Questões de Inglês - Grammar
Questão 20 1349853FMP 2019
5 Reasons Why Artificial Intelligence Won’t Replace Physicians
Although many signs are pointing towards
the fact that A.I. will completely move the world of
medicine, and many other technologies will also have
a transformative effect on the industry, stating that the
 majority of medical professionals will disappear, is
fearmongering and irresponsible.
According to a report by Carl Benedikt Frey and
Michael A. Osborne from the University of Oxford,
medical transcriptionists, medical records and health
 information technicians and medical secretaries are
the most likely jobs to be computerized in the future,
but physicians and surgeons have a 0.42 percent
chance for their professions being automated.
Moreover, A.I. will transform the meaning of what
 it means to be a doctor: some tasks will disappear,
while others will be added to the work routine. However,
there will never be a situation where the embodiment
of automation, either a robot or an algorithm will take
the place of a doctor. Let me tell you five reasons why.
 1) We cannot replace empathy
Even if the array of technologies will offer brilliant
solutions, it would be difficult for them to mimic
empathy. Why? Because at the core of empathy, there
is the process of building trust: listening to the other
 person, paying attention to their needs, expressing
the feeling of compassion and responding in a manner
that the other person knows they were understood.
At present, you would not trust a robot or a
smart algorithm with a life-altering decision or even
 with a decision whether or not to take painkillers, for
that matter. But we might never be able to imagine
healthcare without human empathy. We will need
doctors holding our hands while telling us about a
life-changing diagnosis, their guide through therapy
 and their overall support. An algorithm cannot replace
2) Physicians have a non-linear working
There was an episode in House M.D. where
 the team couldn’t figure out how a young boy could
have been poisoned. They considered many options:
drugs, food poisoning, pesticide poisoning. For
every possible diagnosis, they suggested a different
treatment option. Each one of them made the patient
 worse – until they figured out, by accident, that the
boy picked up phosmet, a type of insecticide from the
jeans that he bought from a street vendor who kept
the trousers in a truck. The boy didn’t wash the piece
of clothing before wearing it, that’s how his skin could
 absorb the poison.
No algorithm could have made that diagnosis.
Although data, measurements and quantitative
analytics are a crucial part of a doctor’s work, setting
up a diagnosis and treating a patient are not linear
 processes. It requires creativity and problem-solving
skills that algorithms and robots will never have.
3) Complex digital technologies require
More and more sophisticated digital health
 solutions will require the competence of qualified
medical professionals, no matter whether it’s
about robotics or A.I. Take the example of the most
commonly known surgical robot, the da Vinci Surgical
System. It features a magnified 3D high-definition
 vision system and tiny wristed instruments that bend
and rotate far greater than the human hand. However,
surgeons have to learn how to operate it, and it takes
practice to master it.
Likewise, look at IBM Watson. Its unique program
 for oncologists provides clinicians evidence-based
treatment options. Nonetheless, it’s only doctors
together with their patients who can choose the
treatment, and only physicians can evaluate whether
the smart algorithm came up with potentially useful
 suggestions. No robot or algorithm could clearly
interpret complex, multi-layered challenges —
involving the psyche. While they will provide the data,
interpretation will always remain a human territory
4) There will always be tasks algorithms and
 robots can never complete
Physicians, nurses and other members of the
medical staff have plenty of cumbersome monotonous
and repetitive tasks to complete every single day.
However, there are responsibilities and duties which
 technologies cannot perform. While IBM Watson can
sift through millions of pages of documents in seconds,
it will never be able to do the Heimlich maneuver.
There will always be tasks where humans will be
faster, more reliable — or cheaper than technology.
 5) It has never been tech vs. human
The consistent and constant enemy image
building should stop once and for all. It has never
been technology versus humans since technological
innovations always serve the purpose to help people.
 We are playing on the same team. No matter whether
it’s A.I., robotics, augmented or virtual reality, we
should accept that they have a massive influence on
the way healthcare operates, and then start utilizing
 Collaboration between humans and technology is
the ultimate response. The Medical Futurist believes
that this is the perfect example for the coming decades.
Technology will help bring medical professionals
towards a more efficient, less error-prone and more
 seamless healthcare. Our team insists on the usage
of digital tools as we are confident that if utilized in
the right way — ethical and legal concerns NOT set
aside — the physician will have more time for the
patient, the doctor can enjoy his work and healthcare
 will move into an overall positive direction.
Available at: http://medicalfuturist.com/5-reasons-artifi cial- -intelligence-wont-replace-physicians. Retrieved on: June 30, 2018. Adapted
n the fragment of the text “While they will provide the data, interpretation will always remain a human territory” (lines 77-78), the pronoun they refers to
Questão 19 304732FCM PB 2018/1
Wild and Captive Chimpanzees Share Personality Traits With Humans
A chimpanzee in Gombe National Park in Tanzania. Researchers have found that wild and captive chimps share personality traits much like those observed in humans. Credit: Alexander Weiss
"In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jane Goodall started attributing personalities to the chimpanzees she followed in Gombe National Park in what is now Tanzania. In her descriptions, some were more playful or aggressive, affectionate or nurturing.
