Questões de Concursos Inglês

As questões 75 a 78 referem–se ao texto a seguir.

In recent years there have been suggestions that, instead of raising sheep, Australia should be raising kangaroos, which (unlike sheep) are native Australian species that are adapted to Australian plants and climates. It is claimed that the soft paws of kangaroos are less damaging to soil than are the hard hooves of sheep. Kangaroo meat is lean, healthy, and (in my opinion) absolutely delicious. In addition to their meat, kangaroos yield valuable hides¹. All of those points are cited as arguments to support replacing sheep herding with kangaroo ranching.
However, that proposal faces real obstacles, both biological and cultural ones. Unlike sheep, kangaroos are not herd animals that will docilely obey one shepherd and a dog, or that can be rounded up and marched obediently up ramps into trucks for shipment to the slaughterhouse. Instead, kangaroo ranchers have to hire hunters to chase down and shoot their kangaroos one by one. Further problems with kangaroos are their mobility and ability to jump fences: if you invest in promoting growth of a kangaroo population on your property, and if your kangaroos perceive some inducement to move (such as rain falling somewhere els(E), your valuable crop of kangaroos may end up 30 miles away on somebody else?s property. Kangaroo meat is accepted in Germany and some is exported there, but the sale of kangaroo meat faces cultural obstacles elsewhere. For Australians, kangaroo meat has little appeal, and they continue to prefer their more traditional types of meat, especially lamb and beef. Many Australian animal welfare advocates oppose kangaroo harvesting, not taking into consideration the fact that living conditions and slaughter methods are much crueler for domestic sheep and cattle than for wild kangaroos. The U.S. explicitly forbids the importation of kangaroo meat because we find the beasts cute, and because a congressman?s wife heard that kangaroos are endangered. Some kangaroo species are indeed endangered, but ironically the species actually harvested for meat are abundant pest animals in Australia.

(DIAMOND, J. Collapse. New York: Penguin, 2005. Adaptado) ¹ hides = skins

Considering translation and some of the notions it envolves, judge
the following items.

Read the text below to answer questions 13–15.

Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast?

Sales of margarine are in decline, due to a combination of reformulated recipes, price, health and taste. Do you defend margarine, or is butter simply better?
Butter vs. margarine: it?s a fight that has gone on for decades. On one side, there?s butter — rich, creamy, defiantly full–fat and made for millennia by churning the milk or cream from cattle. On the other, there?s margarine: the arriviste spread invented in the 1860s. It might not taste delicious, and it doesn?t sink into your toast like butter, but for decades margarine has ridden a wave of success as the "healthy" alternative.
No longer. Sales of margarine have plummeted in the last year, according to Kantar, with "health" spreads dropping 7.4% in sales. Flora has been particularly badly hit, losing £24m in sales, partly due to reformulating its recipe.
Meanwhile, butter is back in vogue. Brits bought 8.7% more blocks of butter last year, and 6% more spreadable tubs. This is partly due to the "narrowing price gap between butter and margarine", Tim Eales of IRI told The Grocer, but also to the home baking revival led by Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood and co. We?re all sticking unsalted butter in our sponges these days.
A yen for natural, unprocessed produce could also be a factor. "Since all the food scandals of the last 10 years, people are thinking about where their food comes from — butter is perceived as ?pure?", says food writer Signe Johansen. But is margarine really out for the count? Big brands are owned by powerful multinationals such as Unilever, with huge marketing budgets. Don?t rule spreads out just yet.
Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French food scientist, Hippolyte Mège–Mouriès, who responded to a challenge by Napoleon III. Napoleon wanted to find a long–life alternative to butter to feed troops in the Franco–Prussian war. Mège–Mouriès mixed skimmed milk, water and beef fat to create a substance similar to butter in texture, if not in taste. He called it "oleomargarine" after margarites, the Greek word for pearls — a reference to its pearly sheen. In 1871 he sold the patent to Jurgens, a Dutch firm now part of Unilever.
Beef fat was soon replaced by cheaper hydrogenated and non–hydrogenated vegetable oils. "Margarine gained a foothold during the first world war", says food writer and historian Bee Wilson. "George Orwell wrote of the ?great war? that what he remembered most was not all the deaths but all the margarine. But at this stage people recognized it was an inferior substitute for butter: an ersatz food, like drinking chicory instead of coffee."
In the second world war, British margarine brands were legally required to add vitamins to their recipes. "The move in status to margarine as a health food, marketing itself as a superior alternative, happened after the war", says Wilson. Added "healthy" extras — vitamins, omega–3s, unpronounceables that lower your cholesterol — are still a mainstay of the market.
But while margarine has spent decades fighting butter on the health front, what about taste? "Margarine has never been able to replicate the flavour of true butter", says Johansen. This despite the fact many brands add milk and cream to their spreads. "I Can?t Believe It?s Not Butter"? Really? I can.
Unsurprisingly, it?s hard to find a defendant of margarine among food writers and chefs. One of the few exceptions is Marguerite Patten, who is a fan of baking with Stork® . Indeed, Stork® does make for wonderfully crisp shortcrust pastry.
Margarine has taken a bashing on the health front in recent years, too. Negative press about trans fats in the 00s saw many brands remove hydrogenated fats from their spreads and reformulate their recipes. Growing suspicion of processed foods has led many consumers to return to butter. As Johansen puts it: "If you want a healthy heart, eat more vegetables."
And yet, and yet. I?m looking at a tub of Pure Dairy–Free Soya Spread. It contains 14g saturated fat per 100g, compared to butter?s 54%. For many consumers, such stats still outweigh taste when it comes to deciding what?s on their toast. And what about vegans, and those with lactose intolerance? Margarine can fulfill needs that butter can?t.
It will never win any taste awards, but there is still a place for margarine on the supermarket shelves — even if there isn?t one for it in most food lovers? fridges.
Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast? Adapted. Available in:http://www.guardian.co.uk