39

Prévia do material em texto

39
Questão 1
Relacione as estruturas celulares numeradas na 1a coluna com suas respectivas funções listadas na 2a
coluna:
 
1ª Coluna
(1) Retículo endoplasmático
liso
(2) Peroxissomos
(3) Complexo golgiense
 
 
 
2ª Coluna
( ) Participação na síntese de hormônios esteroides.
( ) Degradação da água oxigenada (H2O2) pela enzima
catalase.
( ) Formação dos acrossomos, vesículas ricas em
enzimas, presentes nos espermatozoides.
( ) Secreção das enzimas lisossômicas.
( ) Armazenamento de íons Ca2+ que, ao serem liberados
no citosol, atuam na contração muscular.
 
A sequência correta é:
a) 1, 3, 3, 2, 1
b) 2, 1, 2, 3, 1
c) 1, 2, 3, 3, 1
d) 2, 1, 2, 1, 3
e) 3, 1, 2, 1, 2
Gabarito:
C
Resolução:
O retículo endoplasmático liso sintetiza lipídios, como os esteroides, e atua na desintoxicação celular.
Nas células musculares, ele armazena íons cálcio e chama-se retículo sarcoplasmático.
Os peroxissomos contêm a enzima catalase, que degrada a água oxigenada gerada pelo próprio
metabolismo celular. Essas vesículas contêm outras enzimas, que atuam na desintoxicação celular.
O Complexo de golgiense transforma proteínas sintetizadas no retículo endoplasmático rugoso e as
empacota em vesículas, como: peroxissomos, lisossomos, acrossomo (no espermatozoide) e vesículas
de secreção.
Questão 2
Relacione as organelas representadas de I a IV, na figura abaixo, com as respectivas funções
celulares e marque alternativa que apresenta a sequência CORRETA.
Organela Função
( ) Síntese dos principais componentes lipídicos de
todas as membranas celulares. Apresenta também a
capacidade de converter substâncias tóxicas (álcool,
agrotóxicos, medicamentos) em compostos inócuos.
( ) Centro de armazenamento, transformação,
empacotamento e endereçamento de substâncias na
célula.
( ) Armazenamento da maior parte do material
genético, responsável pelo controle do metabolismo
celular.
( ) Local da síntese de proteínas celulares, as quais se
deslocam em direção ao aparelho de Golgi. Está
associado a ribossomos.
(A) II, IV, I e III
(B) I, II, IV e III
(C) IV, I, II e III
(D) II, IV, III e I
(E) III, I, II e IV
Gabarito:
A
Resolução:
A alternativa A corresponde às funções corretas das organelas. Aqui o aluno devia conhecer a
anatomia das organelas para responder corretamente. Na sequência, relacionando as funções às
organelas, temos: II – retículo endoplasmático liso; IV – complexo golgiense.; I – núcleo; e III – retículo
endoplásmático rugoso.
Questão 3
Reescreva os trechos a seguir, extraídos e adaptados da matéria Fabrique você mesmo (Época,
14.04.2014), adequando-os à norma-padrão da língua portuguesa, considerando as informações entre
parênteses.
a) A evolução que trouxe-nos das cavernas para o mundo conectado pela internet foi uma sequência
de eventos complexos, os quais se valeram de um conserto de novas tecnologias e ideias. (Ortografia
e colocação pronominal)
b) Com as tecnologias e ideias abriu-se um universo de possibilidades foi assim com o arado que
aumentou a produção agrícola gerou excedentes e permitiu a criação de Estados e impérios
(Pontuação)
Gabarito:
(Resolução oficial)
a) A evolução que nos trouxe das cavernas para o mundo conectado pela internet foi uma sequência
de eventos complexos, os quais se valeram de um concerto de novas tecnologias e ideias.
b) Com as tecnologias e ideias, abriu-se um universo de possibilidades; foi assim com o arado, que
aumentou a produção agrícola, gerou excedentes e permitiu a criação de Estados e impérios.
Resolução:
 
Questão 4
Reducing food waste would mitigate climate change, study shows
April 7, 2016
Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening
some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said
on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and
distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
(PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global
greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste
would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after
harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted
is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food
habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to
consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste
could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT
annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology
journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is
needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to
expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and
development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce
emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he
said.
Disponível em: . Adaptado.
The text
a) presents the findings of a study that analysed agriculture in China and India.
b) states that the more agriculture spreads, the less greenhouse gas will be emitted.
c) says that extreme weather can lead to crop losses and hunger.
d) proposes that agriculture should be expanded in order to preserve the environment.
e) establishes a relationship between food waste and climate change. 
Gabarito:
E
Resolução:
A alternativa correta é a E. O texto estabelece uma relação entre o desperdício de alimentos e as
alterações climáticas. Já no título e nas primeiras linhas lemos que "Reduzir o desperdício de
alimentos em todo o mundo ajudaria a reduzir as emissões de gases que contribuem para o
aquecimento global, diminuindo alguns dos impactos das mudanças climáticas, como o clima mais
extremo e o aumento do nível do mar" ("Reducing food waste around the world would help curb
emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more
extreme weather and rising seas"). Ao longo do texto, são oferecidos dados e previsões de âmbito
internacional acerca dessa ideia central.
Questão 5
Reducing food waste would mitigate climate change, study shows
April 7, 2016
Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening
some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said
on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and
distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
(PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global
greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste
would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after
harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted
is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food
habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to
consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop andthe world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste
could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT
annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology
journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is
needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to
expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and
development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce
emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he
said.
Disponível em: . Adaptado.
According to the information presented in the fourth paragraph, there is an indication to
a) expand agriculture to tackle hunger.
b) revert industrial and agricultural development.
c) decrease food waste and redistribute food where necessary.
d) limit population growth.
e) control carbon dioxide emissions from all sources.
Gabarito:
C
Resolução:
A alternativa correta é a C. De acordo com as informações apresentadas no quarto parágrafo, há uma
indicação para diminuir o desperdício de alimentos e redistribuí-los quando necessário, conforme
lemos no seguinte trecho: "É amplamente discutido que cortar o desperdício de alimentos e distribuir
o excedente de alimentos do mundo onde é necessário poderia ajudar a combater a fome em lugares
que não têm alimentos suficientes – especialmente considerando-se que a terra disponível para
expansão da agricultura é limitada" ("It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the
world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough –
especially given that land to expand farming is limited").
Questão 6
Relacione corretamente as equações com as reações químicas do cotidiano apresentadas
abaixo, numerando a coluna II de acordo com a coluna I. 
Coluna I Coluna II
(1)
2 NaHCO3 → Na2CO3 + CO2 + H2O
( ) Produção de
substância usada
como fertilizante.
(2)
Mg(OH)2 + CO2 → MgCO3 + H2O
( ) Ação do sal
de fruta no
estômago humano.
(3)
2 NH3 + CO2 → CO(NH2)2 + H2O
( ) Feitura do bolo
de chocolate.
(4)
NaHCO3 + HCl → NaCl + H2CO3
( ) Absorção do gás de
ambientes fechados.
A sequência correta, de cima para baixo, é:
a) 3, 4, 1, 2.
b) 2, 3, 4, 1.
c) 2, 4, 1, 3.
d) 3, 1, 4, 2.
Gabarito:
A
Resolução:
A equação I apresenta decomposição do bicarbonato de sódio, que produz carbonato de sódio, gás
carbônico e água. A expansão do CO2 provoca aumento de volume na massa de bolo.
A equação II representa a reação entre hidróxido de magnésio e gás carbônico, com formação de um
sal, e que permite a retirada desse gás presente no ar em recipientes fechados.
A equação III apresenta uma reação de produção da ureia, CO(NH2)2, que pode ser utilizada como
fertilizante, devido à presença de nitrogênio em sua composição.
A equação IV representa a ação do sal de fruta no estômago humano. A reação entre íons hidrogênio
presentes no estômago e íons bicarbonato, provenientes do bicarbonato de sódio, diminui a acidez
estomacal.
A sequência correta, de cima para baixo, é dada por: 3, 4, 1, 2. Portanto, a alternativa correta é a A.
Questão 7
Reproduz-se a seguir uma carta do poeta inglês John Keats a sua amada Fanny Brawne.
 
Sweetest Fanny,
 
When you passed my window home yesterday, I was filled with as much admiration as if I had then
seen you for the first time. You uttered a half complaint once that I only loved your Beauty. Have I
nothing else then to love in you but that? Do not I see your heart? Nothing has been able to turn your
thoughts a moment from me. Even if you did not love me I could not help an entire devotion to you:
how much more deeply then must I feel for you knowing you love me. My Mind has been the most
discontented and restless one that ever was put into a body too small for it. I never felt my Mind
repose upon anything with complete and undistracted enjoyment – upon no person but you. When
you are in the room my thoughts never fly out of window: you always concentrate my whole senses.
Your affectionate, J. Keats (Adaptado de www.john-keats.com/briefe. Acessado em 25/08/20.)
 
