Questões de Vestibular de Inglês - Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions

TEXT

    Clifford the Big Red Dog looks fabulous on an iPad. He sounds good, too — tap the screen and hear him pant as a blue truck roars into the frame. “Go, truck, go!” cheers the narrator. But does this count as story time? Or is it just screen time for babies? It is a question that parents, pediatricians and researchers are struggling to answer as children’s books, just like all the other ones, migrate to digital media.

     For years, child development experts have advised parents to read to their children early and often, citing studies showing its linguistic, verbal and social benefits. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised doctors to remind parents at every visit that they should read to their children from birth, prescribing books as enthusiastically as vaccines and vegetables.

     On the other hand, the academy strongly recommends no screen time for children under 2, and less than two hours a day for older children. 

     At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device, and app stores are bursting with reading programs and learning games aimed at infants and preschoolers, which bit of guidance should parents heed? 

     The answer, researchers say, is not yet entirely clear. “We know how children learn to read,” said Kyle Snow, the applied research director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. “But we don’t know how that process will be affected by digital technology.” 

     Part of the problem is the newness of the devices. Tablets and e-readers have not been in widespread use long enough for the sorts of extended studies that will reveal their effects on learning.

     Dr. Pamela High, the pediatrician who wrote the June policy for the pediatrics group, said electronic books were intentionally not addressed. “We tried to do a strongly evidence-based policy statement on the issue of reading starting at a very young age,” she said. “And there isn’t any data, really, on e-books.”

    But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development. “There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,” Dr. High said. “You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.”

     In a 2013 study, researchers found that children ages 3 to 5 whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension than children whose parents used traditional books. Part of the reason, they said, was that parents and children using an electronic device spent more time focusing on the device itself than on the story (a conclusion shared by at least two other studies).

     “Parents were literally putting their hands over the kids’ hands and saying, ‘Wait, don’t press the button yet. Finish this up first,’ ” said Dr. Julia Parish-Morris, a developmental psychologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the 2013 study that was conducted at Temple University. Parents who used conventional books were more likely to engage in what education researchers call “dialogic reading,” the sort of back-and-forth discussion of the story and its relation to the child’s life that research has shown are key to a child’s linguistic development.

     Complicating matters is that fewer and fewer children’s e-books can strictly be described as books, say researchers. As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours. “What we’re really after in reading to our children is behavior that sparks a conversation,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple and co-author of the 2013 study. “But if that book has things that disrupt the conversation, like a game plopped right in the middle of the story, then it’s not offering you the same advantages as an old-fashioned book.”

     Of course, e-book publishers and app developers point to interactivity as an educational advantage, not a distraction. Many of those bells and whistles — Clifford’s bark, the sleepy narration of “Goodnight Moon,” the appearance of the word “ham” when a child taps the ham in the Green Eggs and Ham app — help the child pick up language, they say.

     There is some evidence to bear out those claims, at least in relation to other technologies. A study by the University of Wisconsin in 2013 found that 2-year-olds learned words faster with an interactive app as opposed to one that required no action.

     But when it comes to learning language, researchers say, no piece of technology can substitute for a live instructor — even if the child appears to be paying close attention.

     Patricia K. Kuhl, a director of the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington, led a study in 2003 that compared a group of 9-month-old babies who were addressed in Mandarin by a live instructor with a group addressed in Mandarin by an instructor on a DVD. Children in a third group were exposed only to English.

    “The way the kids were staring at the screen, it seemed obvious they would learn better from the DVDs,” she said. But brain scans and language testing revealed that the DVD group “learned absolutely nothing,” Dr. Kuhl said. “Their brain measures looked just like the control group that had just been exposed to English. 

     The only group that learned was the live social interaction group.” In other words, “it’s being talked with, not being talked at,” that teaches children language, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek said. 

     Similarly, perhaps the biggest threat posed by e-books that read themselves to children, or engage them with games, is that they could lull parents into abdicating their educational responsibilities, said Mr. Snow of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. 

