Questões de Inglês - IME | Gabarito e resoluções

(IME - 2007/2008 - 2 FASE) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 1, 2 e 3. Babies can spot languages on facial clues alone(Adapted from NewScientist.com, May 2007) 1 Young babies can discriminate between different languages just by looking at an adults face, even if they do not hear a single spoken word. And babies who grow up bilingual can do this for longer than monolingual infants. The work suggests that visual information helps to tell languages apart. 2 This supports the idea that infants come prepared to learn multiple languages and to discriminate them both auditorily and visually, says Whitney Weikum from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who discovered babies keen eye for speech. Looking at a face may help identify speakers of your native language. 3 Weikum and her colleagues, showed babies videos of adults speaking various sentences, but with the sound turned off. The infants soon got bored, but as soon as speakers switched from English to French, they noticed the change and watched with renewed interest. 4 Laura-Ann Petitto, who researches language and child development at Dartmouth College in Hanover, US, previously studied visual language perception in deaf babies who were learning sign language. She is excited by Weikums results: Never did we dream that young hearing babies also use visual cues in this stunning way. Bilingual asset 5 A good eye for different languages appears to be especially important if you need to tell them apart regularly. At eight months old, bilingual babies could still see the switch happen, but their monolingual peers stopped noticing it after the age of six months. 6 This shows us how a babys language development is closely related to their learning environment, says Weikum. Only if they are exposed to more than one language, do they remain able to discriminate the languages visually. 7 However, Weikum does not think that parents who are keen to help their babies learn to speak need to introduce a second language before the visual discrimination ability disappears, or start using visually exaggerated speech. Our study does not show visual speech cues help infants learn languages, only to tell them apart. Parents should just continue talking to their babies in fun, engaging conversations. 8 The researchers now want to discover more about how bilingual babies maintain and take advantage of visual discrimination, and find out what the precise visual cues are in a speakers face that help a baby to identify different languages. Complete as frases a seguir com and, because, but, or e so para que elas faam sentido de acordo com o texto Babies can spot languages on facial clues alone. Os conectivos no devem ser repetidos. 3.1. Differently from monolingual babies, bilingual ones can discriminate between different languages after six months old _____that doesnt mean this ability makes them better languages learners. 3.2.Whitney Weikum discovered babies keen eye for speech _____Laura-Ann Pelitto, who also studies visual language perception in babies, got very excited with the results. 3.3.A good eye for different languages appears especially important to bilingual babies _____they need to tell them apart regularly. 3.4.The sound of the videos shown to the babies had to be turned off _____the results couldnt have concluded that visual information helps to tell languages apart. 3.5.The researches want to discover more about how bilingual babies maintain and take advantage of visual discrimination _____the studies should be carried on.