O autor da carta
 
a) lamenta o fato de que a mulher que ele adora não o ama da mesma forma.
b) revela que o amor por essa mulher lhe trouxe intranquilidade e pensamentos negativos.
c) mostra sua admiração por uma mulher que, para ele, encarna a beleza em sua essência.
d) afirma que seus sentimentos pela mulher não mudariam mesmo se não fosse correspondido.
Gabarito:
D
Resolução:
O autor da carta afirma que seus sentimentos pela mulher não mudariam mesmo se não fosse
correspondido, conforme comprova o trecho “Even if you did not love me I could not help an entire
devotion to you: how much more deeply then must I feel for you knowing you love me".
Questão 8
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The first and second paragraphs mainly illustrate
 
(A) the fact that life in the old days tended to be far easier and more amusing than it is in the current
turbulenttimes.
(B) the level of importance given, in the good old days, to debates about one’s favorite soccer team.
(C) the ways in which rather unimportant divergences are handled today if compared to previous
times.
(D) the manner conflicts between friends can be dealt with, from an aggressive or a more easy-going
perspective.
(E) the contrasts between supporting a soccer team today, and in years past.
Gabarito:
C
Resolução:
O primeiro e o segundo parágrafos do texto ilustram as formas pelas quais divergências
desimportantes são tratadas atualmente, em comparação ao tratamento que recebiam em tempos
passados.
Questão 9
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
Os trechos “when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his
liberty” e “when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter”, no
terceiro parágrafo,
 
(A) comparam comportamentos diversos frente a temas que são, por natureza, instigantes e
contraditórios.
(B) discutem os temas culturais que mais provocavam embates no momento de publicação do texto.
(C) apresentam extremos de polarização que ultimamente têm gerado surpresa no autor do texto.
(D) exemplificam a facilidade com que diferenças de opinião têm-se transformado em discórdia
grave.
(E) apontam para o perigo iminente de uma guerra cultural ou de uma convulsão social generalizada.
 
Gabarito:
D
Resolução:
Os trechos “when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his
liberty” ("quando seu colega declara que usar uma máscara em público é uma ameaça à sua
liberdade") e “when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter”
("quando você vê que um de seus amigos acabou de tuitar que, na verdade, todas as vidas
importam"), no terceiro parágrafo, exemplificam a facilidade com que diferenças de opinião têm-se
transformado em discórdia grave.
Questão 10
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
In the fragment from the third paragraph “when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter”, the underlined word can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by
 
(A) indeed.
(B) lately.
(C) fortunately.
(D) in the present times.
(E) most possibly.
Gabarito:
A
Resolução:
No fragmento “when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter”,
a palavra "actually" pode ser substituída por "indeed",pois ambas significam "de fato", "na
realidade".
Questão 11
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The expression “Before you know it” (3rd paragraph) can be correctly interpreted as
(A) before you are told about it.
(B) as soon as you get to know it.
(C) before you learn about it.
(D) earlier than you realize it.
(E) as long as you understand it.
Gabarito:
D
Resolução:
A expressão “Before you know it” ("antes que você saiba"), no 3º parágrafo, pode ser interpretada
como "earlier than you realize it" ("antes que você perceba").
Questão 12
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
In the fragment from the fourth paragraph “Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors”, the underlined term refers most specifically to
 
(A) contrasting ways.
(B) wider political and social factors.
(C) topics.
(D) terms.
(E) contentious issues.
Gabarito:
E
Resolução:
No segmento “Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader
matrix of factors”, do 4º parágrafo, o termo "them" refere-se a contentious issues ("questões
contraditórias").
Questão 13
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might considerin
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
The subtitle that most closely represents the content of the fifth and sixth paragraphs is:
(A) Debating moral and social issues
(B) The role of facts in disputes
(C) Dealing with contradictory beliefs
(D) Differences between facts and beliefs
(E) Attaining attitude change
Gabarito:
B
Resolução:
O subtítulo que mais representa o conteúdo dos parágrafos 5 e 6 seria "O papel dos fatos em
conflitos" ("The role of facts in disputes").
Questão 14
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
No trecho do último parágrafo “we will all be inclined to be”, o termo sublinhado indica uma
 
(A) decisão.
(B) necessidade.
(C) certeza.
(D) possibilidade.
(E) sugestão.
Gabarito:
D
Resolução:
No trecho do último parágrafo “we will all be inclined to be”, o termo "will" indica uma possibilidade
("estaremos todos inclinados a ser...").
Questão 15
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
It is an explicit opinion bythe author of the text:
 
(A) “Decoupling” is better than “coupling” because more factors in a situation are considered.
(B) Wider political and social factors have a decisive role in personal relationships.
(C) Respect and understanding is what can save us from all the difficulties we everyday face.
(D) Life has changed to the worse, as people have become more and more rancorous.
(E) People’s convictions tend to exert considerable influence on their appreciation of an issue.
Gabarito:
E
Resolução:
É uma opinião explícita do autor do texto que as convicções das pessoas tendem a exercer influência
considerável na avaliação delas sobre um determinado assunto ("People’s convictions tend to exert
considerable influence on their appreciation of an issue").
Questão 16
Remember the good old days, when you could have a heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends
about things that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true fan of the Manchester
United soccer team when you didn’t come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face
mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted
that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are
some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political
and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting
ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as
inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’
prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in
isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by
contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as
pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such
that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those
facts, rather than update our beliefs. A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than
100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade
them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were
more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work
may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s
arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each
other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create
that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be.
And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our
present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
 
