Questões de Inglês - AFA | Gabarito e resoluções

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds 45 and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the option that shows synonyms for the underlined expressions in its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight (lines 28 and 29).

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with2K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7to 10distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/assessed/exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when8researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a9one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. The expression back to the drawing boards (line 71) suggests that

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds 45 and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the fragment why the former is not the latter (line 19), the highlighted words refer to

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the option that contains the correct negative form for the sentence researchers have tried to identify learning styles (lines 60 and 61)

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds 45 and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. The text

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized 30 years ago when we now world- renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains why the former is not the latter. Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles. Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/ assessed/ exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers: back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self- assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. In the sentence there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests (lines 07 and 08), it is possible to find an option to substitute the pronoun accordingly in

(AFA - 2017) Howard Gardner: Multiple intelligences are not learning styles by Valerie Strauss The fields of psychology and education were revolutionized30 years ago when we now world renowned psychologist Howard Gardner published his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which detailed a new model of human intelligence that went beyond the traditional view that1there was a single kind that could be measured by standardized tests. Gardners theory initially listed seven intelligences which work together: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal; he later added an eighth, naturalist intelligence and says there may be a few more. The theory became highly popular with2K-12 educators around the world seeking ways to reach students who did not respond to traditional approaches, but over time, multiple intelligences somehow became synonymous with the concept of learning styles. In this important post, Gardner explains3why the former is not the latter. 4Its been 30 years since I developed the notion of multiple intelligences. I have been gratified by the interest shown in this idea and the ways its been used in schools, museums, and business around the world. But5one unanticipated consequence has driven me to distraction and thats the tendency of many people, including persons whom I cherish, to credit me with the notion of learning styles or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles.6Its high time to relieve my pain and to set the record straight. First a word about MI theory. On the basis of research in several disciplines, including the study of how7human capacities are represented in the brain, I developed the idea that each of us has a number of relatively independent mental faculties, which can be termed our multiple intelligences. The basic idea is simplicity itself. A belief in a single intelligence assumes that we have one central, all-purpose computer, and it determines how well we perform in every sector of life. In contrast, a belief in multiple intelligences assumes that human beings have 7to 10distinct intelligences. Even before I spoke and wrote about MI, the term learning styles was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed all of us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and above all, are effective. Two problems: first, the notion of learning styles is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/assessed/exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is impulsive. Does that mean that Johnny is impulsive about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching? Should we teach impulsively, or should we compensate by teaching reflectively? What of learning style is right-brained or visual or tactile? Same issues apply. Problem #2: when8researchers have tried to identify learning styles, teach consistently with those styles, and examine outcomes, there is not persuasive evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a9one size fits all approach. Of course, the learning style analysis might have been inadequate. Or even if it is on the mark, the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally imperfect; another intervention might have proved effective. Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a10phenomenon; it signals to educational researchers:11back to the drawing boards. Heres my considered judgment about the best way to analyze this lexical terrain: Intelligence: We all have the multiple intelligences. But we signed out, as a strong intelligence, an area where the person has considerable computational power. Style or learning style: A hypothesis of how an individual approaches the range of materials. If an individual has a reflective style, he/she is hypothesized to be reflective about the full range of materials. We cannot assume that reflectiveness in writing necessarily signals reflectiveness in ones interaction with the others. Senses: Sometimes people speak about a visual learner or an auditory learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence that acts upon that sensory information once picked up. 12These distinctions are consequential. If people want to talk about an impulsive style or a visual learner, thats their prerogative. But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst. In contrast, there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences. All of us exhibit jagged profiles of intelligences. There are common sense ways of assessing our own intelligences, and even if it seems appropriate, we can take a more formal test battery. And then, as teachers, parents, or self-assessors, we can decide how best to make use of this information. (Adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet) Glossary: 2K-12 educators defend the adoption of an interdisciplinary curriculum and methods for teaching with objects. Mark the alternative in which the problems described in paragraphs 6 and 7 (lines 49 to 71) are correctly summarized.

