PUC/Rio-2010 – VESTIBULAR – RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS – LÍNGUA INGLESA – PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO – GABARITO & TEXTOS TRADUZIDOS.

❑ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:

• PUC/Rio-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS-30/10/2009.

www.puc-rio.br/vestibular

❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:

➭ 20 Multiple Choice Questions / 4 Options Each Question.

• Text (1) – | After The Fall: 1989, Twenty Years On | www.worldaffairsjournal.org |

• Text  (2) – | Comments extracted | After The Fall: 1989, Twenty Years On | www.worldaffairsjournal.org |

❑ TEXTO 1:

❑ TRADUÇÃO-TEXTO 1:

After The Fall: 1989, Twenty Years On

Joshua Muravchik

Nineteen eighty-nine was a most extraordinary year. There are other years that are imprinted on historic memory, yet most of them were occasions for horrible events (1917 or 1939) or disappointing ones (1789 or 1848) or the conclusions of great tragedies (1648 or 1945). The year 1989 was that rare moment when dramatic things happened that were overwhelmingly beneficent. As we watched the world change before our eyes, we learned many things. Looking back today on how the world has evolved in twenty years since that momentous time, we can distill several additional insights.

The economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in 1989: “Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won.” This outcome reflected a startling reversal because as recently as the decade before, socialism — considering all its diverse forms lumped together — seemed at the apex of its global sweep, apparently confirming Marx’s prophecy that it was not merely desirable but destiny.

Heilbroner’s observation was noteworthy because he himself was not unsympathetic to socialism, and doubly so because he was no communist. Given the hostile breach between communism and democratic socialism, why should Heilbroner have conceded that the fall of the Soviet empire was tantamount to the end of socialism? Why did he not accept the claim advanced by some socialists that the end of communism would only clear the way for a purer form of socialism?

Heilbroner also saw that the fall of communism culminated a trend. With social democratic parties having already forsaken the dream of replacing capitalism and with the developing world having realized that markets rather than state planning offered the surest path from poverty, the Soviet collapse sealed the issue. Socialism was finished.

Has the economic meltdown of 2008–09 reopened the question? Is socialism on the table again? Not at all. It only shows that you can always have too much of a good thing. The fact that free markets are the best mechanism for making economic decisions does not imply that freer is always better. The smooth functioning of the private sector depends on government to maintain a legal framework, to protect the public against unscrupulous behavior, and to provide vital goods that are not profitable for the private sector to furnish. Libertarians who dream of an economy entirely free of government are no less utopian than socialists.

In the realm of politics Mikhail Gorbachev has cut a sad figure these last two decades: first supporting Putin then criticizing him, clinging to vestiges of socialist ideas, and rebuking Washington for necessary exercises of power, all the while unable to raise his own popularity among his countrymen above single digits. Nonetheless, he is arguably the greatest figure of the twentieth century.

The most famous names of the century were mass murderers. Of those who are remembered for the good they did, who was irreplaceable? The Axis would have been defeated without Roosevelt and even without Churchill, although Britain might have fallen first. India would have gained independence without Gandhi. Segregation would have been ended in America without Martin Luther King Jr. But would the Soviet empire have dissolved, the Cold War ended, and communism been repealed — all these blessings achieved peacefully — without Gorbachev?

I don’t think so. It has been argued that the Soviet Union collapsed under the dead weight of its absurd economy, but its economy had been absurd for generations and it had not collapsed. Would Soviet inefficiency and low productivity eventually have brought the whole system to its knees? Perhaps, but that might have taken generations more — and in the meantime the state might have been able to replenish itself by means of blackmail and plunder, or it might, in its desperation, have generated a new world war. The dinosaur’s brain was dead, but its massive tail still might have lashed destructively.

Yes, goods and construction were shoddy: televisions containing cardboard parts sometimes combusted spontaneously in people’s living rooms (except that most Soviet citizens didn’t have living rooms). But the weapons worked, and while a tad less advanced than those of America, what the Red Army lacked in quality it made up for in quantity.