 A afirmação da figura que melhor dialoga com o conteúdo do último parágrafo do texto de Christian
Jarrett é:
(A) Listen to the other person so that you understand their point of view.
(B) Remain calm and make sure to talk one at a time.
(C) Come together with the person you are having conflict with.
(D) Agree to come up with sensible solutions you both can accept.
(E) Brainstorm solutions to resolve your conflict together.
Gabarito:
A
Resolução:
A afirmação da figura que melhor dialoga com o conteúdo do último parágrafo do texto de Christian
Jarrett, no qual o autor convoca ao respeito ao ponto de vista alheio ("let’s all try to be more
respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions") é "escute a outra pessoa para que você
entenda seu ponto de vista" ("Listen to the other person so that you understand their point of view"). 
Questão 17
Resíduos de papel contribuem para que o clima mude mais do que a maioria das pessoas pensam. A
Blue Planet Ink anunciou que sua tinta de impressora autoapagável Paper Saver® agora está
disponível em cartuchos remanufaturados para uso em impressoras de uma determinada marca. A
tinta autoapagável (economizadora de papel) é uma tinta roxa de base aquosa, que pode
ser impressa em papel sulfite normal. Um cartucho rende a impressão de até 4000 folhas. Com a
exposição ao ar, ao absorver dióxido de carbono e vapor de água, o componente ativo (corante) da
tinta perde sua cor, a impressão torna-se não visível e o papel fica branco, tornando possível sua
reutilização.
A "pegada de carbono" – isto é, a quantidade de carbono gerada na produção, transporte e descarte –
de 120 folhas de papel é a mesma de um carro a gasolina que se move por 16 km. O Regulamento
sobre Automóveis de Passageiros da Comissão Europeia estabeleceu como meta que as emissões dos
veículos leves não poderão ultrapassar 95 g CO2/km a partir de 2020. Levando em conta a combustão
completa da gasolina (considere a gasolina como sendo constituída unicamente por C8H18) e as
informações do texto de referência, o uso de um cartucho da tinta Paper Saver®, nas
condições estabelecidas pela Comissão Europeia, permitiria reduzir a emissão de aproximadamente
a) 1,5 kg de CO2, que é uma massa maior do que a massa de gasolina que foi queimada.
b) 50 kg de CO2, que é uma massa menor do que a massa de gasolina que foi queimada.
c) 1,5 kg de CO2, que é uma massa menor do que a massa de gasolina que foi queimada.
d) 50 kg de CO2, que é uma massa maior do que a massa de gasolina que foi queimada.
Massas molares em g·mol-1: H = 1, C = 12, O = 16.
Gabarito:
D
Resolução:
Considerando-se emissões dos veículos leves como iguais a 95 g CO2/km, para um percurso de 16 km
haveria emissão de uma massa m de gás carbônico:
m = 95 · 16 = 1520 g CO2
Uma vez que esse valor corresponde à pegada de carbono de 120 folhas, e pegada total para 4000
folhas, que é o número que pode ser impresso a partir de um cartucho, é igual a m2
120 folhas — 1520 g CO2
4000 folhas — m2
m2 ≈ 5,1·104 g CO2 = 51 kg CO2
Considerando-se combustão completa, 1 mol de C8H18 (massa molar = 114 g/mol) produz 8 mols de
CO2 (massa molar = 44 g/mol) de forma que a massa de CO2 produzido deve ser maior que a massa
de gasolina queimada. Assim, o uso de um cartucho da tinta Paper Saver®, nas condições
estabelecidas pela Comissão Europeia, permitiria reduzir a emissão de aproximadamente 50 kg de
CO2, que é uma massa maior do que a massa de gasolina que foi queimada.
Questão 18
Regular physical activity can help keep your thinking, learning, and judgment skills sharp as you age.
It can also reduce your risk of depression and may help you sleep better. Research has shown that
doing aerobic or a mix of aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities 3 to 5 times a week for 30 to 60
minutes can give you these benefits. Some scientific evidence has also shown that even lower levels
of physical activity can be beneficial.
Disponível em: . Acesso em: 12 out.
2012.
The title that best summarizes the main idea of this text is
01) Increase your risk of diseases.
02) Strengthen your bones and muscles.
03) Improve your mental health and mood.
04) Reduce your chances of living longer.
05) Improve your ability to do daily activities.
Gabarito:
03
Resolução:
O título que melhor resume a ideia principal do texto é "Improve your mental health and mood"
("Melhoresua saúde mental e seu humor"). Pode-se afirmar isso a partir da explanação oferecida pelo
texto de que a atividade física regular pode ajudar a manter bom desempenho de raciocínio,
aprendizado e competências de julgamento ao longo do envelhecimento.
Questão 19
Regular physical activity can help keep your thinking, learning, and judgment skills sharp as you age.
It can also reduce your risk of depression and may help you sleep better. Research has shown that
doing aerobic or a mix of aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities 3 to 5 times a week for 30 to 60
minutes can give you these benefits. Some scientific evidence has also shown that even lower levels
of physical activity can be beneficial.
Disponível em: . Acesso em: 12 out.
2012.
Fill in the parentheses with T (True) or F (False). The text has answers to the following questions:
( ) How often should people exercise?
( ) What benefits does physical activity provide when people become older?
( ) Why is it that lower levels of physical activity don't seem to work much?
( ) When shouldn't people do muscle-strengthening activities?
According to the text, the correct sequence, from top to bottom, is
01) TTTT
02) FTTF
03) FFTT
04) TTFF
05) TFFT
Gabarito:
04
Resolução:
A partir do texto, é possível saber qual deve ser a frequência do exercício físico (3 a 5 vezes por
semana, de 30 a 60 minutos) e os benefícios de tal atividade conforme se envelhece (manutenção do
raciocínio, aprendizado e capacidade de julgamento, além de reduzir riscos de depressão e colaborar
para a qualidade do sono).
Questão 20
Reportagem veiculada em jornal local traz a seguinte manchete: "PB tem depósito de titânio mais
importante do país". A matéria trata da importância desse metal e suas diversas aplicações nas
indústrias aeronáutica, química, naval, nuclear, bélica e metalúrgica. No detalhamento do texto, tem-
se que "a ilmenita (FeTiO2) teoricamente possui 53% de titânio e 47% de ferro".
CARVALHO, A. Correio da Paraíba, 8 abr. 2012, F1.
Considerando a composição da ilmenita, conclui-se que a informação apresentada está
a) equivocada quanto ao teor de Fe que, na verdade, corresponde a 56,2%.
b) equivocada quanto ao teor de Ti que, na verdade, corresponde a 48,1%.
c) equivocada quanto ao teor de Ti que, na verdade, corresponde a 35,3%.
d) correta quanto ao teor de Ti.
e) correta quanto ao teor de Fe.
Gabarito:
C
Resolução:
A composição centesimal da ilmenita, FeTiO2 (massa molar = 136 g/mol), é dada por:
136 g — 100%
 56 g — PFe
PFe @ 41,2%
136 g — 100%
 48 g — PTi
PTi @ 35,3%
136 g — 100%
 48 g — PO
PO @ 23,5%
Assim, conclui-se que a informação apresentada está equivocada quanto ao teor de Ti que, na
verdade, corresponde a 35,3%.