Questão 4

(IME - 2007/2008 - 2 FASE) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 4, 5, 6 e 7. Wi-Fi? Why Worry? (Adapted from BBC, April 2007) Scare stories about the dangers of wireless networks lack credibility, argues Bill Thompson 1 Students at Canadas Lakehead University have to be careful how they connect to the internet because Wi-Fi is banned on large parts of the campus. 2 University president Fred Gilbert, whose academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science, is worried about the health impact of the 2.4 GHz radio waves used by wireless networks. 3 Last year he decided to adopt the precautionary principle and refused to allow Wi-Fi in those areas that have what he calls hard wire connectivity until it is proved to be safe. 4 Mr Gilbert believes that microwave radiation in the frequency range of Wi-Fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks. 5 Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result. Smog talk 6 While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering. 7 Yet Mr Gilbert is not alone. 8 In 2003 parents sued a primary school in Chicago because it had dared to provide children with easy access to computing resources over a wireless network. 9 And there are a number of pressure groups, campaigning organisations and ill-informed individuals who believe that wireless networks pose a threat to health and want to see them closed down. 10 Now it seems they have been joined by the editor of the UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday, which this weekend filled its front page with a call for research into the electronic smog that is permeating the nations schools and damaging growing childrens brains. 11 An accompanying editorial with the even-handed headline high-tech horrors called for an official inquiry, while the article outlining the perceived dangers asked Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb? 12 The answer, of course, is no. 13 That will not stop the newspaper stoking up a wave of opposition to one of the most liberating technologies to have come out of the hi-tech revolution, limiting childrens access to networked computers at schools and even blocking plans to develop municipal wireless networks in our towns and cities. 14 If the journalists were really concerned about the dangers of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on the sensitive brains of the young, they should be calling for the closure of TV and radio transmission towers rather than asking us to turn off our Wi-Fi laptops. 15 The modulated frequencies that carry Radio 4 and ITV into our homes are just as powerful as the wireless networks, and a lot more pervasive. 16 And my wireless network is only carrying data when Im online, while Radio 3 burbles all day long, possibly exciting electrons in my brain and causing headaches. 17 Then there is the danger from photons of visible light streaming down onto us as we work, since these carry more energy than microwaves and could surely do more damage. 18 Perhaps we should demand that our children work in the dark. Retire do texto Wi-Fi? Why Worry? as informaes pedidas nos itens seguintes: The frequency of wireless network radio waves: __________________4.1__________________. Three health damages network radio frequency are supposed to cause: __________________4.2__________________ , __________________4.3__________________, and __________________4.4__________________. An example of a technological device whose power levels are higher and can be more dangerous to health than that of Wi-Fi: __________________4.5__________________.

Questão 5

(IME - 2007/2008 - 2 FASE) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 4, 5, 6 e 7. Wi-Fi? Why Worry?(Adapted from BBC, April 2007) Scare stories about the dangers of wireless networks lack credibility, argues Bill Thompson 1 Students at Canadas Lakehead University have to be careful how they connect to the internet because Wi-Fi is banned on large parts of the campus. 2 University president Fred Gilbert, whose academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science, is worried about the health impact of the 2.4 GHz radio waves used by wireless networks. 3 Last year he decided to adopt the precautionary principle and refused to allow Wi-Fi in those areas that have what he calls hard wire connectivity until it is proved to be safe. 4 Mr Gilbert believes that microwave radiation in the frequency range of Wi-Fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks. 5 Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result. Smog talk 6 While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering. 7 Yet Mr Gilbert is not alone. 8 In 2003 parents sued a primary school in Chicago because it had dared to provide children with easy access to computing resources over a wireless network. 9 And there are a number of pressure groups, campaigning organisations and ill-informed individuals who believe that wireless networks pose a threat to health and want to see them closed down. 10 Now it seems they have been joined by the editor of the UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday, which this weekend filled its front page with a call for research into the electronic smog that is permeating the nations schools and damaging growing childrens brains. 11 An accompanying editorial with the even-handed headline high-tech horrors called for an official inquiry, while the article outlining the perceived dangers asked Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb? 12 The answer, of course, is no. 13 That will not stop the newspaper stoking up a wave of opposition to one of the most liberating technologies to have come out of the hi-tech revolution, limiting childrens access to networked computers at schools and even blocking plans to develop municipal wireless networks in our towns and cities. 14 If the journalists were really concerned about the dangers of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on the sensitive brains of the young, they should be calling for the closure of TV and radio transmission towers rather than asking us to turn off our Wi-Fi laptops. 15 The modulated frequencies that carry Radio 4 and ITV into our homes are just as powerful as the wireless networks, and a lot more pervasive. 16 And my wireless network is only carrying data when Im online, while Radio 3 burbles all day long, possibly exciting electrons in my brain and causing headaches. 17 Then there is the danger from photons of visible light streaming down onto us as we work, since these carry more energy than microwaves and could surely do more damage. 18 Perhaps we should demand that our children work in the dark. Retire do pargrafo indicado uma palavra ou expresso que seja o sinnimo da expresso dada em cada item. 5.1. pargrafo 6 to have something in common : _____________________ 5.2. pargrafo 9 are risky: _____________________ 5.3. pargrafo 10 request: _____________________ 5.4. pargrafo 14 instead of: _____________________ 5.5. pargrafo 17 harm: _____________________

