Questões de Inglês - Grammar - Linking words - Consequence
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
What Does It Mean to Tear Down a Statue?
Protesters throwing the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into a harbour.
Statues of historical figures, including slave traders and Christopher Columbus, are being toppled throughout the U.S. and around the world. This follows years of debate about public display of Confederate symbols. We interviewed the art historian Erin L. Thompson about the topic. Read the excerpt from the interview.
Q. What are some of the issues that arise when we talk about statues being torn down?
A. We have as humans been making monuments to glorify people and ideas since we started making art, and since we started making statues, other people have torn them down. So it’s not surprising that we are seeing people rebelling against ideas that are represented by these statues today.
Q. What do the recent attacks on statues tell us about the protests themselves?
A. The current attacks on statues are a sign that what’s in question is not just our future but our past, as a nation, as a society. These attacks show that we need to question the way we understand the world, even the past, in order to get to a better future.
Q. What’s a statue?
A. I think a statue is a bid for immortality. It’s a way of solidifying an idea and making it present to other people. It’s not the statues themselves but the point of view that they represent. And these [the ones being destroyed] are statues in public places, right? So these are statues claiming that this version of history is the public version of history.
Also, many Confederate statues are made out of bronze, a metal that you can melt down. The ancient Greeks made their major monuments out of bronze. Hardly any of these survived because as soon as regimes changed, as soon as there was war, it got melted down and made into money or a statue of somebody else.
We have been in a period of peace and prosperity — not peace for everybody, but the U.S. hasn’t been invaded, we’ve had enough money to maintain statues. So our generation thinks of public art as something that will always be around. But this is a very ahistorical point of view. I wish that what is happening now with statues being torn down didn’t have to happen this way. But there have been peaceful protests against many of these statues which have come to nothing. So if people lose hope in the possibility of a peaceful resolution, they’re going to find other means.
(www.nytimes.com, 11.06.2020. Adaptado.)
No trecho do penúltimo parágrafo “because […] it got melted down and made into money”, a palavra sublinhada indica uma
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:
Considerando-se os aspectos estruturais e semânticos do texto, verifica-se que
Questão 11 1259111 Médio
FGV-SP Economia - 1ºFase - LEI/FIS/QUI/LPO - BLOCO 02 2019Read the text in order to answer question.
How to fix inequality
Introduction
In an age of widening inequality, the Stanford professor Walter Scheidel believes he has cracked the code on how to overcome it in his book “The Great Leveler”. The Economist’s Open Future initiative asked Mr Scheidel to reply to a number of questions.
1. The Economist: Is society incapable of tackling income inequality peacefully?
Walter Scheidel: No, but history shows that there are limits. There is a big difference between maintaining existing arrangements that successfully check inequality — Scandinavia is a good example — and significantly reducing it. The latter requires real change and that is always much harder to do: think of America or Britain, not to mention Brazil, China or India. The modern welfare state does a reasonably good job of compensating for inequality before taxes and transfers. However, for more substantial levelling to occur, the established order needs to be shaken up: the greater the shock to the system, the easier it becomes to reduce privilege at the top.
2. The Economist: Are we really living in an implacable period of wealth inequality — or was the relatively equal society that followed the Second World War the real aberration?
Walter Scheidel: When we view history over the long run, we can see that this experience was certainly a novelty. We now know that modernisation as such does not reliably reduce inequality. Many things had to come together to make this happen, such as very high income and estate taxes, strong labour unions, and intrusive regulations and controls. Since the 1980s, liberalisation and globalisation have allowed inequality to rise again. Even so, wealth concentration in Europe is nowhere near as high as it was a century ago. Like Europe, America, meanwhile, is getting there — which shows that it all depends on where you look.
3. The Economist: How do artificial intelligence and automation fit in to your thinking? Will they be a calamity for employment and thus for equality? Or might they unleash extraordinary productivity and improvements in living standards that actually narrow inequality?
Walter Scheidel: Ideally, we would like education to keep up with technological change to make sure workers have the skills they need to face this challenge. But in practice, there will always be losers, and even basic-income schemes can take us only so far. At the end of the day, someone owns the robots. As long as the capitalist world system is in place, it is hard to see how even huge productivity gains from greater automation would benefit society evenly instead of funnelling even more income and wealth to those who are in the best position to pocket these gains.
(The Economist. http://bit.do/eysic. Adaptado)
In the excerpt from the third question made by The Economist “Will they be a calamity for employment and thus for equality?”, the word in bold denotes
WEIGHT WATCHERS FOCUSES ON WEIGHT, NOT
Following Weight Watchers is still not the healthy way to lose weight and keep it off, despite their
newest point system, the “PointsPlus”, where fresh fruits and most vegetables have a zero-point value,
essentially meaning that they are unlimited. This is certainly a positive step, and I applaud Weight
Watchers for taking it. They have tweaked their program a bit to make it healthier.
