Questões de Inglês - Reading/Writing

O texto a seguir é referência para a questão.

The Real Harm in Multitasking

By Dr. Travis Bradberry

    You’ve likely heard that multitasking is problematic, but new studies show that it kills your performance and may even damage your brain. Research conducted at Stanford University found that multitasking is less productive than doing a single thing at a time.
    A Special Skill?
    But what if some people have a special gift for multitasking? The Stanford researchers compared groups of people based on their tendency to multitask and their belief that it helps their performance. They found that heavy multitaskers – those who multitask a lot and feel that it boosts their performance – were actually worse at multitasking than those who like to do a single thing at a time.
    Multitasking Lowers IQ
    Research also shows that, in addition to slowing you down, multitasking lowers your IQ. A study at the University of London found that participants who multitasked during cognitive tasks experienced IQ score declines that were similar to what they’d expect if they had smoked marijuana or stayed up all night. IQ drops of 15 points for multitasking men lowered their scores to the average range of an 8-year-old child.

(From: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141008153512-50578967-multitasking-damages-your-brain-and-your-career-new-studies-suggest.)

  In short, Virginia Woolf suggests that time exists in different forms. It exists in the external world, but also — and perhaps more importantly — in our internal world. Her description of the loud and rushing civilization suggests that we push ahead in the name of progress, without fully appreciating the moment. Through the character of Clarissa, Woolf challenges the usual definition of success. Perhaps we need not leave some magnificent gift behind in the form of a building or a concrete art piece. Instead, maybe it is how we live our lives and our appreciation for the present that are truly more powerful and eternal. The small gifts we offer others, like bringing people together through a party, can touch people differently than a monument.

  Woolf’s message about time should be heeded. Our rush to leave a dramatic mark in the world leads to further destruction. Tension abounds in our modern world as we create technology to increase our efficiency. Our civilization tends to see scientific and monumental achievements as the most valid measures of an individual’s success. However, in the process, our communities disintegrate. More and more people complain of feeling alienated. The evidence surrounds us. The internal time that allows us to slow down and be involved with people finds itself dominated by external societal time. Some might find Clarissa Dalloway’s gift to the world to be trivial. However, we need individuals with the ability to pull people together — people with the ability to create community where it no longer exists.

Internet: <prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu> (adapted).

The text conveys the idea that

The President is Missing

By Bill Clinton and James Patterson

When Tom Wolfe noted that “the problem with fiction” is that “it has to be plausible,” he may have had efforts like this one in mind. Bill Clinton and James Patterson’s ambitious and wildly readable new novel, “The President Is Missing,” arches more closely toward plausibility in its geopolitical subplots — threats against the Saudi king, malicious Russian meddling in world affairs — than its main story line of a president who ditches his handlers and goes rogue from the White House, convinced he is the only one who can foil a huge cyberterror plot.

The book opens with a charged scene in which President Jonathan Duncan is participating in a mock hearing to prepare for a congressional inquiry investigating the botched attempt to capture a terrorist. When the president loses his temper, he vindicates the advisers who have cautioned him not to appear before the actual committee. It’s a satisfying outcome for the former senior staffer in me — but unrealistic, considering the picture of the president that unfolds on the subsequent pages.

Disponível em . Acesso em 20 de jul. 2018.

A questão se refere ao texto a seguir:

  […] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien
race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that
people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To
my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. […] The obvious
[5] explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. […]
  So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an
average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed
2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the
figu res. […]
[10]   So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we
ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three
times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a
third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our
direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have
[15] rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we
consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other
words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to
be the issue.
  The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food
[20] companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control
mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including
through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating
more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
  They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the
[30]  tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After
spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
  To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for
your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think
having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about
[35] getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.
  More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal
motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the
61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems
immune to evidence.
[40]  Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity
rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to
explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how
the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more
vulnerable to bad diets.
[45]  Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible
housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments.
Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those
who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. 

Adaptado de: