Questões de Inglês - Grammar

Text 

The song below was performed by a gospel choir during the mariage ceremony of Prince Harry and the North American Megan Markle, held at Windson Castel on May 19, 2018.

    Stand By Me
    Ben E. King

When the night has come
And the land is dark
And the moon is the only light we'll see
No I won't be afraid, no I won't be afraid
Just as long as you stand, stand by me

Chorus
So darling, darling
Stand by me, oh, stand by me
Oh stand, stand by me
Stand by me

If the sky that we look upon
Should tumble and fall
Or the mountains should crumble to the sea
I won't cry, I won't cry
No I won't shed a tear
Just as long as you stand, stand by me

Whenever you're in trouble, won't you stand by me
Oh stand by me
Oh won't you stand now?
Stand by me

(In: https://www.vagalume.com.br/ben-e-king/stand-by-me-traducao.html)

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.

In place of submitting a traditional application for admission, prospective students may choose to apply for admission under the Test Score Application System. Under this system, the University accepts as applications the official score reports from either the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). High School juniors and seniors who take the ACT or the SAT should indicate this university as a score recipient of their ACT or SAT registration form. Upon receipt of the ACT Student Profile report or the SAT report, the Admissions Office will notify students of their eligibility for admission. Under this system, itis unnecessary to submit a high school transcript until after graduation unless the student wishes to apply for a scholarship.

STANLEY, Nancy. The best TOEFL test Book. Massachusetts:

Low-Context Versus High-Context Cultures

    If you have traveled much, perhaps you have noticed that people in various parts of the world differ in how direct and explicit their language is. You may have spent time in both low- and high-context cultures in your travels, with context here referring to the broad range of factors surrounding every act of communication.

    In a low-context culture, people are expected to be direct and to say what they mean. Individuals in lowcontext cultures prefer precise, concrete language for sending and receiving messages, and are unlikely to rely on the context of a message to determine its meaning. The United States is an example of a low-context society, as are Canada, Israel, and most northern European countries.

     In contrast, people in a high-context culture — such as Korea and the cultures of Native Americans and the Maori of New Zealand — are taught to speak in a much less direct way. In such cultures, maintaining harmony and avoiding offense are more important than expressing true feelings. Speech is more ambiguous and people convey much more of their meaning through subtle behaviors and contextual cues, such as their facial expressions and tone of voice.

    The difference between low-context and high-context cultures is evident in the ways in which people handle criticism and disagreement. In a low-context culture, a supervisor might reprimand an irresponsible employee openly, to make an example of the individual. The supervisor would probably be direct and explicit about the employee’s shortcomings, the company’s expectations for improvement, and the consequences of the employee’s failing to meet those expectations.

    In a high-context culture, however, the supervisor probably wouldn’t reprimand the employee publicly for fear that it would put the employee to shame and cause the worker to “lose face.” Criticism in high-context cultures is more likely to take place in private. The supervisor would also likely use more ambiguous language to convey what the employee was doing wrong, “talking around” the issue instead of confronting it directly. To reprimand an employee for repeated absences, for example, a supervisor might point out that responsibility to coworkers is important and that letting down the team would be cause for shame. The supervisor may never actually say that the employee needs to improve his or her attendance record. Instead, the employee would be expected to understand that message by listening to what the supervisor says and paying attention to the supervisor’s body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions.

    When people from low- and high-context cultures communicate with one another, the potential for misunderstanding is great. To appreciate that point, imagine that you’ve asked two of your friends to meet you tomorrow evening for a coffee tasting at a popular bookstore cafe. Tina, an American, says, “No, I’ve got a lot of studying to do, but thanks anyway.” Lee, who grew up in South Korea, nods his head and says, “That sounds like fun.” Thus, you’re surprised later when Lee doesn’t show up.

    How can you account for those different behaviors? The answer is that people raised in a high-context culture (such as that of South Korea) are often reluctant to say no—even when they mean no—for fear of causing offense. Another person raised in the South Korean culture might have understood from Lee’s facial expression or tone of voice that he didn’t intend to go to the coffee tasting. If you, like Tina, grew up in a low-context society, however, then you probably interpreted his answer and his nods to mean he was accepting your invitation.

Referência Bibliográfica FLOYD, KORY. Communication Matters. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. 2018.

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

    Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
    How things have changed.
    Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.

1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’

    The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.

2. ___________________

    Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
    A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.

3. Just be nicer?

    Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.

(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)

How robot carers could be the future for lonely elderly people

Alessandro Di Nuovo

December 6, 2018

    The film Robot and Frank imagined a near-future
where robots could do almost everything humans
could. The elderly title character was given a “robot
butler” to help him continue living on his own. The
robot was capable of everything from cooking and
[5] cleaning to socializing and, it turned out, burglary. This
kind of science fiction may turn out to be remarkably
prescient. As growing numbers of elderly people
require care, researchers believe that robots could be
[10] one way to address the overwhelming demand. But
even though robots might be able to provide care and,
in some cases, social interaction, many wonder if they
really are the right solution to this uniquely human
issue.

[15]    Loneliness and social isolation are already
problems for many seniors and are even linked to
cognitive decline and a higher death rate. With the
population of seniors expected to rise, many worry
that experiences of loneliness will increase, especially
[20] if access to care is even more limited.

    But despite concerns, early studies already show
that social robots – autonomous robots trained to
interact and communicate with humans – really could
address issues of care and social interaction. The
[25] majority of robotics researchers are largely in favour
of introducing robotic technology on a wider scale
and believe it could reduce loneliness and increase
independence in elderly patients. The Japanese
government even supports introducing robots in
[30] care homes to solve the country’s ageing population
problem. However, many strongly recommend
carefully balancing the care benefits against the
ethical costs.

    A class of social robots – mobile robotic
[35] telepresence systems (MRTs) – have already been
shown to generate positive social interactions with
elderly patients. MRTs are essentially video screens
on wheels raised to head height that can be controlled
remotely using a simple smartphone app. They allow
[40] relatives and social workers to “visit” elderly people
more often, even if they live in rural or distant places.
Elderly patients don’t need to operate the device,
leaving them free to interact with their social worker
or family. Communication still happens through a
[45] computer screen, but the robot’s physical presence
mimics face-to-face interaction for elderly people.
Research has shown that people reacted more
positively when talking with someone through an MRT

    than through a regular video call or computer avatar –
[50] especially lonely people. However, MRTs still require
a human operator, which limits the amount of social
interaction seniors can have daily.

    To tackle this, developers worldwide have
started creating robot companions programmed with
[55] advanced artificial intelligence (AI), which can interact
with people on their own. Some examples include
pet-like companion robots, including Aibo and Paro,
which are made by Japanese developers, and MiRo,
which is manufactured in the UK. Other humanoid
[60] robots, such as the Care-O-bot and Pepper, are able
to provide more complex and comprehensive care.
Though “pet” robots offer limited interaction, they
have proved as effective – or even more so – than
real pets in reducing loneliness for elderly people in
[65] care homes. Robotic dogs introduced in one UK care
home this year were reported to bring happiness and
comfort to residents.

    On the other hand, humanoid robots are already
advanced enough to provide much-needed care to
[70] elderly people. These robots can pick things up and
move independently, and have a more natural, human
way of interacting, for example, using arm and hand
gestures. More advanced versions have additional
sensors and devices, including touchscreens. Many
[75] elderly people, finding the touchscreens hard to use,
preferred giving spoken commands to the robot and
reading its response off the screen. But for those with
age-related hearing loss or vision impairment, having
the option to use the touchscreen was indispensable.
[80] Humanoid robots are still being developed, so their
capabilities are still limited. Moreover, studies of
humanoid robots have mainly focused on evaluating
how well the technology functions without really
considering the social impact. There is also a general
[85] assumption that it will naturally reduce loneliness.

    Though research into social robots is just
beginning, we do know they can provide some solutions
to the challenges mounted by ageing populations, and
could even help reduce social isolation and loneliness.
[90] At this point, humans are still better in providing care
and social contact to the elderly, but robots might
be able to fill any gaps, especially as technologies
continue to improve. However, before social robots
can be fully integrated into care homes, researchers
[95] and service providers must address public anxiety
and make it clear that robots are designed to assist
social workers, not replace them. As long as humans
remain in full control to prevent any danger, robots
might well be the future of care.

Available at:https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgetsand-tech/features/robot-carer-elderly-people-lonelinessageing-population-care-homes-a8659801.html. Retrieved on: July 2, 2019. Adapted.