Many scientists at the time were horrified, she recalled. Considered an amateur — she didn’t yet have her Ph.D. — they contended she was inventing personality traits for animals. Dr. Goodall, now 83 years old, said in a phone interview on Monday from her home in England that scientists thought “I was guilty of the worst kind of anthropomorphism.”
But time has borne out her insights. Chimpanzees in the wild have personalities similar to those in captivity, and both strongly overlap with traits that are familiar in humans, a new study published in Scientific Data confirms. The new examination of chimpanzees at Gombe updates personality research conducted on 24 animals in 1973 to include more than 100 additional chimps that were evaluated a few years ago. The animals were individually assessed by graduate students in the earlier study, and in the latest by Tanzanian field assistants, on personality traits like agreeableness, extroversion, depression, aggression and self-control.
Researchers used different questionnaires to assess the chimps’ traits in the two studies, but most of the personality types were consistent across the two studies. These traits seen among wild chimps matched ones seen among captive animals, the study found, and are similar to those described in people. Dr. Goodall, who is promoting a new documentary, “Jane,” about those early days of her research, said she’s not surprised. She knew from childhood experiences with guinea pigs, tortoises and her favorite dog, Rusty, that animals have personalities that are quite familiar. “I honestly don’t think you can be close to any animals and not realize their very vivid personalities,” she said.
Clive Wynne, a professor and director of the Canine Science Collaboratory at Arizona State University in Tempe, who was not involved in the research, said the new study offered a “really rich picture” of the overlap among species. “It’s backing up and reinforcing a number of things that we assume about animal personality that are seldom established with this degree of security in substantial wild-living populations,” said Dr. Wynne, who concurs that dogs, his area of specialty, also have similar personality traits.
Robert Latzman, an associate professor at Georgia State University, who was not involved in the study, said his research with chimpanzees in zoos has always left open the question of whether animals in the wild are somehow different. “What’s exciting about these data is there’s some suggestion that wild apes look very similar to what we would expect in terms of basic dispositional traits and continuity of those traits — and I don’t mean just to captive chimpanzees, but to humans,” he said. “The work in the wild underscores how similar these animals truly are to humans.”
Alexander Weiss, who led the new study, said he was particularly interested in examining the personality traits of animals in the wild. His findings were in line with previous research he’s done on chimpanzees in captivity. “The fact that we’re showing this consistency in the wild is nice, because it allows us to draw more general conclusions,” said Dr. Weiss, a senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. “It’s not just being in a zoo that’s causing these individual traits to be stable.” The study’s underlying data will be made publicly available so other scientists can use them in their own research, he said.
Although most of the animals tested in 1973 had died by the time the recent analysis was conducted, the study also concluded that an animal’s personality traits were generally consistent over time. Dr. Goodall said that fits what she’s seen, too. She only visits Gombe twice a year now, and only two animals are still alive from the days when she knew them as individuals. One, a mother of twins named Gremlin, has changed a bit, Dr. Goodall said. “I think the main difference in her personality is she’s become more confident as she gets older, just like people do,” she said.
Dr. Goodall added that she’s pleased that researchers are still finding so much of interest at Gombe, and tapping into the expertise of Tanzanian field workers. And, of course, she’s happy that the academic perspective has shifted from the time when she was told only humans had personalities, minds and emotions. “Today you can get your Ph.D. studying animal personality. I think we’ve come around full-cycle,” she said. “It absolutely vindicates all that I’ve ever believed.”
(Adapted from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/science/chimpanzees-goodall.html)
“[…] I think the main difference in her personality is she’s become more confident as she gets older, just like people do, […]”
Assign the correct grammatical classes (underlined words) based on the order that they appear in the sentence above.
Questão 19 318731UNESC 2018
Stars do it. Sports do it. Judges in the highest courts do it. Let's do it: that yoga thing.
In the sentence above, the expression “it” refers to:
Questão 33 141210UPE 1° Fase / 1° Dia SSA 2017
Howard Gardner believes that a person __________ is good at math is not more intelligent than someone who is good at sports. He believes they are intelligent in a different way.
Howard Gardner is a psychologist, and a long time __________ (in 1983) he wrote a book about his theory. In his view there is not just one kind of intelligence – there are multiple intelligences. It‟s possible to be good (or not so good) at one or more of them. You can have trouble __________ words, for example, but be quite good at drawing and at athletics. Or you can find it hard to understand yourself but be really good at connecting with other people!
The idea __________ „multiple intelligences‟ is very interesting. It‟s also really useful. People __________ a strong musical intelligence for example, can use songs to help them learn. You can also develop your weaker intelligences to give yourself more choices and to make your life more interesting.
(In: Jetstream, Pre-intermediate A. REVELL, J and TOMALIN, M. Helbling Languages, 2015. Adaptado.)
Use the words WITH, OF, WHO, WITH, AGO to complete the blanks in the text. The CORRECT order is:
Questão 77 141046UFPR 2017
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them.
In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light.
The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles.
Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless.
When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade.
The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags.
I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car>. 21/08/2016.)
The word “they”, in boldface and underlined, in section 3, refers to:
Questão 54 598888FCMMG Medicina 2017/2
Question will be based on the text below. Read it carefully and then choose the best alternative that answers the question placed immediately after it.
Stem cell breakthrough may be simple, fast, cheap
§1 We run too hard, we fall down, we’re sick -- all of this puts stress on the cells in our bodies. But in what’s being called a breakthrough in regenerative medicine, researchers have found a way to make stem cells by purposely putting mature cells under stress.
§2 Two new studies published Wednesday in the journal Nature describe a method of taking mature cells from mice and turning them into embryonic-like stem cells, which can be coaxed into becoming any other kind of cell possible. One method effectively boils down to this: put the cells in an acidic environment.
§3 “I think the process we’ve described mimics Mother Nature,” said Dr. Charles Vacanti, director of the laboratory for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author on one of the studies. “It’s a natural process that cells normally respond to.”
§4 Both studies represent a new step in the thriving science of stem cell research, which seeks to develop therapies to repair bodily damage and cure disease by being able to insert cells that can grow into whatever tissues or organs are needed. If you take an organ that’s functioning at 10% of normal and bring it up to 25% of functionality, that could greatly reduce the likelihood of fatality in that particular disease, Vacanti said.
§5 This method by Vacanti and his colleagues “is truly the simplest, cheapest, fastest method ever achieved for reprogramming cells,” said Jeff Karp, associate professor of medicine at the Brigham & Women’s Hospital and principal faculty member at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He was not involved in the study
§6 Before the technique described in Nature, the leading candidates for creating stem cells artificially were those derived from embryos and stem cells from adult cells that require the insertion of DNA to become reprogrammable.
§7 Stem cells are created the natural way every time an egg that is fertilized begins to divide. During the first four to five days of cell division, so-called pluripotent stem cells develop. They have the ability to turn into any cell in the body. Removing stem cells from the embryo destroys it, which is why this type of research is controversial.
§8 Researchers have also developed a method of producing embryonic-like stem cells by taking a skin cell from a patient, for example, and adding a few bits of foreign DNA to reprogram the skin cell to become like an embryo and produce pluripotent cells, too. However, these cells are usually used for research because researchers do not want to give patients cells with extra DNA.
§9 The new method does not involve the destruction of embryos or inserting new genetic material into cells, Vacanti said. It also avoids the problem of rejection: The body may reject stem cells that came from other people, but this method uses an individual’s own mature cells.
§10 “It was really surprising to see that such a remarkable transformation could be triggered simply by stimuli from outside of the cell,” said Haruko Obokata of the Riken Center for Developmental Biology in Japan in a news conference this week.
§11 The process is called STAP, which stands for “stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency.” Karp estimates that the method is five to 10 times faster than other means of reprogramming cells.
§12 Researchers used mice to study the STAP cell phenomenon. They genetically altered the mice donating stem cells to “label” those cells with the color green. For instance, they modified mice such that their cells would light up green in response to a particular wavelength of light.
§13 The scientists exposed blood cells from these genetically altered mice to an acidic environment. A few days later, they saw that these cells turned into the embryonic-like state and grew in spherical clusters.
§14 Scientists put the cell clusters into a mouse embryo that had not been genetically modified. It turned out, the implanted clusters could form tissues in all of the organs that the researchers tested. The scientists knew that the cells came from the original mouse because they turned green when exposed to a particular light.
§15 Besides modifying acidity, researchers also stressed the cells in other ways, such as lowering the oxygen environment and disrupting the cell membrane. Increasing acidity was one of the most effective methods of turning mouse blood cells into STAP cells.
§16 There are, of course, some caveats.
§17 For now, the STAP cell procedure has only been demonstrated in cells from young mice. Its effectiveness in humans, and the risks, are unknown.
§18 Researchers have not yet shown how STAP embryonic-like stem cells compare with bona fide embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells, Karp said. Also, although the study was “rigorous” and “well-controlled,” it did not demonstrate exactly why the stress on the cells caused them to become STAP cells, Karp said.
§19 As with everything in science, more research is required to confirm the findings and learn more about the implications. Vacanti hopes the process could get tested clinically in humans within three years. He noted that induced pluripotent stem cells are already being explored in Japan in humans and the same “platforms” could be utilized for STAP cells.
§20 STAP cells also have an additional property that embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not: They can become placental cells. Scientists can manipulate them to contribute to tissues of either the embryo or the placenta.
§21 What therapeutic purpose growing more placenta could serve, Vacanti isn’t sure -- unless, that is, you wanted to create an embryo and bring it to term.But that’s not the goal of this research. Vacanti and colleagues want to explore possible ties to cancer from the STAP cell process; it could potentially help to model the process by which cells become cancerous and explore if there is a way to reverse the process.
§22 Stem cell research as a field has been growing at “lightning speed,” Karp said. New reprogramming approaches to stem cells are emerging all the time, he said, and this one in particular “looks incredibly promising.”
The word its in the following sentence “Its effectiveness in humans, and the risks, are unknown.” (paragraph 17) refers to: