was a few months shy of her
seventy-fifth birthday, a fact she could not
deny because for three decades her age was
[75] a published fact, but she tried to obscure the
obvious signs of time by wearing large
glasses tinted as blue as her eyes were
supposed to be. She had dropped the curtain
on the exaggerated expressions that
[80] delighted her audience, but still cultivated
her trademark carrot-colored curls.

Extraído de: BRADY, Kathleen. Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball. Hyperion, 1994.

A questão está relacionada ao texto abaixo.

[1]    In the years since she captured the
American imagination, much has been
written about Lucille Ball. While some
accounts portray her life as a romp, others
[5] portray her as chronically miserable, tense,
and unhappy. None of the many books
devoted to her or to I Love Lucy has
explained who she was, her contradictions
and the source of her ambition.

[10]........ her peak, her comedic mastery
seemed effortless, but in fact, in the films
Lucille Ball made in the thirties and forties
with The Three Stooges, The Marx Brothers,
Edgar Bergen, and Harold Lloyd, she was
[15] wooden. She appears to have been no more
aware than her co-stars of her natural gifts.
How did so apparently ordinary a performer
discover her great genius? How did she later
remain so seemingly humble in the face of
[20] her hold on the American public? Lucille Ball
is one of the greatest performing artists
America has produced and probably the
most familiar ........ virtue of the reach of
television. Her work is on a par with that of
[25] Chaplin or Keaton, but because her shows
are rerun every day – several times in some
markets, and even more often ........ cable
systems – her virtuosity may have become
too accessible to achieve the mystique of art.
[30] Admittedly, she did not write and direct her
own material as Chaplin and Keaton did, and
although her greatest character, Lucy
Ricardo, is a brilliant creation, she cannot be
judged profound. While Chaplin's Little
[35] Tramp outwits his betters, and Keaton
stoically bungles into success, both of these
classic clowns remain poignant and heroic
strugglers against life and fate. Lucy
Ricardo, in contrast, rebels the way most
[40] people rebel – without intending to abandon
what is comfortable about her life. That she
is doomed to fail in show business is not a
thing of tragedy, for her talent lies in the
realm of havoc and tricks. A blend of
[45] incompetence and cunning, she inspires
laughter with her subversion of the
conventional, and her exaggerated way with
the commonplace. In sum, Lucy Ricardo
defies the imperatives that mold lesser souls

[50] – reason and judgment, propriety and the
prudent course – and proclaims that one
dogged individual can prevail on her own
illogical terms.

    Biographers seldom have an opportunity
[55] to meet their subjects, but ........ the last day
of June 1986, I met Lucille Ball. Had I never
spent time with her, I doubt I could have
understood what a puzzle she presented.
Each of her changing moods had a force and
[60] intensity that she herself did not entirely
command.

    I went to see her on assignment for
Working Woman magazine. When her maid
answered the door in Beverly Hills, the
[65] theme of I Love Lucy was playing in the
house, as if my ringing the bell had cued the
waiting band. I sat expectantly on a green
armchair in her citrus-colored den until I
heard, "Kathleen! I'm late! Don't shake my
[70] hand, my nails are wet. Shake my elbow!"
Wearing a pink jogging suit, she strutted in,
elbow first. She was a few months shy of her
seventy-fifth birthday, a fact she could not
deny because for three decades her age was
[75] a published fact, but she tried to obscure the
obvious signs of time by wearing large
glasses tinted as blue as her eyes were
supposed to be. She had dropped the curtain
on the exaggerated expressions that
[80] delighted her audience, but still cultivated
her trademark carrot-colored curls.

Extraído de: BRADY, Kathleen. Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball. Hyperion, 1994.