Prof. Gabriela Knoblauch

01/02/2016 | 17:32
Compartilhar

ANP Inglês: Comentários

Oi, pessoal.

 

Analisei cuidadosamente a prova de inglês da ANP e não encontrei possibilidade de recursos. Quem estudou comigo não teve dificuldades. A prova seguiu o padrão de sempre e cobrou o vocabulário técnico esperado. No surprises.

Seguem breves explicações das questões:

 

16 The main objective of the text is to

(A) defend the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline through the American territory.

(B) attack the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline through the Canadian territory.

(C) present the reasons why the American government is against the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline through the American territory.

(D) highlitgh the benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline to the American economy.

(E) stress the benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline to the Canadian economy.


Ensinei no curso que o objetivo principal (main objective) do texto é encontrado logo em seu início. No caso, o entendimento do título e subtítulo era suficiente para “matar” a questão. Notem:

     Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

Why Keystone XL Is Dead

Se o governo rejeitou o projeto, fica claro que é contra (against) o gasoduto Keystone XL. O subtítulo nos indica que o texto tratará do porquê (why) da rejeição do Obama.


Logo, o objetivo principal do texto é apresentar as razões (present the reasons) pelas quais o governo americano (American government) é contra a construção citada. 

 



17 From the fragment “Obama said America is a global leader on taking action on climate change, and approving Keystone XL would have undercut that leadership” (lines 8-10), one can infer that

(A) the United States is not concerned with the impact of the pipeline on climate change.

(B) the United States is trying to achieve leadership on taking action on climate change.

(C) according to the American government, the construction of the pipeline causes mild impact on the climate.

(D) the American government sees no relation between the construction of the Keystone XL and climate change.

(E) the approval of the Keystone XL would contradict American concerns with climate change.

 

Se Obama afirma que os EUA é líder global (global leader) das ações a respeito da mudança climática (climate change), aprovar um gasoduto altamente poluidor contraditaria (would contradict) essa posição e minaria (undercut) a liderança citada.

 

18 In the fragment of the text “Among the reasons for rejecting Keystone XL, Obama said the pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to the U.S. economy, nor would it increase U.S. energy security or help to lower gas prices, which have already declined dramatically over the last year” (lines 14-19), the pronoun which refers to

(A) U.S. economy

(B) U.S. energy security

(C) pipeline

(D) gas prices

(E) long-term contribution

 

O que caiu dramaticamente (declined dramatically)? Os preços de combustíveis (gas prices).


 

19 In the fragment of the text “nor would it increase U.S. energy security or help to lower gas prices, which have already declined dramatically over the last year” (lines 16-19), the adverb dramatically can be replaced, with no change in meaning, by

(A) theatrically

(B) greatly

(C) trivially

(D) lightly

(E) discreetly

 

Dramatically: dramaticamente, de forma aguda, muito

Greatly: muito, grandemente

 

20 After reading the 10th paragraph of the text (lines 48-56), one can infer that

(A) the pipeline would release 1.3 billion tons of greenhouse emissions in 50 years if it carried tar sands oil.

(B) the pipeline would release 1.3 billion tons of greenhouse emissions in 50 years if it carried conventional crude oil.

(C) the pipeline would release the same volume of greenhouse emissions in 50 years no matter what kind of oil it carried.

(D) greenhouse emissions would be increased in about 1.3 billion tons in 50 years if the pipeline carried tar sands oil.

(E) greenhouse emissions would be increased in about 1.3 billion tons in 50 years if the pipeline carried conventional crude oil. 

 

Atenção ao comparativo explícito pela estrutura MORE… THAN. Essa era a pegadinha da questão:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated that the tar sands oil the pipeline would carry is highly damaging to the climate, emitting about 1.3 billion more tons of greenhouse emissions over the pipeline’s 50-year lifespan than if it were carrying conventional crude oil.


A Agência de Proteção Ambiental dos EUA calculou que o óleo de areias betuminosas que o gasoduto transportaria é altamente prejudicial para o clima, emitindo cerca de 1,3 bilhão a mais de toneladas de emissões de efeito estufa em mais de 50 anos de vida do gasoduto do que se estivesse transportando o petróleo bruto convencional.



 

Hugs, darlings!

Gabriela

gabriela@pontodosconcursos.com.br


Comentários

Ainda não há comentários

Comentar este artigo
MAIS ARTIGOS DO AUTOR
Compartilhar: