Questões da prova Acafe 2015/1

TEXTO 2
La pereza

Perder el tiempo es la frase más odiosa para un estadunidense que se respete. El pecado capital de la pereza no existe en Estados Unidos. El trabajo es el dios unificador. No estar ocioso es la gran virtud del norteamericano, y como todas las grandes virtudes se paga con la desaparición de un placer. En este caso el del goce de la vida pasiva, desde la puesta del sol, paladeada sensualmente, hasta esa flor de la civilización y la pereza que se llama conversar.

El chicle representa, a menudo, la solución al problema de la inactividad. Da la sensación de comer cuando no se come, de beber cuando no se bebe y, lo más importante, la sensación de hacer algo continuamente.
Fernando Díaz Plaja, Los siete pecados capitales en Estados Unidos. In: García-Serrano, M. Victoria et Al., ¡A QUE SÍ! Heinie & Heinie Publishers, Boston Mass., USA, 1993, pág. 124.

Lee con atención las frases siguientes:

( 1 ) De lunes a viernes LEVANTO-ME temprano para ir a trabajar.
( 2 ) ¿POR QUÉ no viniste a trabajar ayer? PORQUE estaba enfermo.
( 3 ) En algunas naciones el trabajador manual gana poco, es mal PAGADO.
( 4 ) EL QUE madruga Dios ayuda.
( 5 ) QUIEN TRABAJA es trabajador y QUIENES HOLGAZANEAN, perezosos.

Las correctas, todas, son:

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.

According to the information provided in the text, why did the US government have a dispute with Brazil?

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.

Who had the legal power to decide whether the US subsidies, described in the text, were acceptable or not?

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.

Based on the information given in the text, who did the US government buy off?

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.

Who did not benefit from the settlement reached between the US and Brazil, according to the text?

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.

Which is the correct sequence of the five words missing in the third paragraph?

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.

What does buy off mean as used in the text?

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.

Choose the correct alternative below with the past participle forms of the verbs “lie” (first paragraph), “keep” (second paragraph) and “forgo” (second paragraph).

Uma fábrica produz e vende peças para as grandes montadoras de veículos. O custo da produção mensal dessas peças é dado através da função C = 6000 + 14x, onde x é o número de peças produzidas por mês. Cada peça é vendida por R$ 54,00. Hoje, o lucro mensal dessa fábrica é de R$ 6.000,00.

Para triplicar esse lucro, a fábrica deverá produzir e vender mensalmente:

Analise as afirmações a seguir e assinale a alternativa correta.

I - Os números inteiros pares compreendidos entre 9 e 9√3 são todos aqueles da forma 2n, com n ∈ Z e 5 ≤ n ≤ 7.
II - Um número é inteiro. A soma de seu cubo com o quíntuplo de seu quadrado e mais o seu dobro resulta no número -10. Então, esse número inteiro é menor que 5.
III - O número 8.000.000 possui 70 divisores naturais.