Questões de Inglês - UNESP | Gabarito e resoluções

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1 fase) O argumento do mdico se baseia em

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Em Since you are a lawyer, o termo em destaque pode ser substitudo, sem alterao de sentido, por

(UNESP - 2016 - 1 fase) O trecho Isnt genetic engineering amazing? sugere que a mulher

(UNESP - 2016 - 1fase) Genetically modified foods Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides. In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food. (www.who.int) According to the text, genetically modified foods

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) No ttulo do texto, o termo disparity tem sentido semelhante ao termo do texto

(UNESP - 2016 - 1fase) Genetically modified foods Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides. In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food. (www.who.int) De acordo com o texto, uma das vantagens dos produtos agrcolas geneticamente modificados existentes que esses produtos

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) According to the first paragraph,

(UNESP - 2016 - 1 fase) Genetically modified foods Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides. In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food. (www.who.int) No trecho final do primeiro pargrafo through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases, o termo em destaque equivale, em portugus, a

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) No trecho do segundo pargrafo not only in income, but also in years of life, a expresso not only but also indica

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1 fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) Conforme as informaes apresentadas no segundo pargrafo,

(UNESP - 2016 - 1fase) Genetically modified foods Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides. In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food. (www.who.int) No trecho do segundo pargrafo All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market., o termo em destaque pode ser corretamente substitudo, sem alterao de sentido, por:

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) A nova pesquisa da Brookings Institution que foi divulgada

(UNESP - 2016 - 1fase) GM wheat no more pest-resistant than ordinary crops, trial shows GM wheat designed to repel aphids is no more effective at repelling the bugs than standard varieties a major field trial has revealed Ian Sample June 25, 2015 A major field trial of GM wheat that is designed to repel aphids (small insects) has found the crop is no better protected against the pests than conventional wheat. The results come from two years of trials that compared aphid attacks on standard wheat plants with those suffered by a GM version modified to release a natural aphid repellent. Scientists created the GM wheat strain in the hope that it would deter aphids, which devour the crops and can leave them with infections. They modified the wheat to produce a natural pheromone which aphids release when under attack from predators. The aphid alarm makes the bugs flee to safety. Aphids are not the only organisms that release the odour though. More than 400 plants have evolved to secrete the same substance, called E-betafarnesene, or EBF, including peppermint. The chemical doubles up as an attractant for some insects that kill aphids, such as parasitic wasps. Prior to the field trial, lab tests at Rothamsted found that the pheromone worked as a highly-effective aphid repellent. The work bolstered researchers hopes that the trial would demonstrate the crops resilience against aphids in the wild. An aphid-resistant wheat crop could have huge benefits for farmers and the environment because the plants would no longer need to be sprayed with insecticides. The disappointing thing is that when we tested it in the field, we didnt find any significant reduction in aphid settlement in the test plots, said Toby Bruce, who worked on the trial. Details of the trial are published in the journal Scientific Reports. (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.) O objetivo do experimento com trigo geneticamente modificado foi

(UNESP - 2016/2 - 1fase) Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing Sabrina Tavernise February 12, 2016 Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply. The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. There has been this huge spreading out, said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study. The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion, said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference. Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure life expectancy at age 50 and included data from 1984 to 2012.) (www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.) No trecho do quarto pargrafo shortening life spans for some Americans, a expresso some Americans, no contexto, se refere

(UNESP - 2016 - 1 fase) GM wheat no more pest-resistant than ordinary crops, trial shows GM wheat designed to repel aphids is no more effective at repelling the bugs than standard varieties a major field trial has revealed I an Sample June 25, 2015 A major field trial of GM wheat that is designed to repel aphids (small insects) has found the crop is no better protected against the pests than conventional wheat. The results come from two years of trials that compared aphid attacks on standard wheat plants with those suffered by a GM version modified to release a natural aphid repellent. Scientists created the GM wheat strain in the hope that it would deter aphids, which devour the crops and can leave them with infections. They modified the wheat to produce a natural pheromone which aphids release when under attack from predators. The aphid alarm makes the bugs flee to safety. Aphids are not the only organisms that release the odour though. More than 400 plants have evolved to secrete the same substance, called E-betafarnesene, or EBF, including peppermint. The chemical doubles up as an attractant for some insects that kill aphids, such as parasitic wasps. Prior to the field trial, lab tests at Rothamsted found that the pheromone worked as a highly-effective aphid repellent. The work bolstered researchers hopes that the trial would demonstrate the crops resilience against aphids in the wild. An aphid-resistant wheat crop could have huge benefits for farmers and the environment because the plants would no longer need to be sprayed with insecticides. The disappointing thing is that when we tested it in the field, we didnt find any significant reduction in aphid settlement in the test plots, said Toby Bruce, who worked on the trial. Details of the trial are published in the journal Scientific Reports. (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.) The field tests with the GM wheat proved ineffectivebecause