Questões de Concursos

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

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

As questões 79 e 80 referem–se ao texto a seguir.

A team from Northwestern University, Illinois, found that when you eat, not just how you eat, could make a big difference. Scientists found that when mice ate at unusual hours, they put on twice as much weight, despite exercising and eating as much as the other mice. The study, in the journal Obesity, is said to be the first to show directly that there is a "wrong" time to eat. Recent studies have suggested that circadian rhythms, the body?s internal clock, have a role in how our bodies use up energy. However, this had been difficult to prove definitively.
Deanna Arble, the main author of the study, said: "One of our research interests is shift workers¹, who tend to be overweight. This got us thinking that eating at the wrong time of day might be contributing to weight gain".
The researchers looked at two groups of mice over a six–week period. Both groups were fed a high–fat diet, but at different times of the mice "waking cycle". One group of mice ate at times when they would normally be asleep. They put on twice as much weight. This was despite the fact that they did the same level of activity, and ate the same amount of food, as the other mice. The researchers believe that the findings may have implications for people worried about their weight.

¹ shift workers = people who work at night

(http//www.bbc.co.uk – 08/09/2009. Adapted.)

EL LADO POSITIVO DE LA PARÁLISIS POR EL VOLCÁN: OCIO FOR?OSO

Muchos pasajeros han optado por bajar el ritmo y disfrutar los días que están varados
The New York Times / LA NACIÓN [Traducción de Jaime Arrambide]

20 de abril de 2010

LONDRES - No hay nada mejor que una gigantesca nube de ceniza volcánica que obliga a cancelar los vuelos en toda
Europa para convertir este mundo vertiginoso y globalizado en un lugar más íntimo, pausado y acogedor.
Por supuesto que entre los cientos de miles de viajeros que esta semana se vieron obligados a permanecer lejos de sus
familias y sus hogares cundieron el estrés y la ansiedad. Estamos acostumbrados a poder ir a donde queramos y conseguir lo que
queramos cuando queramos, gracias a la fenomenal red de transporte mundial. Sin ella, en más de un sentido, estamos perdidos.
Pero como al fin y al cabo no había a quién culpar de la actual contingencia y había muy poco que se pudiera hacer para
solucionarla, muchosviajeros que se encuentran en esta ciudad han descubierto que este ocio forzoso es como un respiro de las
presiones y el vértigo de la vida en el siglo XXI.
No se oía, obviamente, el rugir del motor de los aviones en el cielo. Pero hay más: debido a que desde hace cuatro días
Londres vive un fantástico clima primaveral, ésta ha sido una oportunidad para caminar sin andar a las corridas, un ritmo de vida
que no se experimentaba desde hacía 25 años. (Expongo mi caso personal: volé a Londres para lo que sería apenas una escala
nocturna, el miércoles por la noche, y aquí estoy desde entonces.) Birgit Wittenstein, una cardióloga pediatra de Kiel, Alemania,
vino a Londres para asistir a una importante conferencia y debería haber vuelto a casa el jueves, el primer día en que los vuelos
fueron cancelados. El viernes, estaba en pánico. "Pensé: tengo que salir de acá y volver a casa", dijo, y explicó que su hijo cumplió
6 años el sábado. Entonces, sucedió algo casi mágico. "Tardé 24 horas entomar conciencia y decirme: «Bueno, tengo un poco de
tiempo libre para hacer compras y leer» por primera vez en seis años", afirmó Wittenstein mientras pasaba las páginas de una
novela de Salman Rushdie y se tomaba un café en el soleado domingo londinense. Wittenstein aprovechó los últimos dos días
para encontrarse con viejos amigos, ver un espectáculo, hacer sobremesa después del desayuno y realizar largas caminatas por
Hyde Park. Incluso se compró una cámara para tomar fotos, algo que no había hecho en dos años de viajes de trabajo. Hoy
espera volver a Alemania en tren, ya que logró comprar un pasaje. [.]

(http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1255745)

El texto que sigue te servirá para contestar las preguntas 73, 74, 75, 76 y 77.

Guía de estereotipos para 2012

Reino Unido adoctrina sobre el trato a los turistas según su nacionalidad con vistas a los Juegos Olímpicos

Los españoles gritan y gesticulan al hablar, pero eso no es señal de arrogancia. No le guiñes el ojo a un turista de Hong Kong. Evita el contacto físico si viene de la India... Puede parecer un catálogo de tópicos pero es una guía para que los londinenses no metan la pata durante los Juegos Olímpicos de 2012 y el Reino Unido mejore posiciones en la tabla que mide la calidad de la bienvenida que 50 países dan a sus visitantes.
España está bien colocada: cuarta, empatada con Nueva ?elanda y solo superada por Canadá, Italia y Australia. Pero los británicos están en la posición 14. VisitBritain, un organismo que trabaja en colaboración con el Gobierno y la industria para promover el turismo, quiere así "ayudar desde los hoteleros a los taxistas a proporcionar un servicio más eficiente y útil que tenga en cuenta las necesidades culturales" de los extranjeros. ¿Y qué mejor para ello que tener una idea más clara del visitante y alguna pista sobre lo que no hay que hacer?
¿Quién no ha visto sonreír a un turista japonés? Pero eso no significa necesariamente que el buen hombre esté feliz. "Los japoneses tienden a sonreír cuando están furiosos, avergonzados, tristes o decepcionados", advierte VisitBritain. Si el turista viene de Hong Kong es mejor no guiñarle un ojo porque se considera grosero. Con un brasileño es mejor no hablar de cosas personales como edad, salario o algo parecido a un elogio a Argentina.
Los españoles son de carácter fuerte, muy expresivos, habladores, directos y francos. "Tienden a hablar muy rápido y muy alto y el tono suena imperativo, aunque eso no significa que intenten mostrar superioridad o enfado", advierte el manual. Lamentablemente, aunque hablan mucho, solo uno de cada cuatro es capaz de mantener una conversación en inglés. Los españoles, añade la guía, disfrutan comiendo y fuman como carreteros pero beben menos de lo que se podría esperar de un país que produce tanto vino. Les encanta contar chistes y reírse de sí mismos. Su ancestral machismo está declinando y España es hoy "una sociedad muy igualitaria".
Los portugueses, en cambio, se manejan bien en inglés y si algo les molesta es ser considerados una rama de España. Son nostálgicos, tolerantes, acostumbrados a enfrentarse a otras culturas y es difícil ofenderles. No son muy calurosos y expresivos "pero si te dan los buenos días es porque lo sienten de verdad".
No pierdas los nervios delante de un alemán porque es señal de debilidad; levántate cuando entra una persona mayor en la habitación; no grites; no masques chicle en público y cuidado con el uso de los dedos: señalar con el pulgar hacia arriba en señal de aprobación es de mala educación y apuntar a tu propia sien con el índice es un insulto. ¿Y dónde no?

(Texto adaptado de El País Digital – 15/08/2010. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/revista/agosto/Guia/estereotipos/2012/elpepirdv/20100815elpepirdv_2/Tes)

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

O texto a seguir é referência para as questões 77 a 80.

Germans make wonderful beer. Yet the productivity of the German beer industry is only 43 percent that of the U.S. beer industry. Meanwhile, the German metalworking and steel industries are equal in productivity to their American counterparts. Since the Germans are evidently capable of organizing industries well, why can?t they do so when it comes to beer?
It turns out that the German beer industry suffers from small?scale production. There are a thousand tiny beer companies in Germany, shielded from competition with one another because each German brewery has virtually a local monopoly, and they are also shielded from competition with imports. The United States has 67 major beer breweries, producing 23 billion liters of beer per year. All of Germany?s 1,000 breweries combined produce only half as much. Thus the average U.S. brewery produces 31 times more beer than the average German brewery.
This fact results from local tastes and German government policies. German beer drinkers are fiercely loyal to their local brand, so there are no national brands in Germany analogous to our Budweiser, Miller, or Coors. Instead, most German beer is consumed within 30 miles of the factory where it is brewed. Therefore, the German beer industry cannot profit from economies of scale. In the beer business, as in other businesses, production costs decrease greatly with scale. The bigger the refrigerating unit for making beer, and the longer the assembly line for filling bottles with beer, the lower the cost of manufacturing beer. Those tiny German beer companies are relatively inefficient. There?s no competition; there are just a thousand local monopolies.
The local beer loyalties of individual German drinkers are reinforced by German laws that make it hard for foreign beers to compete in the German market. The German government has so?called beer purity laws that specify exactly what can go into beer. Not surprisingly, those government purity specifications are based on what German breweries put into beer, and not what American, French, and Swedish breweries like to put into beer. Because of those laws, not much foreign beer gets exported to Germany, and because of inefficiency and high prices much less of that wonderful German beer than you would otherwise expect gets sold abroad. (Before you object that German Löwenbräu beer is widely available in the United States, please read the label on the next bottle of Löwenbräu that you drink here: it?s not produced in Germany but in North America, under license, in big factories with North American productivities and efficiencies of scal(E).

(Diamond, J. ,2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton.)

O texto a seguir é referência para as questões 77 a 80.
School Curriculum Falls Short on Bigger Lessons
By Tara PARKER-POPE
Now that children are back in the classroom, are they really learning the lessons that will help them succeed?
Many child development experts worry that the answer may be no. They say the ever-growing emphasis on academic performance and test scores means many children aren?t developing life skills like self-control, motivation, focus and resilience, which are far better predictors of long-term success than high grades. And it may be distorting their and their parents? values.
In one set of studies, children who solved math puzzles were praised for their intelligence or for their hard work. The first group actually did worse on subsequent tests, or took an easy way out, shunning difficult problems. The research suggests that praise for a good effort encourages harder work, while children who are consistently told they are smart do not know what to do when confronted with a difficult problem or reading assignment.
Academic achievement can certainly help children succeed, and for parents there can be a fine line between praising effort and praising performance. Words need to be chosen carefully: Instead of saying, "I?m so proud you got an ?A? on your test", a better choice is "I?m so proud of you for studying so hard". Both replies rightly celebrate the ?A?, but the second focuses on the effort that produced it, encouraging the child to keep trying in the future.
Praise outside of academics matters, too. Instead of asking your child how many points she scored on the basketball court, say, "Tell me about the game. Did you have fun? Did you play hard?". Parents also need to teach their children that they do not have to be good at everything, and there is something to be learned when a child struggles or gets a poor grade despite studying hard. One strategy is to teach children that the differences between easy and difficult subjects can provide useful information about their goals and interests. Subjects they enjoy and excel in may become the focus of their careers. Challenging but interesting classes or sports can become hobbies.

(Adapted from www.nyt.com)