Questões de Inglês - ITA

ITA
IME
ENEM
FUVEST
UNICAMP
UNESP
ESPCEX
AFA
1-15 de 305
Questão 31
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o texto e assinale a alternativa correta Experts warn that the substitution of machinery for human labour may render the population redundant. They worry that the discovery of this mighty power has come before we knew how to employ it rightly. Such fears are expressed today by those who worry that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could destroy millions of jobs and pose a Terminator-style threat to humanity. But these are in fact the words of commentators discussing mechanisation and steam power two centuries ago. Back then the controversy over the dangers posed by machines was known as the machinery question. Now a very similar debate is under way. After many false dawns, AI has made extraordinary progress in the past few years, thanks to a versatile technique called deep learning. Given enough data, large (or deep) neural networks, modelled on the brains architecture, can be trained to do all kinds of things. They power Googles search engine, Facebooks automatic photo tagging, Apples voice assistant, Amazon s shopping recommendations and Tesias self-driving cars. But this rapid progress has also led to concerns about safety and job losses. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and others wonder whether AI could get out of control, precipitating a sci-fi conflict between people and machines. Others worry that AI will cause widespread unemployment, by automating cognitive tasks that could previously be done only by people. After 200 years, the machinery question is back. It needs to be answered. Fonte:https://www.economist.com/leaders/2016/06/25/march-of-the-machines.Adaptado. Acesso em agosto de 2019. Leia as afirmações a seguir para responder à questão. I. Redes neurais alimentam o mecanismo de busca do Google, o assistente de voz da Apple,a identificação de fotografias no Facebook, as sugestões de compras da Amazon, os c autônomos da Tesla. II. O temor de que as máquinas substituiriam o trabalho humano era real há duzentos anos, mas superado na atualidade. III. Steven Hawkings e Elon Musk especulam se a I.A. pode sair do controle, levando pessoas e máquinas a um conflito somente visto em obras de ficção científica. IV. Duzentos anos atrás, a controvérsia sobre os perigos impostos pelas máquinas era conhecida comoa questão das máquinas.

Questão 32
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o texto e assinale a alternativa correta Experts warn that the substitution of machinery for human labour may render the population redundant. They worry that the discovery of this mighty power has come before we knew how to employ it rightly. Such fears are expressed today by those who worry that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could destroy millions of jobs and pose a Terminator-style threat to humanity. But these are in fact the words of commentators discussing mechanisation and steam power two centuries ago. Back then the controversy over the dangers posed by machines was known as the machinery question. Now a very similar debate is under way. After many false dawns, AI has made extraordinary progress in the past few years, thanks to a versatile technique called deep learning. Given enough data, large (or deep) neural networks, modelled on the brains architecture, can be trained to do all kinds of things. They power Googles search engine, Facebooks automatic photo tagging, Apples voice assistant, Amazon s shopping recommendations and Tesias self-driving cars. But this rapid progress has also led to concerns about safety and job losses. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and others wonder whether AI could get out of control, precipitating a sci-fi conflict between people and machines. Others worry that AI will cause widespread unemployment, by automating cognitive tasks that could previously be done only by people. After 200 years, the machinery question is back. It needs to be answered. Fonte: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2016/06/25/march-of-the-machines. Adaptado. Acesso em agosto de 2019. A palavra sublinhada nos trechos retirados do texto pode ser substituída, sem alteraçÊ significado, pela palavra ou expressão da segunda coluna, exceto em

Questão 33
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] If there is any doubt about the persistent power of literature in the face of digital culture, it should be banished by the recent climb of George Orwells 1984 up the Amazon Movers and Shakers list. There is much thats resonant for us in Orwells dystopia in the face of Edward Snowdens revelations about the NSA [...]. We look to 1984 as a clear cautionary tale, even a prophecy, of systematic abuse of power taken to the end of the line. [...] However, after THE END of his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell includes another chapter, an appendix, called The Principles of Newspeak. Since it has the trappings of a tedious scholarly treatise, readers often skip the appendix. But it changes our whole understanding of the novel. Written from some unspecified point in the future, it suggest that Big Brother was eventually defeated. The victory is attributed not to individual rebels or to The Brotherhood, an anonymous resistance group, but rather to language itself. The appendix details Oceanias attempt to replace Oldspeak, or English, with Newspeak, a linguistic shorthand that reduces the world of ideas to a set of simple, stark words. The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. It will render dissent literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Fonte: Frost, Laura. http://qz.com/95696. Adaptado. Acesso em agosto de 2019. De acordo com o texto, em geral, os leitores do clássico 1984, de George Orwell, dispensam a leitura do apêndice da obra porque