In other words, despite its economic difficulties, the Kremlin fielded as much military might as it wished, more than any other state then or ever. If this required shortchanging the consumer sector of the economy, so be it. No one dared complain. Further, the rule of the Communist Party was entirely unchallenged, as was Gorbachev’s ascendancy within the party, at least until very late in the game. He was the most powerful single individual on earth, and he could have held that power — and all the perks that went with it — until he went to his grave, as had most of his predecessors. Instead he tossed it away.

WORLD AFFAIRS, Vol. 13. no 2, Summer 2009. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/fullMuravchik.html

01 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

What is the main purpose of the text?

(A) Justify Gorbachev’s resistance against the Glasnost and Perestroika.
(B) Blame the end of communism for the economic meltdown of 2008-09.
(C) Report on the disastrous political events that impacted the world after 1989.
(D) Discuss the relevance of the Soviet collapse for the current state of world affairs.
(E) Explain the importance of Churchill, Gandhi and Martin Luther King to the economic scenario of our times.

 👍  Comentários e Gabarito   D  

TÓPICO - O OBJETIVO PRINCIPAL DO TEXTO:

Qual é o principal objetivo do texto?

(A) Justifique a resistência de Gorbachev contra a Glasnost e a Perestroika.
(B) Culpe o fim do comunismo pelo colapso econômico de 2008-09.
(C) Relatório sobre os eventos políticos desastrosos que impactaram o mundo após 1989.
(D) Discuta a relevância do colapso soviético para o estado atual dos assuntos mundiais.
(E) Explique a importância de Churchill, Gandhi e Martin Luther King para o cenário econômico de nossos tempos.

02 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

In paragraph 1, the year 1989 is described as a momentous time because it was a(n)

(A) historical moment of stability that will find no parallel with other time periods.
(B) significant historical moment when extraordinarily fortunate events took place.
(C) awesome occasion that marked the end of a tragic era, though not quite peacefully.
(D) very brief moment in time when people forgot about the tragic events that had been affecting humanity.
(E) remarkable moment of tranquility among nations in which the conflicts between communism and democratic socialism came to an end.

 👍  Comentários e Gabarito   B  

TÓPICO - INFORMAÇÃO DE PARÁGRAFO ESPEC IFICADO:

03 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

According to the author of the text, the economist Robert Heilbroner

(A) supported socialism and thus severely criticized the defeat of capitalism.
(B) recognized that the sudden fall of the Soviet empire could have been avoided.
(C) claimed that capitalism had defeated socialism through hostile belligerent means.
(D) admitted that socialism was no longer a political solution after the fall of the Soviet empire.
(E) believed that the end of communism would make way for a purer form of socialism to emerge.

R E S P O S T A :   D

•

04 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

does not defend a libertarian viewpoint since he advocates that

(A) communism is really the best solution for the unscrupulous behavior of the private sector.
(B) the government has no right to restrict the actions and economic decisions of capitalist companies.
(C) free markets without any legal restrictions will allow for more profitable economic results.
(D) the only economic system that can eliminate poverty without governmental support is capitalism.
(E) the government has a role in protecting the citizens against the destructive attitudes of private enterprises.

R E S P O S T A :   E

•

05 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Gorbachev, according to Muravchik, has

(A) made a poor impression of himself to the world lately.
(B) gained enormous popularity among his fellow citizens.
(C) fully supported Washington criticisms of socialist ideas.
(D) approved the American government’s defense of free markets.
(E) been considered, unquestionably, the greatest political figure of the modern world.

R E S P O S T A :   A

•

06 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

The fragment “all these blessings” (line 66) refers to the

(A) divine inspiration that put an end to Gorbachev’s administration.
(B) end of the Cold War, the rejection of communism and the Independence of India.
(C) peaceful riot lead by Martin Luther King struggling against segregation in America.
(D) questionable role that Churchill and Roosevelt played in leading the Allies to victory.
(E) positive consequences derived from the bloodless end of the Cold War and defeat of communism.

R E S P O S T A :   E

•

07 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Mark the alternative that contains a correct match of meaning, considering the use of the word in the text.

(A) “lumped” (line 18) – split
(B) “conceded” (line 26) – denied
(C) “forsaken” (line 33) – abandoned
(D) “rebuking” (line 53) – praising
(E) “perks” (line 96) – disadvantages

R E S P O S T A :   CB

•

08 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Choose the alternative in which the word in bold type and the italicized one convey equivalent ideas.

(A) “… yet most of them were occasions for horrible events…” (lines 3-4) – thus
(B) “Nonetheless, he is arguably the greatest figure...” (lines 55-56) – moreover
(C) “…although Britain might have fallen first.” (line 61) – while
(D) “In other words, despite its economic difficulties,” (line 87) – regardless of
(E) “Further, the rule of the Communist Party…” (lines 91- 92) – meanwhile

R E S P O S T A :   D

•

09 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

In “Would Soviet inefficiency and low productivity eventually have brought the whole system to its knees?” (lines 71-73), the expression “bring the system to its knees” could be paraphrased by

(A) force the system to submit.
(B) mitigate the impact of economy.
(C) enhance the power of the system.
(D) defeat those who oppose the system.
(E) improve the functioning of the system.

R E S P O S T A :   A

•

10 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

In the fragment “India would have gained independence without Gandhi.” (lines 61-62), the author conveys

(A) the frustration of having lost a charismatic leader.
(B) the unlikely political result after a very dramatic event.
(C) his conviction of an outcome, given a different historical scenario.
(D) his uncertainty about the strength of peaceful popular movements.
(E) a remote possibility under the circumstance of a hypothetical situation.

R E S P O S T A :   C

•

11 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

When the author comments “I don’t think so.” (line 68) he expresses that

(A) Gorbachev should not be accused of mass murder as he was a peaceful leader.
(B) Gorbachev was insensitive to world issues and the dramatic state of the Soviet economy.
(C) only a new world war would have changed the state of political affairs between the US and the Soviet Union.
(D) the inefficiency of Soviet industry and commerce would have definitely destroyed the nation in a short time.
(E) the nonbelligerent end of communism and the Cold War was a direct result of the Soviet leader’s political decisions.

R E S P O S T A :   E

•

12 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

metaphor of the dinosaur’s brain and its tail used in lines 77-79, represents, respectively, the

(A) Soviet economy and the Red Army.
(B) Soviet union and the new world war.
(C) Soviet political regime and its economy.
(D) old and new generations in the Soviet Union.
(E) state officials and blackmailers/plunderers.

R E S P O S T A :   C

•

13 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

In terms of reference, it is correct to affirm that

(A) “ones” (line 4) refers to “years”.
(B) “It” (line 40) refers to “meltdown”.
(C) “his” (line 54) refers to “Putin”.
(D) “its” (line 87) refers to “Red Army”.
(E) “it” (line 96) refers to “individual”.

R E S P O S T A :   B

•

❑ TEXTO 2:

❑ TRADUÇÃO-TEXTO 2:

Fragments 1 and 2 below were extracted from Joshua Muravchik’s original article “After the Fall: 1989, Twenty Years On”. Read them and the comments that follow in order to answer questions 14 through 20 below.

Os fragmentos 1 e 2 abaixo foram extraídos do artigo original de Joshua Muravchik “After the Fall: 1989, Twenty Years On”. Leia-os e os comentários a seguir para responder às questões 14 a 20 abaixo.

➭ FRAGMENT 1, from Joshua Muravchik’s original article:

FRAGMENTO 1, do artigo original de Joshua Muravchik:

But even as we in the West saw the defeat of communism as a triumph for our ways and values, other observers saw it quite differently. Osama bin Laden and his cohorts and sympathizers believed the Soviet Union had been defeated not by us but by the Muslim believers of Afghanistan and the foreign jihadists who had joined their ranks. Far from demonstrating that our civilization represented an end point, it proved its transience. If radical Islam could defeat one superpower, it could defeat the other. If it had outlasted communism, it would outlast democratic capitalism, too.
Mas mesmo quando nós, no Ocidente, víamos a derrota do comunismo como um triunfo para os nossos costumes e valores, outros observadores viam-na de forma bastante diferente. Osama bin Laden e os seus companheiros e simpatizantes acreditavam que a União Soviética tinha sido derrotada não por nós, mas pelos crentes muçulmanos do Afeganistão e pelos jihadistas estrangeiros que se juntaram às suas fileiras. Longe de demonstrar que a nossa civilização representava um ponto final, provou a sua transitoriedade. Se o Islão radical conseguisse derrotar uma superpotência, poderia derrotar a outra. Se tivesse sobrevivido ao comunismo, também sobreviveria ao capitalismo democrático.

A dozen years after 1989—on September 11, 2001, to be exact—this new ideology shattered the peace of the post-history world. It poses a challenge that cannot be dismissed by Francis Fukuyama’s observation that no species of nationalism can pose a historic challenge to democratic capitalism because they inherently lack “universal significance.” For one thing, Islamism purports to speak for a populace—the umma or world community of believers—larger than that comprised by any mere nation. More important, its aspirations encompass all mankind.

Doze anos depois de 1989 – em 11 de Setembro de 2001, para ser exacto – esta nova ideologia destruiu a paz do mundo pós-história. Representa um desafio que não pode ser descartado pela observação de Francis Fukuyama de que nenhuma espécie de nacionalismo pode representar um desafio histórico ao capitalismo democrático porque carece inerentemente de “significado universal”. Por um lado, o Islamismo pretende falar em nome de uma população – a umma ou comunidade mundial de crentes – maior do que aquela composta por qualquer mera nação. Mais importante ainda, as suas aspirações abrangem toda a humanidade.

➭ COMMENT 1, Posted by Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi | July 22, 2009 4:09 AM EDT Having fully endorsed the views of Joshua Muravchik, I would like to add that the apparently ending of the Cold War era has not yet fulfilled the prophesies—of those peace-minded optimists who had thought that the world beyond the year 1989 would probably usher in the new heraldry of peace and prosperity—in so far as a neo–Cold War seems to have begun between the Islamists and the non-Islamists (an era of the West’s economic indoctrination of controlling the strategic developing world).

COMENTÁRIO 1, Postado por Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi | 22 de julho de 2009 04h09 EDT Tendo endossado totalmente as opiniões de Joshua Muravchik, gostaria de acrescentar que o aparente fim da era da Guerra Fria ainda não cumpriu as profecias - daqueles otimistas pacifistas que pensavam que o mundo além do ano de 1989 provavelmente inauguraria a nova heráldica da paz e da prosperidade - na medida em que uma neo-Guerra Fria parece ter começado entre os islamitas e os não-islamistas (uma era de doutrinação económica do Ocidente de controlar o estratégico Desenvolvendo o mundo).

➭ FRAGMENT 2, from Joshua Muravchik’s original article: The picture is not completely rosy. There is powerful evidence that where ruthless rulers are prepared to employ it, repression continues to succeed. In 1989, while freedom fighters against communism triumphed all over Europe, protesters in China’s Tiananmen Square were brutally repressed. At the time, it seemed that this bloody deed would postpone the inevitable only briefly. As America’s former ambassador to that country, Winston Lord, wrote: “The current discredited regime is clearly a transitional one. . . . We can be confident that, however grim the interlude, a more enlightened leadership will emerge within a few years. . . . It may well turn out that the tragic events in China this year have foreshortened that great nation’s march toward democracy.”
Twenty years later, while China’s standard of living has soared, freedom has advanced scarcely if at all. Nor is China alone. Communist regimes also hang on with apparent ease in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

FRAGMENTO 2, do artigo original de Joshua Muravchik: A imagem não é completamente otimista. Há fortes evidências de que, onde governantes implacáveis estão preparados para empregá-la, a repressão continua a ter sucesso. Em 1989, enquanto os combatentes pela liberdade contra o comunismo triunfavam por toda a Europa, os manifestantes na Praça Tiananmen, na China, eram brutalmente reprimidos. Na época, parecia que esse ato sangrento iria adiar o inevitável apenas brevemente. Como escreveu o antigo embaixador da América naquele país, Winston Lord: “O actual regime desacreditado é claramente transitório. . . . Podemos estar confiantes de que, por mais sombrio que seja o interlúdio, uma liderança mais esclarecida emergirá dentro de alguns anos. . . . Pode muito bem acontecer que os trágicos acontecimentos na China este ano tenham encurtado a marcha daquela grande nação em direcção à democracia.”

Vinte anos mais tarde, embora o nível de vida da China tenha aumentado, a liberdade quase não avançou, se é que avançou. A China também não está sozinha. Os regimes comunistas também resistem com aparente facilidade em Cuba, Coreia do Norte, Vietname, Camboja e Laos.

➭ COMMENT 2, Posted by Jason Ryan | July 30, 2009 5:21 PM EDT This article presupposes that democracy is universal. I would argue that it is not, as the author pointed out in the case of China. Economic freedom and expansion are not necessarily democratic and it’s easy to envision a world of many powers of a China or Putanist model. The biggest threat to democracy is not from outsiders but from nations that are unable to see through the inevitably difficult process of democratization. In my opinion, democracy may be universal in its appeal but it is by no means inevitable in practice.
COMENTÁRIO 2, Postado por Jason Ryan | 30 de julho de 2009 17h21 EDT Este artigo pressupõe que a democracia é universal. Eu diria que não, como o autor apontou no caso da China. A liberdade e a expansão económicas não são necessariamente democráticas e é fácil imaginar um mundo de muitas potências de um modelo chinês ou putanista. A maior ameaça à democracia não vem de fora, mas de nações que são incapazes de superar o inevitavelmente difícil processo de democratização. Na minha opinião, a democracia pode ser universal no seu apelo, mas não é de forma alguma inevitável na prática.

Comments extracted from: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/comments/ comments-Muravchik.html

14 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

In Fragment 1, Joshua Muravchick exposes his view that

(A) radical Islamism would outlast democratic capitalism.
(B) no nationalistic ideology will challenge capitalistic democracy.
(C) the westerners believe that it was capitalism that defeated socialism.
(D) believers of Islamism have aspirations that represent all of humanity.
(E) September 11, 2001 shattered peace in the same way that the events in 1989 did.

R E S P O S T A :   C

•

15 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

“This new ideology” (Fragment 1 – line 14) refers to the idea that

(A) democratic capitalism should prevail over Islamic aspirations.
(B) democratic capitalism is strong enough to survive communism.
(C) our civilization will endure despite the constant fights between superpowers.
(D) Islam is capable of outliving not only communism but also democratic capitalism.
(E) the Soviet Union was not strong enough to defeat Muslim believers and sympathizers.

R E S P O S T A :   D

•

16 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Both Fragment 1 and Comment 1 discuss the

(A) peace and prosperity that has emerged from the Islamic doctrine.
(B) economic dominance of the West as the cause for the defeat of communism.
(C) inadequacy of the expression neo-Cold War to refer to the Islamic–capitalist conflict.
(D) lack of challenge to democratic capitalism as defended by peace-minded optimists.
(E) current state of affairs between Islamists and sympathizers versus the non-Islamists.

R E S P O S T A :   E

•

17 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

China is mentioned in both Fragment 2 and Comment 2 because

(A) China does not seem to represent a menace to democratic institutions.
(B) Chinese protesters in 1989 were not repressed by the authoritative regime.
(C) Chinese leaders will never understand the benefits of economic freedom.
(D) it has still not attained total democracy, despite the growth of its economy.
(E) its model of government will certainly remain unchanged for the next few years.

R E S P O S T A :   D

•

18 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Fukuyama’s observation in Fragment 1 and Winston Lord’s words in Fragment 2 reveal that these men are

(A) optimistic about the triumph of democracy.
(B) hopeful about the aspirations of future generations.
(C) enthusiastic about the advances of nationalism worldwide.
(D) enraged with the brutal violation of human rights in China.
(E) indifferent to the attacks democratic capitalism has been suffering.

R E S P O S T A :   A

•

19 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

“Usher in” (Comment 1 – lines 30-31) and “see through” (Comment 2 – line 64) can be correctly substituted by, respectively

(A) ‘conclude’ and ‘analyze’.
(B) ‘announce’ and ‘restore’.
(C) ‘precede’ and ‘overlook’.
(D) ‘investigate’ and ‘neglect’.
(E) ‘introduce’ and ‘comprehend’.

R E S P O S T A :   E

•

20 – (PUC-RIO-2010-VESTIBULAR-RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS)

Concerning the authors’ reactions in Comment 1 and Comment 2, it is correct to affirm that

(A) both Syed Rizvi and Jason Ryan are completely supportive of the ideas advanced by Muravchik in Fragments 1 and 2.
(B) neither Syed Rizvi nor Jason Ryan provide a critical analysis of the issues introduced by Muravchik in Fragments 1 and 2.
(C) Syed Rizvi totally agrees with Muravchik’s ideas in Fragment 1, while Jason Ryan expresses a point of view about democratization which diverges from that exposed in Fragment 2.
(D) Syed Rizvi expands some of the ideas introduced by Muravchik in Fragment 1 whereas Jason Ryan reinforces the perspectives advanced in Fragment 2.
(E) Syed Rizvi, in Fragment 1, is not fully convinced of Muravchik’s opinions about the end of the Cold War, while Jason Ryan’s comments express complete approval of Muravchik’s views on democracy in Fragment 2.

R E S P O S T A :   C

•

ACAFE-2015/1-MEDICINA-Vestibular de VERÃO da Associação Catarinense das Fundações Educacionais-Florianópolis/SC - Profº Valdenor Sousa - Prova de INGLÊS com gabarito e questões comentadas.

Welcome back to another post!

➧A pauta aqui é PROVA DE INGLÊS NOS VESTIBULARES DE UNIVERSIDADES PARTICULARES.

➧NESTE POST: PROVA de INGLÊS da ACAFE-2015/1.
➧BANCA/ORGANIZADOR:

➧ ACAFE-Associação Catarinense das Fundações Educacionais.

➧ https://vestibular.acafe.org.br/

➧LEITURA de textos de jornais digitais, revistas, websites, é um excelente treino para a prova.

➧PADRÃO/COMPOSIÇÃO DA PROVA:
➧ 24 Questões;

➧ Textos;
➧TÓPICOS ABORDADOS ao longo da prova:
1-VERBS:

[to dampen(Dêmpén) = decrease(dêKríz) = diminish(diMénêxi) = amortecer, diminuir]

[to perpetuate = preserve = keep going = perpetuar, preservar, continuar]

[to retaliate = retaliar]

2-PHRASAL VERBS - USES:
[ = ]
3-PERFECT TENSE - USES:

[has been slightly modified to better suit = foi ligeiramente modificado para se adequar melhor]

[has just reached to settle a = acaba de fechar para resolver uma]

4-MODAL VERBS - USES:
[ = ]
5-NOUN:

