Questões de Concursos Inglês

Text 1

Educational attainment (Part I)

Having a good education greatly BLANK I (improve) the likelihood of finding a job and earning enough money to have a good quality of life. Highly-educated individuals are less affected by unemployment trends, typically because educational attainment BLANK II (make) an individual more attractive in the workforce. Lifetime earnings also increase with each level of education attained.

Furthermore, the skills needed in the labour market are becoming more knowledge-based. This shift in demand has made an upper secondary degree, or high-school degree, the minimum credential for finding a job in almost all The Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. High-school graduation rates therefore provide a good indication of whether a country is preparing its students to meet the minimum requirements of the job market.

On average, about 79% of adults aged 25-64 within the OECD have completed upper secondary education. In 33OECD countries and the Russian Federation, 60% or more of the population aged 25 to 64 has completed at least upper secondary education. In some countries, the opposite is true: in Colombia, Mexico and Turkey, 57% or more of the population aged 25 to 64 have not completed upper secondary education. Women are, however, more likely to complete a tertiary or university degree than men in most OECD countries, a reversal of the historical pattern. On average across OECD countries, 42% of women aged 25-64 attain a tertiary education compared with 35% of men.

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/

TEXT 1

What do AI chatbots really mean for students and cheating?

October 31, 2023 By

Carrie Spector

The launch of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots has triggered an alarm for many educators, who worry about students using the technology to cheat by passing its writing off as their own. But two Stanford researchers say that concern is misdirected, based on their ongoing research into cheating among U.S. high school students before and after the release of ChatGPT.

Here, Lee and Pope discuss the state of cheating in U.S. schools, what research shows about why students cheat, and their recommendations for educators working to address the problem.

What do we know about how much students cheat?

Pope: We know that cheating rates have been high for a long time. At Challenge Success we’ve been running surveys and focus groups at schools for over 15 years, asking students about different aspects of their lives — the amount of sleep they get, homework pressure, extracurricular activities, family expectations, things like that — and also several questions about different forms of cheating.

For years, long before ChatGPT hit the scene, some 60 to 70 percent of students have reported engaging in at least one “cheating” behavior during the previous month. That percentage has stayed about the same or even decreased slightly in our 2023 surveys, when we added questions specific to new AI technologies, like ChatGPT, and how students are using it for school assignments.

So AI isn’t changing how often students cheat — just the tools that they’re using?

Lee: The most prudent thing to say right now is that the data suggest, perhaps to the surprise of many people, that AI is not increasing the frequency of cheating. This may change as students become increasingly familiar with the technology, and we’ll continue to study it and see if and how this changes. But I think it’s important to point out that, in Challenge Success’ most recent survey, students were also asked if and how they felt an AI chatbot like ChatGPT should be allowed for school-related tasks. Many said they thought it should be acceptable for “starter” purposes, like explaining a new concept or generating ideas for a paper. But the vast majority said that using a chatbot to write an entire paper should never be allowed. So this idea that students who’ve never cheated before are going to suddenly run amok and have AI write all of their papers appears unfounded. What would you suggest to school leaders who are concerned about students using AI chatbots?

Pope: Even before ChatGPT, we could never be sure whether kids were getting help from a parent or tutor or another source on their assignments, and this was not considered cheating. Kids in our focus groups are wondering why they can't use ChatGPT as another resource to help them write their papers — not to write the whole thing word for word, but to get the kind of help a parent or tutor would offer. We need to help students and educators find ways to discuss the ethics of using this technology and when it is and isn't useful for student learning.

Lee: There’s a lot of fear about students using this technology. Schools have considered putting significant amounts of money in AI-detection software, which studies show can be highly unreliable. Some districts have tried blocking AI chatbots from school wifi and devices, then repealed those bans because they were ineffective. AI is not going away. Along with addressing the deeper reasons why students cheat, we need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology. For starters, at Stanford we’ve begun developing free resources to help teachers bring these topics into the classroom as it relates to different subject areas. We know that 3 teachers don’t have time to introduce a whole new class, but we have been working with teachers to make sure these are activities and lessons that can fit with what they’re already covering in the time they have available.

I think of AI literacy as being akin to driver’s education: We’ve got a powerful tool that can be a great asset, but it can also be dangerous. We want students to learn how to use it responsibly.