Questão 34
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o textoe assinale a alternativa correta. If there is any doubt about the persistent power of literature in the face of digital culture, it should be banished by the recent climb of George Orwells 1984 up the Amazon Movers and Shakers list. There is much that s resonant for us in Orwells dystopia in the face of Edward Snowdens revelations about the NSA [...]. We look to 1984 as a clear cautionary tale, even a prophecy, of systematic abuse of power taken to the end of the Tine. [...] However, after THE END of his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell includes another chapter, an appendix, called The Principies of Newspeak. Since it has the trappings of a tedious scholarly treatise, readers often skip the appendix. But it changes our whole understanding of the novel. Written from some unspecified point in the future, it suggests that Big Brother was eventually defeated. The victory is attributed not to individual rebels or to The Brotherhood, an anonymous resistance group, but rather to language itself. The appendix details Oceanias attempt to replace Oldspeak, or English, with Newspeak, a linguistic shorthand that reduces the world of ideas to a set of simple, stark words. The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. It will render dissent literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Fonte: Frost, Laura. http://qz.com/95696. Adaptado. Acesso em agosto de 2019 No trecho but rather, to language itself, o termo rather pode ser substituído, sem alteração de sentido, por

Questão 35
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o textoe assinale a alternativa correta. If there is any doubt about the persistent power of literature in the face of digital culture, it should be banished by the recent climb of George Orwells1984up the Amazon Movers and Shakers list. There is much that s resonant for us in Orwells dystopia in the face of Edward Snowdens revelations about the NSA [...]. We look to1984as a clear cautionary tale, even a prophecy, of systematic abuse of power taken to the end of the Tine. [...] However, after THE END of his dystopian novel1984,George Orwell includes another chapter, an appendix, called The Principies of Newspeak. Since it has the trappings of a tedious scholarly treatise, readers often skip the appendix. But it changes our whole understanding of the novel. Written from some unspecified point in the future, it suggests that Big Brother was eventually defeated. The victory is attributed not to individual rebels or to The Brotherhood, an anonymous resistance group, but rather to language itself. The appendix details Oceanias attempt to replace Oldspeak, or English, with Newspeak, a linguistic shorthand that reduces the world of ideas to a set of simple, stark words. The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. It will render dissent literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Fonte:Frost, Laura.http://qz.com/95696.Adaptado. Acesso em agosto de 2019 De acordo com o texto, é incorreto afirmar que

Questão 36
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o texto e assinale Of course theyre fake videos, everyone can see theyre not real. All the same, they really did say those things, didnt they? These are the words of Vivienne Rook, the fictional politician played by Emma Thompson in the brilliant dystopian BBC TV drama Years and Years. The episode in question, set in 2027, tackles the subject of deepfakes - videos in which a living persons face and voice are digitally manipulated to say anything the programmer wants. Rook perfectly sums up the problem with these videos - even if you know they are fake, they leave a lingering impression. And her words are ali the more compelling because deepfakes are real and among us already. Last year, several deepfake porn videos emerged online, appearing to show celebrities such as Emma Watson, Gal Gadot and Taylor Swift in explicit situations. [...] In some cases, the deepfakes are almost indistinguishable from the real thing - which is particularly worrying for politicians and other people in the public eye. Videos that may initially have been created for laughs could easily be misinterpreted by viewers. Earlier this year, for example, a digitally altered video appeared to show Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, slurring drunkenly through a speech. The video was widely shared on Facebook and YouTube, before being tweeted by President Donald Trump with the caption: PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE. The video was debunked, but not before it had been viewed millions of times. Trump has still not deleted the tweet, which has been retweeted over 30,000 times. The current approach of social media companies is to filter out and reduce the distribution of deepfake videos, rather than outright removing them - unless they are pornographic. This can result in victims suffering severe reputational damage, not to mention ongoing humiliation and ridicule from viewers. Deepfakes are one of the most alarming trends I have witnessed as a Congresswoman to date, said US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke in a recent article for Quartz. If the American public can be made to believe and trust altered videos of presidential candidates, our democracy is in grave danger. We need to work together to stop deepfakes from becoming the defining feature of the 2020 elections. Of course, its not just democracy that is at risk, but also the economy, the legal system and even individuais themselves. Clarke warns that, if deepfake technology continues to evolve without a check, video evidente could lose its credibility during trials. It is not hard to imagine it being used by disgruntled ex-lovers, employees and random people on the internet to exact revenge and ruiu peoples reputations. The software for creating these videos is already widely available. Fonte: Curtis, Sophie. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/deepfake-videos-creepy-new-internet-18289900. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019 De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que

