Questões de Inglês - ITA 2019 | Gabarito e resoluções

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Considere o Texto 1 para responder. De acordo com o texto, em comparao com 1976, atualmente ns compramos

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) [...] Apicture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. Imentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According togovernment figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. Butin 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figuresin more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and wait for it 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a dayin the form of drinksin 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed.As some expertshave long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his filmThe Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our naturalappetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use ofsubliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, whiletheir advertisersuse the latestfindings in neuroscienceto overcome our resistance. They hirebiddable scientistsandthinktanksto confuse us about thecauses of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is aquestion of personal responsibility. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it. To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people! No one force feeds you junk food, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to apaper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that personal motivation is a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity. Such people propose no mechanism by which the61% of English peoplewho are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates aremuch higherat thebottom of the socioeconomic scale. Theycorrelate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why theUKs incidenceis greater than in most European andOECD nations. Thescientific literature showshow the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado dehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto, correto afirmar que

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Considere o Texto 1 para responder. De acordo com o texto,

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [...] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and wait for it 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance. They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of personal responsibility. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it. To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people! No one force feeds you junk food, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that personal motivation is a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UKs incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto, correto afirmar que o autor sustenta que

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Texto 1 [...] Apicture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. Imentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the threadturned out to be untrue. [] The obvious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that were eating more. [] So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures. [] So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and wait for it 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue. The shift has not happened by accident. 1As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defenses, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance. They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of personal responsibility. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it. To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people! No one force feeds you junk food, its personal choice. Were not lemmings. Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. Its everyones right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims. More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that personal motivation is a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence. Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, 3which helps to explain why the UKs incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. 2The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets. Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018. Assinale a alternativa que pode substituir as na sentena As JacquesPeretti argued in this film The Man Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products [...] (ref. 1) mantendo o mesmo sentido do texto e a correo gramatical.

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) A questo se refere tirinha a seguir: Fonte: http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/10/26/journalists-today/? Acesso em: maio 2018. De acordo com a tirinha,

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Fonte:http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/10/26/journalists-today/? Acesso em maio de 2018. No ltimo quadrinho, o chefe do jornalista:

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) A questo se refere tirinha a seguir: No contexto da tirinha, todas as palavras pertencentes mesma classe gramatical, EXCETO:

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy. It is the key to self-driving cars, the AmazonAlexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses. Technology is rarely good nor evil its all in how humans use it. AI could do anenormous amount of goodand solve some of the worlds hardest problems, but that same power could beturned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses and do a lot of nefarious things we cant yet foresee. Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We dont wantoverreaching regulationthat goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty. Importantly, were at the beginning of a new era in government one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too dumb to monitor algorithms in a timely way. Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesnt exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior. Its just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell ifAirbnb hosts are illegally turning down minoritiesor if Facebooks human editors aresquashing conservative news headlines. The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for off the rails behaviors and unexpected results. Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we cant rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I dont want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency.[...] Lets do this before bad regulations get enacted and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23 Acesso em: jun. 2018. Assinale a alternativa INCORRETA. No texto, o autor afirma que

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy. It is the key to self-driving cars, the AmazonAlexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses. Technology is rarely good nor evil its all in how humans use it. AI could do anenormous amount of goodand solve some of the worlds hardest problems, but that same power could beturned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses and do a lot of nefarious things we cant yet foresee. Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We dont wantoverreaching regulationthat goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty. Importantly, were at the beginning of a new era in government one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too dumb to monitor algorithms in a timely way. Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesnt exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior. Its just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell ifAirbnb hosts are illegally turning down minoritiesor if Facebooks human editors aresquashing conservative news headlines. The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for off the rails behaviors and unexpected results. Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we cant rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I dont want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency.[...] Lets do this before bad regulations get enacted and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23 Acesso em: jun. 2018. O autor defende uma regulao definida por software, pois I. a considera mais adequada para monitorar indstrias orientadas por software do que regulaes impostas por equipes de reguladores humanos. II. algoritmos podem procurar por detalhes e padres que os seres humanos talvez nunca pudessem descobrir, mas que, no obstante, so indicativos de abusos. III. precisamos de tecnologia que seja capaz de identificar comportamento como o do Facebook que, ao explorar vieses polticos, difundiu manchetes de partidos conservadores. IV. importante que algoritmos monitorem o papel dos seres humanos em empresas orientadas por software para evitar que minorias sejam prejudicadas na utilizao de servios.

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy. It is the key to self-driving cars, the AmazonAlexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses. Technology is rarely good nor evil its all in how humans use it. AI could do anenormous amount of goodand solve some of the worlds hardest problems, but that same power could beturned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses and do a lot of nefarious things we cant yet foresee. Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We dont wantoverreaching regulationthat goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty. Importantly, were at the beginning of a new era in government one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too dumb to monitor algorithms in a timely way. Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesnt exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior. Its just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell ifAirbnb hosts are illegally turning down minoritiesor if Facebooks human editors aresquashing conservative news headlines. The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for off the rails behaviors and unexpected results. Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we cant rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I dont want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency.[...] Lets do this before bad regulations get enacted and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23 Acesso em: jun. 2018. A palavra ou expresso sublinhada na primeira coluna, pode ser substituda pelapalavra ou expresso na segunda coluna em todas as opes, mantendo o mesmo sentido, EXCETO em:

(ITA - 2019 - 1 FASE) Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy. It is the key to self-driving cars, the AmazonAlexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses. Technology is rarely good nor evil its all in how humans use it. AI could do anenormous amount of goodand solve some of the worlds hardest problems, but that same power could beturned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses and do a lot of nefarious things we cant yet foresee. Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We dont wantoverreaching regulationthat goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty. Importantly, were at the beginning of a new era in government one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too dumb to monitor algorithms in a timely way. Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesnt exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior. Its just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell ifAirbnb hosts are illegally turning down minoritiesor if Facebooks human editors aresquashing conservative news headlines. The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for off the rails behaviors and unexpected results. Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we cant rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I dont want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency.[...] Lets do this before bad regulations get enacted and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23 Acesso em: jun. 2018. Observe o uso da palavra sonas frases abaixo: I- (...) and helps guide Al so it benefits society(...) (linha 8) II- Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop(...) (linha 9 e 10) III- So, while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA(...) (linha 10 e 11) Assinale a alternativa que explica, respectivamente, o uso de so.