Questões de Inglês - IME 2019 | Gabarito e resoluções

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Texto 3 CHAPTER 2 SCIENCE AND HOPE [...] I was a child in a time of hope. I wanted to be a scientist from my earliest school days. The crystallizing moment came when I first caught on that the stars are mighty suns, when it first dawned on me how staggeringly far away they must be to appear as mere points of light in the sky. Im not sure I even knew the meaning of the word science then, but I wanted somehow to immerse myself in all that grandeur. I was gripped by the splendour of the Universe, transfixed by the prospect of understanding how things really work, of helping to uncover deep mysteries, of exploring new worlds - maybe even literally. It has been my good fortune to have had that dream in part fulfilled. For me, the romance of science remains as appealing and new as it was on that day, more than half a century ago, when I was shown the wonders of the 1939 Worlds Fair. Popularizing science - trying to make its methods and findings accessible to non-scientists - then follows naturally and immediately. Not explaining science seems to me perverse. When youre in love, you want to tell the world. This book is a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science. But theres another reason: science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. [...] Adaptado de SAGAN, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. Science as a Candle in the Dark. Headline Book Publishing, 1997. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 22/07/2019. It can be inferred from the text that

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Texto 3 CHAPTER 2 SCIENCE AND HOPE [...] I was a child in a time of hope. I wanted to be a scientist from my earliest school days. The crystallizing moment came when I first caught on that the stars are mighty suns, when it first dawned on me how staggeringly far away they must be to appear as mere points of light in the sky. Im not sure I even knew the meaning of the word science then, but I wanted somehow to immerse myself in all that grandeur. I was gripped by the splendour of the Universe, transfixed by the prospect of understanding how things really work, of helping to uncover deep mysteries, of exploring new worlds - maybe even literally. It has been my good fortune to have had that dream in part fulfilled. For me, the romance of science remains as appealing and new as it was on that day, more than half a century ago, when I was shown the wonders of the 1939 Worlds Fair. Popularizing science - trying to make its methods and findings accessible to non-scientists - then follows naturally and immediately. Not explaining science seems to me perverse. When youre in love, you want to tell the world. This book is a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science. But theres another reason: science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. [...] Adaptado de SAGAN, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. Science as a Candle in the Dark. Headline Book Publishing, 1997. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 22/07/2019. It can be inferred from the text that

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Texto 4 HOW MUCH CAN WE KNOW? The reach of the scientific method is constrained by the limitations of our tools and the intrinsic impenetrability of some of natures deepest questions. What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning, wrote German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who was the first to fathom the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics. To those who think of science as a direct path to the truth about the world, this quote must be surprising, perhaps even upsetting. People will quickly counterstrike with something like: Why do airplanes fly or antibiotics work? Why are we able to build machines that process information with such amazing efficiency? Surely, such inventions and so many others are based on laws of nature that function independently of us. There is order in the universe, and science gradually uncovers this order. No question about it: There is order in the universe, and much of science is about finding patterns of behaviorfrom quarks to mammals to galaxiesthat we translate into general laws. We strip away unnecessary complications and focus on what is essential, the core properties of the system we are studying. We then build a descriptive narrative of how the system behaves, which, in the best cases, is also predictive. Often overlooked in the excitement of research is that the methodology of science requires interaction with the system we are studying. We observe its behavior, measure its properties, and build mathematical or conceptual models to understand it better. We can see only so far into the nature of things, and our ever shifting scientific worldview reflects this fundamental limitation on how we perceive reality. Just think of biology before and after the microscope or gene sequencing, or of astronomy before and after the telescope, or of particle physics before and after colliders or fast electronics. Now, as in the 17th century, the theories we build and the worldviews we construct change as our tools of exploration transform. This trend is the trademark of science. Sometimes people take this statement about the limitation of scientific knowledge as being defeatist: If we cant get to the bottom of things, why bother? This kind of response is misplaced. There is nothing defeatist in understanding the limitations of the scientific approach to knowledge. Science remains our best methodology to build consensus about the workings of nature. What should change is a sense of scientific triumphalismthe belief that no question is beyond the reach of scientific discourse. [...] Adaptado de GLEISER, Marcelo. How Much Can We Know? Nature, International Journal of Science. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 14/08/2019. Choose the correct option.