[5] However, the Weight Watchers program is still far from a health-promoting eating style. The
“PointsPlus” system encourages eating foods that produce greater satiety – foods that are higher in fiber
and protein content are more favorably scored. High-fiber foods and high-protein foods are not
nutritionally equivalent. For example, compare beans and grilled chicken. Beans are phytochemical-rich,
protein-adequate, healthful foods with anti-cancer properties and a low glycemic load. Grilled chicken
[10] may also induce satiety because it is very high in protein, but it has no phytochemical content, and it
contains cancer-promoting properties. It is not a food that supports longevity and long-term health.
What’s more, chicken raises IGF-1 in the body, a hormone associated with higher rates of breast cancer.
The problem is that Weight Watchers promotes animal protein as a favorable food to consume, in spite of
the plethora of evidence in recent years linking high IGF-1 to premature aging and cancer.
[15] Weight Watchers’ guidelines for healthy eating are simply unhealthy and not supported by the
most updated nutritional science. Here are some of their recommendations:
• They recommend a miniscule five total (half-cup) daily servings of fruits and vegetables
combined which is not nearly enough to achieve disease prevention.
• They promise to provide a method of weight loss that “fits within one’s lifestyle and
[20] preferences”, assuring potential members that there is “plenty of room for treats and extras.”
To be inclusionary of everyone, they must give watered-down recommendations that are too
close to the disease-causing Standard American Diet. Despite the changes to the points
system that promotes more whole foods, it is still a diet of calorie-counting and controlled
portions of mostly addictive, processed foods.
[25] • They, like most diet plans, attempt to appeal to a mainstream audience who eat a diet of
primarily processed foods and animal products. So they must allow members to continue the
same eating pattern that originally led them down the path to obesity (and also leads to
diabetes, heart disease and cancer). This is evident by Weight Watchers’ line of pre-packaged
foods.
[30] • They sell nutrient-poor, high-sodium, reduced-calorie processed products with lengthy
ingredient lists including added sugars, hydrogenated oils, and white flour—just like
conventional processed foods. The ingredient lists are strategically absent from the Weight
Watchers website, though calorie and point values are visible.
Weight Watchers is not in the business of health; it is all about weight. Members, and even
[35] leaders, are poorly educated about nutritional science. People are not motivated to eat to win the war
against cancer. Participants continue to be victims of their food addictions because eating a little healthier
and trying to cut back is simply a formula for failure in the vast majority of cases. Weight Watchers gives
lip service to better health and healthier eating, yet continues to sell nutrient-depleted processed junk
food
[40] A healthy weight is almost impossible to maintain without serious attention to smart nutrition, prevention of all deficiencies, sufficient anti-inflammatory super foods and the resulting elimination of additions and cravings. Weight Watchers mostly serves those who remain forever on the weight loss merry-go-round, struggling with marginally effective recommendations and outcomes
The Nutritarian diet, as described in my book, The End of Dieting, is not focused on just weight
[45] loss; it is also focused on optimizing health, promoting longevity, and winning the war on cancer. You eat
larger amounts of vegetables, beans and fruits, with attention to eating the most powerful anti-cancer
foods on the planet. Food is rated according to micronutrient content per calorie, not just calories. Eating
delicious, health-promoting foods allows you to lose the cravings and temptations to eat greasy, sugary,
disease-causing foods. More importantly, once you learn how to follow a Nutritarian diet, the weight
[50] comes off dramatically and permanently and you never have to diet again. You become a nutritional
expert who can navigate through life knowing that you can protect yourself from serious and/or tragic
outcomes such as dementia, heart attacks, strokes and cancer. The Nutritarian diet is for people who
want great health and freedom from medical dependency and medical tragedies that eventually afflict
almost all Americans.
By Dr. Joel Fuhrman Retrieved and adapted from https://www.drfuhrman.com/learn/library/articles/46/weight-watchers-focuses-onweight-not-health Access on April 26, 2017.
The underlined expression introduces an idea of RESULT in
Global warming
Who pressed the pause button?
The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained
BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a properunderstanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over
This is the opposite of what happened at first. As evidence piled up that temperatures were not rising much, some scientists dismissed it as a blip. The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75 (see chart), even though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth getting excited about.
An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate. A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.
It is also worth remembering that average warming is not the only measure of climate change. According to a study just published by Sonia Seneviratne of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, in Zurich, the number of hot days, the number of extremely hot days and the length of warm periods all increased during the pause (1998-2012). A more stable average temperature hides wider extremes. Still, attempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause.
Mar 8th 2014 | www.economist.com
The word "hence" in the underlined sentence from the last paragraph of the text: “Hence attempts to explain the pause.” conveys an idea of
Leia o seguinte período extraído do texto:
Vegetarian restaurants have lower overheads since they don’t need freezers, says Marisa Ledesma, one of the owners of Bio Restaurante, a smart eatery. (parágrafo 2).
Assinale a opção que pode substituir o termo since sem que o sentido da oração seja comprometido.
Faça seu login GRÁTIS
Minhas Estatísticas Completas
Estude o conteúdo com a Duda
Estude com a Duda
Selecione um conteúdo para aprender mais: