Simulados 2 Inglês – SED

(Unioeste PR/2020)
FROM PARIS TO BERLIN

Public transport is increasingly becoming one of the most crucial forms of transport in the world, with most major cities having a vast network connecting millions. But, for all their perks and uses, they are often plagued with technical issues, delays and overcrowding.
Now, researchers at the Polytechnic University of Turin have ranked the world’s largest networks to find which move quickest and to identify the most sluggish.
Berlin and Paris take gold and silver, respectively, in a top ten list dominated by European capital cities. Their average speed was found to be 6.2 and 5.8 km/h whereas Mexico City, languishing at the bottom of the list with a docile 2.4km/h.
Only Melbourne (ten) and New York (eight) break up the European monopoly when it comes to average travel velocity.
The study, published in Royal Society Open Science, found that London came out at number seven.
The English capital fell behind Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Athens and Prague. The top ten was rounded out by New York, Madrid and Melbourne.
The authors Indaco Biazzo, Bernardo Monechi and Vittorio Loreto write in the study: “In the last decades, the acceleration of urban growth has led to an unprecedented level of urban interactions and interdependence”.
“This situation calls for a significant effort among the scientific community to come up with engaging and meaningful visualisations and accessible scenario simulation engines”.
“The present paper gives a contribution in this direction by providing general methods to evaluate accessibility in cities based on public transportation data”.
Adapted from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-
7399879/European-capital-cities-dominate-list-worlds-FASTEST-public-transport-systems.html
Last access: August, 29, 2019.

Qual alternativa abaixo contém um exemplo do uso do superlativo?

(ITA SP/2022)

Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life—money, power, jobs, university admission—should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the ‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. And most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. However, although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behaviour. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations.
This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value. This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The ‘even playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ‘paradox of meritocracy’ occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral sincerity. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behaviour for signs of prejudice.
As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
Fonte: https://bigthink.com/. Publicado em 23/03/2019. Acesso em 20/08/2021. Adaptado.

According to the first paragraph, one of the supporting arguments for meritocracy is:

(ITA SP/2022)

De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que com o desaparecimento de uma língua, aspectos dessa cultura também estão fadados ao desaparecimento, exceto

(Fuvest SP/2022)

Lying, thinking
Last night
How to find my soul a home
Where water is not thirsty
And bread loaf is not stone
I came up with one thing
And I don’t believe I’m wrong
That nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone
Alone – Maya Angelou

Os versos do poema

(Santa Casa SP/2022)

There is no agent of ecological imperialism more ferocious than the wild pig. Wherever Europeans invaded, from the Americas to Australia, so did their pigs, many of which escaped into the countryside to wreak havoc. The beasts tear through native plants and animals, they spread disease, they destroy crops, and they reconstruct whole ecosystems in their wake. They’re not so much pests as they are chaos embodied.
Now add climate change to the wild pig’s résumé of destruction. In their never-ending search for food, the pigs root through soils, churning the dirt like a farmer tills fields. Scientists already knew, to some extent, that this releases the carbon that’s locked in the soil, but researchers in Australia, New Zealand, and the US have now calculated how much soil wild pigs may be disturbing worldwide. The carbon dioxide emissions that they produce annually, the authors concluded, equal that of more than a million cars.
It’s yet another piece of an increasingly worrisome puzzle, showing how modification of the land has — in this case, inadvertently — exacerbated climate change. “Anytime you disturb soil, you’re causing emissions,” says University of Queensland ecologist Christopher O’Bryan, lead author on a new paper describing the research in the journal Global Change Biology. “When you till soil for agriculture, for example, or you have widespread land-use change — urbanization, forest loss.”
Given their domination of whole landscapes, pigs had to be making things worse, the researchers knew, but no one had modeled it worldwide. “We started to realize there’s a big gap at the global scale looking at this question,” O’Bryan adds.
(Matt Simon. http://www.wired.com, 19.07.2021. Adaptado.)

The text intends to