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Texto 4 HOW MUCH CAN WE KNOW? The reach of the scientific method is constrained by the limitations of our tools and the intrinsic impenetrability of some of natures deepest questions. What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning, wrote German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who was the first to fathom the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics. To those who think of science as a direct path to the truth about the world, this quote must be surprising, perhaps even upsetting. People will quickly counterstrike with something like: Why do airplanes fly or antibiotics work? Why are we able to build machines that process information with such amazing efficiency? Surely, such inventions and so many others are based on laws of nature that function independently of us. There is order in the universe, and science gradually uncovers this order. No question about it: There is order in the universe, and much of science is about finding patterns of behaviorfrom quarks to mammals to galaxiesthat we translate into general laws. We strip away unnecessary complications and focus on what is essential, the core properties of the system we are studying. We then build a descriptive narrative of how the system behaves, which, in the best cases, is also predictive. Often overlooked in the excitement of research is that the methodology of science requires interaction with the system we are studying. We observe its behavior, measure its properties, and build mathematical or conceptual models to understand it better. We can see only so far into the nature of things, and our ever shifting scientific worldview reflects this fundamental limitation on how we perceive reality. Just think of biology before and after the microscope or gene sequencing, or of astronomy before and after the telescope, or of particle physics before and after colliders or fast electronics. Now, as in the 17th century, the theories we build and the worldviews we construct change as our tools of exploration transform. This trend is the trademark of science. Sometimes people take this statement about the limitation of scientific knowledge as being defeatist: If we cant get to the bottom of things, why bother? This kind of response is misplaced. There is nothing defeatist in understanding the limitations of the scientific approach to knowledge. Science remains our best methodology to build consensus about the workings of nature. What should change is a sense of scientific triumphalismthe belief that no question is beyond the reach of scientific discourse. [...] Adaptado de GLEISER, Marcelo. How Much Can We Know? Nature, International Journal of Science. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 14/08/2019. According to the following passage from the text: Just think of biology before and after the microscope or gene sequencing, or of astronomy before and after the telescope, or of particle physics before and after colliders or fast electronics., choose the correct option.

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Texto 4 HOW MUCH CAN WE KNOW? The reach of the scientific method is constrained by the limitations of our tools and the intrinsic impenetrability of some of natures deepest questions. What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning, wrote German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who was the first to fathom the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics. To those who think of science as a direct path to the truth about the world, this quote must be surprising, perhaps even upsetting. People will quickly counterstrike with something like: Why do airplanes fly or antibiotics work? Why are we able to build machines that process information with such amazing efficiency? Surely, such inventions and so many others are based on laws of nature that function independently of us. There is order in the universe, and science gradually uncovers this order. No question about it: There is order in the universe, and much of science is about finding patterns of behaviorfrom quarks to mammals to galaxiesthat we translate into general laws. We strip away unnecessary complications and focus on what is essential, the core properties of the system we are studying. We then build a descriptive narrative of how the system behaves, which, in the best cases, is also predictive. Often overlooked in the excitement of research is that the methodology of science requires interaction with the system we are studying. We observe its behavior, measure its properties, and build mathematical or conceptual models to understand it better. We can see only so far into the nature of things, and our ever shifting scientific worldview reflects this fundamental limitation on how we perceive reality. Just think of biology before and after the microscope or gene sequencing, or of astronomy before and after the telescope, or of particle physics before and after colliders or fast electronics. Now, as in the 17th century, the theories we build and the worldviews we construct change as our tools of exploration transform. This trend is the trademark of science. Sometimes people take this statement about the limitation of scientific knowledge as being defeatist: If we cant get to the bottom of things, why bother? This kind of response is misplaced. There is nothing defeatist in understanding the limitations of the scientific approach to knowledge. Science remains our best methodology to build consensus about the workings of nature. What should change is a sense of scientific triumphalismthe belief that no question is beyond the reach of scientific discourse. [...] Adaptado de GLEISER, Marcelo. How Much Can We Know? Nature, International Journal of Science. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 14/08/2019. Choose the correct option.

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Tema 1 Escreva um pargrafo EM INGLS coerente, coeso e original, de 30 a 50 palavras, justificando sua resposta ao seguinte questionamento: If you had to give someone a prize, would you give it to (a) the inventor of the printing press, (b) the inventor of the airplane or (c) the inventor of the computer? Why?

(IME - 2019/2020 - 2 FASE) Tema 2 Escreva um pargrafo EM INGLS coerente, coeso e original, de 30 a 50 palavras, justificando sua opinio sobre a citao abaixo. There can be no great accomplishment without risk. Neil Armstrong (Astronaut, first man to walk on the moon)