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend (lines 23-24) means that

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships,1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum.2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles.3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study,5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships.7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in.8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles;10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed;11Good friends enhance their friends12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different.13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) The first paragraph

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships,1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum.2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles.3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study,5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships.7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in.8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles;10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed;11Good friends enhance their friends12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different.13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) Socially crippling conditions (ref. 7) refers to

QUESTO ANULADA! (AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) According to the last paragraph a)every human being is the same in many ways. b)one is able to have only friends and arch-enemies in life. c)even tough friends are equal, they differ when together d) despite friendship vary, one will always have each of them. QUESTO ANULADA!

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) According to the information in the fourth and fifth paragraphs

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however (lines 80-81). The option that replaces the highlighted expression is

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives (lines 95-96). The option that contains a synonym for the underlined expression is

(AFA - 2016) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRIENDS AND TYPES OF FRIENDSHIP Everyone has at least one best friend, some maybe even more. There are also those people who are just friends and also arch-enemies. People may think that just because they are your friends it means that they are your best friend. The thing is, even though they are your friend, the relationship between a best friend and a friend is different. Either way regardless of archenemies, friends or best friends, there are not many ways to compare any of these different types of friends, but you can easily contrast them from one another. Arch-enemies often know more about each other than two friends. In a comparison of personal relationships, 1friendship is considered to be closer than association, although a wide range of degrees of intimacy exists in friendships, arch-enemies, and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. 2The study of friendship is included in the fields of sociology, social psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and zoology. Even animals have familiars! Various academic theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are social exchange theory, equity theory, relational dialectics, and attachment styles. 3In Russia, one typically bestows very few people the status of friend. These friendships, however, make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A customary example of polite behavior is addressing acquaintances by full first name plus their patronymic. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, or neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal or a social drink with. Also in the Middle East and Central Asia, male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend to be reserved and respectable in nature. They may use nicknames and diminutive forms of their first names. In countries like India, it is believed in some parts that friendship is a form of respect, not born out of fear or superiority. Friends are people who are equal in most standards, but still respect each other regardless of their attributes or shortcomings. Most of the countries previously mentioned (Russia, Asia, and even the Middle East) and even our own nation are suffering a decline in genuine friendships. According to a study documented in the June 2006 issue of the Journal American Sociological Review, Americans are thought to be suffering a loss in the quality and quantity of close friendships since at least 1985. The studys results state that twenty-five percent of 4Americans have no close confidants, and the average total number of confidants per citizen has dropped from four to two. According to the study, 5Americans dependence on family as a safety net went up from fifty-seven percent to eighty percent; Americans dependence on a partner or spouse went up from five percent to nine percent. Recent studies have found a link between fewer friendships, especially in quality, and psychological and physiological regression. In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the pair bonding engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the adolescent, and are often more intense than relationships experienced later in life. 6Unfortunately, making friends seems to trouble many of people. Having no friends can be emotionally damaging for all ages, from young children to full grown adults. A study performed by researchers from Purdue University found that post-secondary-education friendships, college and university last longer than the friendships before it. Children with Asperger syndrome and autism usually have some difficulty forming friendships. 7Socially crippling conditions like these are just one way that the social world is so difficult to thrive in. 8This does not mean that they are not able to form friendships, however. With time, moderation and proper instruction, they are able to form friendships after realizing their own strengths and weaknesses. 9There is a number of theories that attempt to explain the link, including that; Good friends encourage their friends to lead more healthy lifestyles; 10Good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services, when needed; 11Good friends enhance their friends 12coping skills in dealing with illness and other health problems; and/or Good friends actually affect physiological pathways that are protective of health. Regardless of what we think, we can clearly see that there are some ways that friends, best friends and archenemies are the same, but in the end they are clearly more different. 13Nonetheless we all have every single type in our lives. (Adapted from: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/therelationship- between-friends-and-types-of-friendship-philosophyessay. php) Choose the option that shows the sentence good friends encourage their friends to seek help and access services (lines 86 to 88) in the indirect speech form.