Available from: < https://ed.stanford.edu/news/what-do-ai-chatbots-really-mean-students-and-cheating>. Access: 08 Dec., 2023. Adapted.

The Armel-Leftwich Visitor Center

Welcome to the Armel-Leftwich Visitor Center of the United States Naval Academy. Visit the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD to see where future officers are educated and trained.

The Visitor Center is conveniently located inside USNA Gate 1 at the Annapolis harbor. Pedestrian entrances are on Prince George and Randall Streets. The Visitor Center provides guided historical tours for visitors, as well as groups.

Anyone 18 or older must show a government-issued photo ID or original passport to enter USNA grounds. Visitors from the states of Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington are required to present a SECOND PHOTO ID.

The Visitor Center is the first stop on a visit to the undergraduate college of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. Information specialists welcome visitors to view the 13-minute film, "The Call to Serve", and to take a guided walking tour with a professional, certified guide.

Admissions Information

United States Naval Academy Admissions briefings, lasting approximately one hour, are held at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, on the second deck of the Visitor Center.

U.S. Naval Academy Museum

The museum's artifacts are displayed in galleries located on two floors in Preble Hall. The first floor is devoted to the exhibit entitled "Leadership and Service: The History of the United States Navy and the Naval Academy". The famous Rogers Collection of antique ship models is the focus of the second floor exhibit.

(Adapted from http://www.usnabsd.com/for-visitors)

Ancient dreams of intelligent machines: 3,000 years of robots

The French philosopher René Descartes was reputedly fond of automata: they inspired his view that living things were biological machines that function like clockwork. Less known is a strange story that began to circulate after the philosopher’s death in 1650. This centred on Descartes’s daughter Francine, who died of scarlet fever at the age of five.

According to the tale, a distraught Descartes had a clockwork Francine made: a walking, talking simulacrum. When Queen Christina invited the philosopher to Sweden in 1649, he sailed with the automaton concealed in a casket. Suspicious sailors forced the trunk open; when the mechanical child sat up to greet them, the horrified crew threw it overboard.

The story is probably apocryphal. But it sums up the hopes and fears that have been associated with human-like machines for nearly three millennia. Those who build such devices do so in the hope that they will overcome natural limits – in Descartes’s case, death itself. But this very unnaturalness terrifies and repulses others. In our era of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), those polarized responses persist, with pundits and the public applauding or warning against each advance. Digging into the deep history of intelligent machines, both real and imagined, we see how these attitudes evolved: from fantasies of trusty mechanical helpers to fears that runaway advances in technology might lead to creatures that supersede humanity itself.

(Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05773-y)

Read the text to answer the question from.

It happens that the publication of this edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary comes 250 years after the appearance of the first comprehensive dictionary of the English language, compiled by Samuel Johnson. Much has changed since then. The English that Johnson described in 1755 was relatively well defined, still essentially the national property of the British. Since then, it has dispersed and diversified, has been adopted and adapted as an international means of communication by communities all over the globe. English is now the name given to an immensely diverse variety of different usages. This obviously poses a problem of selection for the dictionary maker: which words are to be included in a dictionary, and thus granted recognition as more centrally or essentially English than the words that are left out?

Johnson did not have to deal with such diversity, but he too was exercised with this question. In his Plan of an English Dictionary, published in 1747, he considers which words it is proper to include in his dictionary; whether ‘terms of particular professions’, for example, were eligible, particularly since many of them had been derived from other languages. ‘Of such words,’ he says, ‘all are not equally to be considered as parts of our language, for some of them are naturalized and incorporated, but others still continue aliens...’. Which words are deemed to be sufficiently naturalized or incorporated to count as ‘parts of our language’, ‘real’ or proper English, and thus worthy of inclusion in a dictionary of the language, remains, of course, a controversial matter. Interestingly enough, even for Johnson the status of a word in the language was not the only, nor indeed the most important consideration. For being alien did not itself disqualify words from inclusion; in a remark which has considerable current resonance he adds: ‘some seem necessary to be retained, because the purchaser of the dictionary will expect to find them’. And, crucially, the expectations that people have of a dictionary are based on what they want to use it for. What Johnson says of his own dictionary would apply very aptly to The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD): ‘The value of a work must be estimated by its use: It is not enough that a dictionary delights the critic, unless at the same time it instructs the learner...’.

(Widdowson, H. Hornby, A.S. 2010. Adaptado)