Questão 6

(IME 2007) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 4, 5, 6 e 7. Wi-Fi? Why Worry?(Adapted from BBC, April 2007) Scare stories about the dangers of wireless networks lack credibility, argues Bill Thompson 1 Students at Canadas Lakehead University have to be careful how they connect to the internet because Wi-Fi is banned on large parts of the campus. 2 University president Fred Gilbert, whose academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science, is worried about the health impact of the 2.4 GHz radio waves used by wireless networks. 3 Last year he decided to adopt the precautionary principle and refused to allow Wi-Fi in those areas that have what he calls hard wire connectivity until it is proved to be safe. 4 Mr Gilbert believes that microwave radiation in the frequency range of Wi-Fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks. 5 Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result. Smog talk 6 While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering. 7 Yet Mr Gilbert is not alone. 8 In 2003 parents sued a primary school in Chicago because it had dared to provide children with easy access to computing resources over a wireless network. 9 And there are a number of pressure groups, campaigning organisations and ill-informed individuals who believe that wireless networks pose a threat to health and want to see them closed down. 10 Now it seems they have been joined by the editor of the UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday, which this weekend filled its front page with a call for research into the electronic smog that is permeating the nations schools and damaging growing childrens brains. 11 An accompanying editorial with the even-handed headline high-tech horrors called for an official inquiry, while the article outlining the perceived dangers asked Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb? 12 The answer, of course, is no. 13 That will not stop the newspaper stoking up a wave of opposition to one of the most liberating technologies to have come out of the hi-tech revolution, limiting childrens access to networked computers at schools and even blocking plans to develop municipal wireless networks in our towns and cities. 14 If the journalists were really concerned about the dangers of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on the sensitive brains of the young, they should be calling for the closure of TV and radio transmission towers rather than asking us to turn off our Wi-Fi laptops. 15 The modulated frequencies that carry Radio 4 and ITV into our homes are just as powerful as the wireless networks, and a lot more pervasive. 16 And my wireless network is only carrying data when Im online, while Radio 3 burbles all day long, possibly exciting electrons in my brain and causing headaches. 17 Then there is the danger from photons of visible light streaming down onto us as we work, since these carry more energy than microwaves and could surely do more damage. 18 Perhaps we should demand that our children work in the dark. Complete as frases a seguir usando as palavras e expresses do quadro conforme o contedo do texto Wi-Fi? Why Worry? Bill Thompson Fred Gilbert Students at CanadasLakehead University Ill-informed individuals The editor of The Independent Journalists ____________6.1____________ thinks it is a mistake to forbid people to Wi-Fi connect to the internet under the argument of health impact of the 2.4 GHz radio waves used by this kind of technology. ____________6.2____________ devotes attention to diverse issues concerning how to live in nowadays world without the pervasive effects of technology. ____________6.3____________ are not allowed to use Wi-Fi resources in areas where the wire connectivity is available. ____________6.4____________, ____________6.5____________, ____________6.6____________, and ____________6.7____________ agree when it comes to believing that wireless network technology threatens peoples health. ____________6.8____________ were imposed a precautionary principle by ____________6.9____________, and are experiencing an unpleasant situation. ____________6.10____________ are not really worried about the effects Wi-Fi technology can cause in humans bodies, if so they would also claim against radio frequencies and electromagnetic radiation.