Questão 37
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o texto e assinale Of course theyre fake videos, everyone can see theyre not real. All the same, they really did say those things, didnt they? These are the words of Vivienne Rook, the fictional politician played by Emma Thompson in the brilliant dystopian BBC TV drama Years and Years. The episode in question, set in 2027, tackles the subject of deepfakes - videos in which a living persons face and voice are digitally manipulated to say anything the programmer wants. Rook perfectly sums up the problem with these videos - even if you know they are fake, they leave a lingering impression. And her words are ali the more compelling because deepfakes are real and among us already. Last year, several deepfake porn videos emerged online, appearing to show celebrities such as Emma Watson, Gal Gadot and Taylor Swift in explicit situations. [...] In some cases, the deepfakes are almost indistinguishable from the real thing - which is particularly worrying for politicians and other people in the public eye. Videos that may initially have been created for laughs could easily be misinterpreted by viewers. Earlier this year, for example, a digitally altered video appeared to show Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, slurring drunkenly through a speech. The video was widely shared on Facebook and YouTube, before being tweeted by President Donald Trump with the caption: PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE. The video was debunked, but not before it had been viewed millions of times. Trump has still not deleted the tweet, which has been retweeted over 30,000 times. The current approach of social media companies is to filter out and reduce the distribution of deepfake videos, rather than outright removing them - unless they are pornographic. This can result in victims suffering severe reputational damage, not to mention ongoing humiliation and ridicule from viewers. Deepfakes are one of the most alarming trends I have witnessed as a Congresswoman to date, said US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke in a recent article for Quartz. If the American public can be made to believe and trust altered videos of presidential candidates, our democracy is in grave danger. We need to work together to stop deepfakes from becoming the defining feature of the 2020 elections. Of course, its not just democracy that is at risk, but also the economy, the legal system and even individuais themselves. Clarke warns that, if deepfake technology continues to evolve without a check, video evidente could lose its credibility during trials. It is not hard to imagine it being used by disgruntled ex-lovers, employees and random people on the internet to exact revenge and ruiu peoples reputations. The software for creating these videos is already widely available. Fonte:Curtis, Sophie.https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/deepfake-videos-creepy-new-internet-18289900. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019 No trecho: its not just democracy that is at risk, but also the economy, a expressão sublinhada expressa uma ideia de

Questão 38
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] Leia o texto e assinale Of course theyre fake videos, everyone can see theyre not real. All the same, they really did say those things, didnt they? These are the words of Vivienne Rook, the fictional politician played by Emma Thompson in the brilliant dystopian BBC TV drama Years and Years. The episode in question, set in 2027, tackles the subject of deepfakes - videos in which a living persons face and voice are digitally manipulated to say anything the programmer wants. Rook perfectly sums up the problem with these videos - even if you know they are fake, they leave a lingering impression. And her words are ali the more compelling because deepfakes are real and among us already. Last year, several deepfake porn videos emerged online, appearing to show celebrities such as Emma Watson, Gal Gadot and Taylor Swift in explicit situations. [...] In some cases, the deepfakes are almost indistinguishable from the real thing - which is particularly worrying for politicians and other people in the public eye. Videos that may initially have been created for laughs could easily be misinterpreted by viewers. Earlier this year, for example, a digitally altered video appeared to show Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, slurring drunkenly through a speech. The video was widely shared on Facebook and YouTube, before being tweeted by President Donald Trump with the caption: PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE. The video was debunked, but not before it had been viewed millions of times. Trump has still not deleted the tweet, which has been retweeted over 30,000 times. The current approach of social media companies is to filter out and reduce the distribution of deepfake videos, rather than outright removing them - unless they are pornographic. This can result in victims suffering severe reputational damage, not to mention ongoing humiliation and ridicule from viewers. Deepfakes are one of the most alarming trends I have witnessed as a Congresswoman to date, said US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke in a recent article for Quartz. If the American public can be made to believe and trust altered videos of presidential candidates, our democracy is in grave danger. We need to work together to stop deepfakes from becoming the defining feature of the 2020 elections. Of course, its not just democracy that is at risk, but also the economy, the legal system and even individuais themselves. Clarke warns that, if deepfake technology continues to evolve without a check, video evidente could lose its credibility during trials. It is not hard to imagine it being used by disgruntled ex-lovers, employees and random people on the internet to exact revenge and ruiu peoples reputations. The software for creating these videos is already widely available. Fonte:Curtis, Sophie.https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/deepfake-videos-creepy-new-internet-18289900. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019 De acordo com a congressista Yvette Clarke, pelos diversos riscos representados pelos vídeos deepfake, é necessário

Questão 39
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] About seven years ago, three researchers at the University of Toronto built a system that could analyze thousands of photos and teach itself to recognize everyday objects, like dogs, cars and flowers. The system was so effective that Google bought the tiny start-up these researchers were only just getting off the ground. And soon, their system sparked a technological revolution. Suddenly, machines could see in a way that was not possible in the past. This morde it easier for a smartphone app to search your personal photos and find the images you were looking for. It accelerated the progress of driverless cars and other robotics. And it improved the accuracy of facial recognition services, for social networks like Facebook and for the country s law enforcement agencies. But soon, researchers noticed that these facial recognition services were less accurate when used with women and people of color. Activists raised concerns over how companies were collecting the huge amounts of data needed to train these kinds of systems. Others worried these systems would eventually lead to mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. Fonte: Matz, Cade. Seeking Ground Rules for A. 1. www.nvtimes.com, 01/03/2019. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019.) De acordo com as informações do texto, selecione a alternativa que melhor complete a afirmação: The new system proved to be less precise when

