Foram encontradas 45.418 questões.
In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.
Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.
17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).
About the previous text, judge the items bellow.
The meaning of the fourth sentence of the second paragraph would remain the same if "could not" were replaced with failed to as long as "chose" were also replaced with to choose.
Provas
In 1977, during his first official visit abroad as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was betrayed by the language barrier and the choices of his translator. In the course of meeting his Polish counterpart, Edward Gierek, the translator was on hand to provide a translation of his president’s words into Polish. Unfortunately, his translations could, perhaps, have not been farther from the truth of what Carter said.
Announcing that he was extremely glad to be in Poland for his first trip abroad, the translator somehow managed to mistranslate the friendly statement into the announcement of seeming defection by the American President, turning "I left the United States this morning" into "I left the United States, never to return". Furthermore, Carter’s warm statement of his visit to the nation was bizarrely mistranslated into the comment that President Carter "was happy to grasp at Poland’s private parts". Following up this colossal mistake, the interpreter then successively translated Carter’s expression of a hope to learn more about the Polish people’s "desires for the future" into "I desire the Poles carnally". Adding insult to injury, during Carter’s toast at a state banquet later during the same trip, a different interpreter providing a translation could not understand the American President’s Georgia accent and consequently chose to simply not translate his words at all rather than offer an inaccurate depiction. In hindsight, the latter interpreter opted for the better path in the face of confusion.
17 Mishandled International Events Throughout History. Internet: <historycollection.com> (adapted).
About the previous text, judge the items bellow.
There is an ambiguity in the second sentence of the text, resolved by the mentioning of a politician’s name.
Provas
Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.
The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.
Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy. In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
About the preceding text, judge the following items.
It is correct to infer from the text that European diplomacy, represented in the text by reference to "Geneva and Oslo" (second sentence of the second paragraph), is not paying much attention to conflicts "that have taken place the world over".
Provas
Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.
The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.
Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy. In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
About the preceding text, judge the following items.
With "has come into its own" (third sentence of the second paragraph), the author means that Qatar is struggling to keep its role as a diplomatic broker after becoming a major investor in the resolution of conflicts.
Provas
Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.
The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.
Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy. In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
About the preceding text, judge the following items.
It can be correctly inferred from the text that the surprise mentioned in the second paragraph can be explained by people having some preconceived notion of the role played by Middle Eastern countries in the international arena.
Provas
Qatar has made itself into the diplomatic capital of the world. Dotted across Doha are the many palaces and offices that have hosted, over recent years, negotiations about the many intractable diplomatic issues that have taken place the world over.
The power Qatar has come to wield has taken many observers by surprise. As a traditional Muslim monarchy in the Middle East, Qatar is a new kind of location for the sort of high-stakes geopolitical deal-making transacted until recently in Geneva and Oslo. Yet since October, the nation’s massive investment in becoming the world’s go-between has come into its own. Having long cultivated close relations with both the US and Hamas, Qatar became the locus of ceasefire negotiations in major local conflicts, as well as discussions over aid and evacuating the wounded. Its mediation has grown from a strategy to enhance its own safety into a role that underpins the entire world’s security.
Nesrine Malik. The go-between: how Qatar became the global capital of diplomacy. In: The Guardian. Internet: <www.theguardian.com> (adapted).
About the preceding text, judge the following items.
Qatar became the diplomatic capital of the world due to its Muslim tradition and its geographical position.
Provas
Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.
The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.
A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.
We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life — the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning — the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.
Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.
Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).
Based on the grammatical and semantic aspects of the preceding text, judge the items that follow.
The statement "The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions" (fourth sentence of the first paragraph) can be correctly rephrased as A society is formed through the discovery of everyday meanings and directions, without this changing the original meaning of the text.
Provas
Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.
The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.
A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.
We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life — the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning — the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.
Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.
Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).
Based on the grammatical and semantic aspects of the preceding text, judge the items that follow.
In the last sentence of the text — "Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind" —, "every" can be replaced with either each or all without compromising grammatical correctness or altering the overall meaning, but the change nonetheless alters the emphasis of the original wording.
Provas
Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.
The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.
A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.
We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life — the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning — the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.
Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.
Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).
Based on the grammatical and semantic aspects of the preceding text, judge the items that follow.
In the passage "The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind" (last sentence of the first paragraph), "yet" could be replaced with and yet without altering the overall meaning of the fragment.
Provas
Culture is ordinary. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.
The making of a mind is, first, the slow learning of shapes, purposes, and meanings, so that work, observation and communication are possible. Then, second, but equal in importance, is the testing of these in experience, the making of new observations, comparisons, and meanings.
A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings.
We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life — the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning — the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about our general and common purposes, yet also questions about deep personal meanings.
Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.
Raymond Williams. Culture is Ordinary. In: R. Williams. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, 1989. p. 3-14 (adapted).
Based on the grammatical and semantic aspects of the preceding text, judge the items that follow.
According to the author of the text, every member of society is cultured, refined, and, through social experience and discovery, plays a role in shaping cultural development, both individually and collectively.
Provas
Caderno Container