Questão 7

(IME - 2007/2008 - 2 FASE) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 4, 5, 6 e 7. Wi-Fi? Why Worry?(Adapted from BBC, April 2007) Scare stories about the dangers of wireless networks lack credibility, argues Bill Thompson 1 Students at Canadas Lakehead University have to be careful how they connect to the internet because Wi-Fi is banned on large parts of the campus. 2 University president Fred Gilbert, whose academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science, is worried about the health impact of the 2.4 GHz radio waves used by wireless networks. 3 Last year he decided to adopt the precautionary principle and refused to allow Wi-Fi in those areas that have what he calls hard wire connectivity until it is proved to be safe. 4 Mr Gilbert believes that microwave radiation in the frequency range of Wi-Fi has been shown to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier, cause behavioural changes, alter cognitive functions, activate a stress response, interfere with brain waves, cell growth, cell communication, calcium ion balance, etc., and cause single and double strand DNA breaks. 5 Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result. Smog talk 6 While the heating effects of high exposures to electromagnetic radiation can be damaging, the power levels of wireless connections are much lower than the microwave ovens and mobile phones which share the frequency range, and treating them in the same way is the worst sort of scaremongering. 7 Yet Mr Gilbert is not alone. 8 In 2003 parents sued a primary school in Chicago because it had dared to provide children with easy access to computing resources over a wireless network. 9 And there are a number of pressure groups, campaigning organisations and ill-informed individuals who believe that wireless networks pose a threat to health and want to see them closed down. 10 Now it seems they have been joined by the editor of the UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday, which this weekend filled its front page with a call for research into the electronic smog that is permeating the nations schools and damaging growing childrens brains. 11 An accompanying editorial with the even-handed headline high-tech horrors called for an official inquiry, while the article outlining the perceived dangers asked Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb? 12 The answer, of course, is no. 13 That will not stop the newspaper stoking up a wave of opposition to one of the most liberating technologies to have come out of the hi-tech revolution, limiting childrens access to networked computers at schools and even blocking plans to develop municipal wireless networks in our towns and cities. 14 If the journalists were really concerned about the dangers of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on the sensitive brains of the young, they should be calling for the closure of TV and radio transmission towers rather than asking us to turn off our Wi-Fi laptops. 15 The modulated frequencies that carry Radio 4 and ITV into our homes are just as powerful as the wireless networks, and a lot more pervasive. 16 And my wireless network is only carrying data when Im online, while Radio 3 burbles all day long, possibly exciting electrons in my brain and causing headaches. 17 Then there is the danger from photons of visible light streaming down onto us as we work, since these carry more energy than microwaves and could surely do more damage. 18 Perhaps we should demand that our children work in the dark. Responda EM PORTUGUS s perguntas sobre o texto Wi-Fi? Why Worry?. 7.1. What critics does the author of the text make against Fred Gilbert? Support your answer. 7.2. Mention one argument cited in the text which is for the Wi-Fi technology. 7.3. Mention one argument cited in the text which is against Wi-Fi technology. 7.4. What tone does the author adopt in his last sentence? Support your answer. 7.5. Suggest another title to the text which is coherent to its content.

Questão 8

(IME - 2007/2008 - 2 FASE) Transcreva no caderno de solues as quatro frases que foram inseridas no texto Microwave Ovens Kill Bacteria in Food e que no so coerentes com seu contedo. Microwave Ovens Kill Bacteria in Food (Adapted from BBC, May 2007) Many people rely on the microwave oven to make their food safe to eat. But it may not always do the trick. Contrary to conventional wisdom, microwaves heat food from the outside in, not from the inside out. For example, soup is a typical dish to be taken hot. That can result in those all too familiar cold spots, which act as small pockets where bacteria can thrive. A number of studies have linked this phenomenon to small outbreaks of food poisoning. The poison of the Naja is one of the most lethal. One study, by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was published in The American Journal of Epidemiology. On the other hand, the avian flu may become the worst epidemic ever recorded. It looked at a salmonella outbreak after a picnic where dozens of people ate reheated roast pork. Of 30 people studied, all 10 who used a microwave oven became sick, compared with none of the 20 who used a conventional oven or skillet. Conventional cookers are more demanding once the cook must remain by it while preparing meals. The problem, studies show, is that microwave users often ignore recommendations like stirring and rotating food for even cooking and checking its temperature. The conclusion it that microwave cooking does not always eliminate harmful bacteria.