    “There’s the possibility for e-books to become the TV babysitters of this generation,” he said. “We don’t want parents to say, ‘There’s no reason for me to sit here and turn pages and tell my child how to read the word, because my iPad can do it.’ ” 

     But parents may find it difficult to avoid resorting to tablets. Even literacy advocates say the guidelines can be hard to follow, and that allowing limited screen time is not high on the list of parental missteps. “You might have an infant and think you’re down with the A.A.P. guidelines, and you don’t want your baby in front of a screen, but then you have a grandparent on Skype,” Mr. Snow said. “Should you really be tearing yourself apart? Maybe it’s not the world’s worst thing.” 

     “The issue is when you’re in the other room and Skyping with the baby cause he likes it,” he said. Even if screen time is here to stay as a part of American childhood, good old-fashioned books seem unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Parents note that there is an emotional component to paper-andink storybooks that, so far, does not seem to extend to their electronic counterparts, however engaging. 

From: www.nytimes.com, OCT. 11, 2014 

Leia o texto para responder a questão. 

Patience is needed for Brazil to come good again

Michael Hasenstab

Dr. Michael Hasenstab is executive

vice-president, portfolio manager

and chief investment officer of

Templeton Global Macro

    The Olympic Games in Rio drew global interest to Brazil, but the country and the rest of South America has been in sharp focus for investors all year. They have flocked to the region as part of a broader migration into emerging market debt, following record low valuations and the hunt for yield in a low interest rate environment. While investors have been presented with a rarely seen buying opportunity in emerging markets like South America, it is a mistake to regard these countries as a homogenous group.

    That leaves the challenge of working out which are the most attractive opportunities – some of our best known investments were not obvious choices.

    We have devised a formula to help us evaluate the fundamental strength of different emerging market countries. It scores a country’s current and projected strength on five factors: how well it has learnt the lessons from past crises; the quality of its policy mix; the structural reform being undertaken to boost productivity; the level of domestic demand; and its ability to resist external shocks. The aim is to pick nations that are fundamentally strong but, for one reason or another, are out of favour with investors. It can take time for the market to catch up to reality. But if you are a long-term investor – and we are certainly in that camp – you have the luxury of being able to wait.

    Brazil, for example, is known as a vulnerable market due to the commodities downturn, the ongoing corruption crisis and ensuing political turmoil, but our work suggests to us that it is poised for a potentially significant rebound in the long term. Its current score is low, but its projected future score tells a different story.

    We believe the country has learnt the lessons from the most recent crisis, which brought home the importance of having a sustainable fiscal policy. It has already adopted a flexible exchange rate, has strong foreign exchange reserves and has limited short-term debt. This is also reflected in the country’s improving resilience to external shocks, with a reliance on commodities, at 60 per cent of exports, being the largest remaining negative.

    It is perhaps no surprise, given Brazil’s deep recession and political instability, that there is much work required in terms of improving policy mix, making structural reforms and boosting domestic demand. However, there are signs things are being turned around, with monetary policy already being tightened aggressively to bring inflation expectations back under control, and the previously excessive levels of governmentsubsidised lending being cut. Once political stability returns, the government will be empowered to do even more.

    Work on structural reform should accelerate too, as Brazil’s middle class has made it clear it wants greater transparency and an economic policy framework that can both boost living standards and improve the environment for businesses.

(www.ft.com. 01.09.2016. Adaptado) 

Text 2

       Because of the bright lights of the modern cities, when we look up at the sky we can see no more than 100 stars. But from dark parts of the Earth, the naked eye can see more than 5,000! And modern telescopes tell a very different story.

         With the help of some of the world’s most powerful instruments to measure the brightness of all the galaxies in one sector of the cosmos, Australian astronomers say it is probable that there are 70 sextillion stars in the visible Universe. In other words and numbers, seven followed by 22 zeroes, a really astronomical figure.

       That is more than the total number of grains of sand in all the world’s beaches and deserts, and that is only the visible Universe within range of our telescopes.

       Dr. Simon Driver, of the Australian National University, has a theory that some of them probably have life. Dr. Driver’s theory is not exactly new, and those planets are so distant, he says, that there is no real possibility for us to see or contact anyone living on them. 

Retirado do livro “Inglês série Brasil”, p. 8, 2008