[crop = harvest = safra, colheita]

6-ADJECTIVES:
[ = ]
7-ADVERBS:
[ = ]
8-ADJECTIVE PHRASES(Adjective+noun):

[a long-running dispute = uma longa disputa]

[an unhealthy status quo = um status quo doentio]

[an international agreement = um acordo internacional]

[crop producers = produtores de safra, produtores agrícolas]

[the American taxpayer = o contribuinte americano]

[the Obama administration = o governo Obama]

9-IDIOMS(Expressões Idiomáticas):

[pay a person back in the same coin = to retaliate = retaliar]

10-COLLOCATIONS:
[cotton growers = produtores de algodão]

[cotton farmers = produtores de algodão]

[That particular business =  Esse negócio específico]
11-TECHNICAL ENGLISH(Military English, Business English, Finance English, Legal English, Tax English, Customs English and so on):

[deal = agreement = negotiation = acordo, negociação]

[cotton subsidies = subsídios de algodão]

[subsidy(Sâbssirí) = subvention(sâbVéntchen) = auxílio financeiro]

[taxpayer = contribuinte, pagador de imposto]

[The extra supply = a oferta extra]

[Brazil cotton deal = O acordo de algodão do Brasil, O negócio de algodão do Brasil]

[federal funds = Fundos federais]

[EWG = Environmental Working Group = é um grupo ativista americano especializado em pesquisa e advocacia nas áreas de subsídios agrícolas, produtos químicos tóxicos, poluentes da água potável e responsabilidade corporativa. O EWG é um Grupo de Trabalho Ambiental sem fins lucrativos.]

[WTO = World Trade Organization = Organização Mundial do Comércio]

12-CONNECTORES AND LINKERS:

[ = ]
13-GENITIVE CASE:
[Brazil's cotton farmers = Produtores de algodão do Brasil]

14-FALSE COGNATES:
[to complain = reivindicar]
➧Agora vamos à PROVA!

TEXTO 

Brazil cotton deal perpetuates an unhealthy status quo of subsidies

Published by The Washington Post 

(The text below has been slightly modified to better suit the exam)

1

When is a victory for the United States not a victory for the American taxpayer? When it’s an international agreement like the one the Obama administration has just reached to settle a long-running dispute with Brazil over cotton subsidies. The roots of that dispute lie in this country’s history of showering federal funds on crop producers, including cotton growers. That particular business received $32.9 billion from Washington between 1995 and 2012, according to the Environmental Working Group, largely through programs that had the effect of rewarding farmers for increasing production. The extra supply dampened prices on the world market, so, in 2002, Brazil complained to the World Trade Organization, which ruled that US cotton subsidies were indeed “trade-distorting” and authorized Brazil to retaliate against US exports. The United States avoided sanctions — not by reforming its programs but by agreeing in 2010 to pay Brazil’s cotton farmers $147.3 million per year.
2

In short, the US government bought off Brazil’s cotton farmers so that it could keep on buying off its own. Under the new settlement, announced Wednesday, Brazil agreed to drop its case at the WTO and to forgo any new ones during the five-year term of the farm bill Congress enacted last year. In return, the United States agreed to trim the modest US cotton export credit subsidy program and, most important, to pay Brazil one last dollop of taxpayer cash, in the amount of $300 million.
3

This is good news to the extent that it fortifies US-Brazil relations on the eve of a new presidential term in that country and that it spares US exporters from the threat of Brazilian retaliation, which could have reached a total of $829 million per year. Yet, in essence, the new deal perpetuates the unhealthy status quo whereby the United States pays Brazil ____ the right ____ continue propping _____ a domestic cotton industry that can ____ should learn to compete ____ its own.
👉 Questão  15 :