Questão 17

(IME - 2007/2008 - 1 FASE) LEIA O TEXTO A SEGUIR E RESPONDA S QUESTES 1, 2 e 3. Babies can spot languages on facial clues alone (Adapted from NewScientist.com, May 2007) 1 Young babies can discriminate between different languages just by looking at an adults face, even if they do not hear a single spoken word. And babies who grow up bilingual can do this for longer than monolingual infants. The work suggests that visual information helps to tell languages apart. 2 This supports the idea that infants come prepared to learn multiple languages and to discriminate them both auditorily and visually, says Whitney Weikum from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who discovered babies keen eye for speech. Looking at a face may help identify speakers of your native language. 3 Weikum and her colleagues, showed babies videos of adults speaking various sentences, but with the sound turned off. The infants soon got bored, but as soon as speakers switched from English to French, they noticed the change and watched with renewed interest. 4 Laura-Ann Petitto, who researches language and child development at Dartmouth College in Hanover, US, previously studied visual language perception in deaf babies who were learning sign language. She is excited by Weikums results: Never did we dream that young hearing babies also use visual cues in this stunning way. Bilingual asset 5 A good eye for different languages appears to be especially important if you need to tell them apart regularly. At eight months old, bilingual babies could still see the switch happen, but their monolingual peers stopped noticing it after the age of six months. 6 This shows us how a babys language development is closely related to their learning environment, says Weikum. Only if they are exposed to more than one language, do they remain able to discriminate the languages visually. 7 However, Weikum does not think that parents who are keen to help their babies learn to speak need to introduce a second language before the visual discrimination ability disappears, or start using visually exaggerated speech. Our study does not show visual speech cues help infants learn languages, only to tell them apart. Parents should just continue talking to their babies in fun, engaging conversations. 8 The researchers now want to discover more about how bilingual babies maintain and take advantage of visual discrimination, and find out what the precise visual cues are in a speakers face that help a baby to identify different languages. Numere as frases abaixo de 1 a 8, conforme o nmero do pargrafo indicado no texto que expressa a idia de cada sentena. 2.1 ( ) Babies in whose environment only one language is spoken can hold the special ability for a shorter period of time. 2.2 ( ) Exposing a baby to visual linguistic stimuli wont necessarily make them better language learners. 2.3 ( ) Language visual information is used either by babies who can hear as by babies who cannot. 2.4 ( ) Scientists still dont have the answers for a series of questions. 2.5 ( ) Summary of the text. 2.6 ( ) The conclusion of the research agrees with the idea that humans have an innate biological apparatus for learning different languages. 2.7 ( ) The context where a child is raised has to do with the development of their linguistic abilities. 2.8 ( ) The experiment procedure.

(IME 2006) Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem. New planet definition sparks furore The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position. On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead. But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful". "The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed." Four planets He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not. That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says. And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says. He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold). "It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist. Minority report Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted. "You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support." In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says. David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition. Grammar issue "As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet." Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets. But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says. 'This is crazy' "Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no." "Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community." But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them." He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune. (Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Richard Conn Henry, of Johns Hopkins University, says he is pleased with the outcome. Find in the text one argument that supports his position.

(IME 2006) Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem. New planet definition sparks furore The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position. On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead. But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful". "The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed." Four planets He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not. That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says. And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says. He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold). "It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist. Minority report Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted. "You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support." In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says. David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition. Grammar issue "As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet." Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets. But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says. 'This is crazy' "Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no." "Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community." But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them." He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune. (Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Considering the content of the text, why is the title “New planet definition sparks furore” appropriate?

(IME 2006) Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem. New planet definition sparks furore The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position. On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead. But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful". "The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed." Four planets He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not. That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says. And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says. He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold). "It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist. Minority report Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted. "You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support." In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says. David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition. Grammar issue "As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet." Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets. But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says. 'This is crazy' "Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no." "Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community." But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them." He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune. (Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The scientist Alan Stern states that according to the criterion established by the resolution, Earth shouldn’t be considered a planet. Why wouldn’t Earth be considered a planet?