Questão 40
2020Inglês

[ITA 2020 - 1 FASE] About seven years ago, three researchers at the University of Toronto built a system that could analyze thousands of photos and teach itself to recognize everyday objects, like dogs, cars and flowers. The system was so effective that Google bought the tiny start-up these researchers were only just getting off the ground. And soon, their system sparked a technological revolution. Suddenly, machines could see in a way that was not possible in the past. This morde it easier for a smartphone app to search your personal photos and find the images you were looking for. It accelerated the progress of driverless cars and other robotics. And it improved the accuracy of facial recognition services, for social networks like Facebook and for the country s law enforcement agencies. But soon, researchers noticed that these facial recognition services were less accurate when used with women and people of color. Activists raised concerns over how companies were collecting the huge amounts of data needed to train these kinds of systems. Others worried these systems would eventually lead to mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. Fonte: Matz, Cade. Seeking Ground Rules for A. 1. www.nvtimes.com, 01/03/2019. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019.) Analise as afirmações de I a IV em destaque. I. Ativistas manifestaram preocupação em relação à forma como as empresas estavam coletando enormes quantidades de dados para treinar sistemas de reconhecimento. II. A Universidade de Toronto construiu um sistema ético de Inteligência Artificial para reconhecimento de imagens. III. Uma das preocupações de ativistas era a possibilidade de tais sistemas conduzirem a vigilância em massa ou armamento autônomo. IV. Empresas privadas de tecnologia, como Google, e redes digitais, como Facebook, junto com algumas agências governamentais, chegaram a um consenso quanto a uma ética da Inteligência Artificial. V. Algumas leis foram desenvolvidas por alguns grupos específicos de pessoas para decidir sobre o futuro da Inteligência Artificial. De acordo com o texto, estão corretas apenas:

Questão 25
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1 Fase) [...] Apicture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. Imentioned 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 obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According togovernment figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. Butin 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figuresin 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 rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a dayin the form of drinksin 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed.As some expertshave long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his filmThe Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our naturalappetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use ofsubliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, whiletheir advertisersuse the latestfindings in neuroscienceto overcome our resistance. They hirebiddable scientistsandthinktanksto confuse us about thecauses of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is aquestion 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, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to apaper 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 the61% of English peoplewho are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates aremuch higherat thebottom of the socioeconomic scale. Theycorrelate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why theUKs incidenceis greater than in most European andOECD nations. Thescientific literature showshow the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. 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 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto, em comparação com 1976, atualmente nós compramos.

Questão 26
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1 Fase) [...] Apicture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. Imentioned 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 obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According togovernment figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. Butin 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figuresin 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 rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a dayin the form of drinksin 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed.As some expertshave long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his filmThe Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our naturalappetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use ofsubliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, whiletheir advertisersuse the latestfindings in neuroscienceto overcome our resistance. They hirebiddable scientistsandthinktanksto confuse us about thecauses of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is aquestion 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, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to apaper 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 the61% of English peoplewho are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates aremuch higherat thebottom of the socioeconomic scale. Theycorrelate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why theUKs incidenceis greater than in most European andOECD nations. Thescientific literature showshow the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. 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 dehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que

Questão 27
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1 Fase) [...] Apicture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. Imentioned 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 obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According togovernment figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. Butin 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figuresin 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 rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a dayin the form of drinksin 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed.As some expertshave long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his filmThe Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our naturalappetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use ofsubliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, whiletheir advertisersuse the latestfindings in neuroscienceto overcome our resistance. They hirebiddable scientistsandthinktanksto confuse us about thecauses of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is aquestion 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, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to apaper 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 the61% of English peoplewho are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates aremuch higherat thebottom of the socioeconomic scale. Theycorrelate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why theUKs incidenceis greater than in most European andOECD nations. Thescientific literature showshow the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. 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 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto,

Questão 28
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1 Fase) [...] 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 obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres 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 theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] 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 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 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 defences, 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 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, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about 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. 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 UKs 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. 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 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que o autor sustenta que

Questão 29
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1 Fase) [...] 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 obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres 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 theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] 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 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 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 defences, 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 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, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about 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. 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 UKs 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. 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 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018. Assinale a alternativa que pode substituir as na sentença As Jack Peretti argued in this film The Man Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products [...] (linhas 19-20) mantendo o mesmo sentido do texto e a correção gramatical.

NOVIDADES
Kuadro