According to the information provided in the text, why did the US government have a dispute with Brazil?
(A) Because of the US subsidies for cotton producers.
(B) Because of the Obama administration's subsidies for industry in general.
(C) Because the United States has a history of withholding federal funding from its crop producers.
(D) Because of the US subsidies for several local businesses. 
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  A 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
According to the information provided in the text,  why did the US government have a dispute with Brazil?
(A) Because of the US subsidies for cotton producers.
(B) Because of the Obama administration's subsidies for industry in general.
(C) Because the United States has a history of withholding federal funding from its crop producers.
(D) Because of the US subsidies for several local businesses. 
👉 Questão  16 :
Who had the legal power to decide whether the US subsidies, described in the text, were acceptable or not?
(A)  Brazilian farmers.
(B)  The Brazilian authorities.
(C)  The Obama administration.
(D)  The World Trade Organization.  
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  D 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
Who had the legal power to decide whether the US subsidies, described in the text, were acceptable or not?
(A)  Brazilian farmers.
(B)  The Brazilian authorities.
(C)  The Obama administration.
(D)  The World Trade Organization.  
👉 Questão  17 :
Based on the information given in the text, who did the US government buy off?
(A)  Only Brazilian cotton farmers.
(B)  Brazilian and American cotton farmers.
(C)  Brazilian farmers in general.
(D)  Brazilian and American farmers in general.  
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  B 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
Based on the information given in the text, who did the US government buy off?
(A)  Only Brazilian cotton farmers.
(B)  Brazilian and American cotton farmers.
(C)  Brazilian farmers in general.
(D)  Brazilian and American farmers in general.
👉 Questão  18 :
Based on the information given in the text, who did the US government buy off?
(A)  Only Brazilian cotton farmers.
(B)  Brazilian and American cotton farmers.
(C)  Brazilian farmers in general.
(D)  Brazilian and American farmers in general.   

👍 Comentários e Gabarito  D 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
Based on the information given in the text, who did the US government buy off?
(A)  Only Brazilian cotton farmers.
(B)  Brazilian and American cotton farmers.
(C)  Brazilian farmers in general.
(D)  Brazilian and American farmers in general.
👉 Questão  19 :
Which is the correct sequence of the five words missing in the third paragraph?
(A)  to - to - up - and - in
(B)  to - for - down - that - out
(C)  for - to - up - and - on
(D)  for - of - out - and - on  

👍 Comentários e Gabarito  C 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
Which is the correct sequence of the five words missing in the third paragraph?
(A) to - to - up - and - in
(B) to - for - down - that - out
(C) for - to - up - and - on
(D) for - of - out - and - on

👉 Questão  20 :
What does buy off mean as used in the text?
(A) To pay money to someone to help them build up their own business.
(B) To charge a lower price than the market value for certain products.
(C) To pay money to someone in order to persuade them not to cause trouble or carry out a threat.
(D) To charge someone interest on money they borrowed from you and have not yet paid back.   

👍 Comentários e Gabarito  C 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
What does buy off mean as used in the text?
(A) To pay money to someone to help them build up their own business.
(B) To charge a lower price than the market value for certain products.
(C) To pay money to someone in order to persuade them not to cause trouble or carry out a threat.
(D) To charge someone interest on money they borrowed from you and have not yet paid back.
👉 Questão  21 :
Choose the correct alternative below with the past participle forms of the verbs "lie" (first paragraph), "keep" (second paragraph) and "forgo" (second paragraph).
(A) Lay, kept, forgo.
(B) Lain, kept, forgone.
(C) Lied, kept, forwent.
(D) Lie, keep, forgoed.  

👍 Comentários e Gabarito  B 
TÓPICO - IDEIA CONTEXTUAL ou INFORMAÇÃO DENTRO DO TEXTO:
Choose the correct alternative below with the past participle forms of the verbs “lie” (first paragraph), “keep” (second paragraph) and “forgo” (second paragraph).
(A) Lay, kept, forgo.
(B) Lain, kept, forgone.
(C) Lied, kept, forwent.
(D) Lie, keep, forgoed.