Lumen
EntrarCadastre-se

Inglês — CACD 2023

IADES · CACD – 1ª fase (TPS) · 36 itens · julgue cada item como Certo ou Errado

Quer responder e ver o gabarito comentado?

Na Lumen você marca Certo ou Errado, vê o gabarito e o comentário de cada item, acompanha seu desempenho por matéria e estuda pelo edital verticalizado.

Cadastre-se
1 OVER the past four centuries liberalism has been sosuccessful that it has driven all its opponents off thebattlefield. Now it is disintegrating, destroyed by a mix of4hubris and internal contradictions, as professor PatrickDeneen claims in his recently published work WhyLiberalism Failed.7 The gathering wreckage of liberalism’s twilight yearscan be seen all around, especially in America, Mr Deneen’smain focus. The founding tenets of the faith have been10shattered. Equality of opportunity has produced a newmeritocratic aristocracy that has all the aloofness of the oldaristocracy with none of its sense of noblesse oblige.13Democracy has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd.And technological advances are reducing ever more areasof work into meaningless drudgery. “The gap between16liberalism’s claims about itself and the lived reality of thecitizenry” is now so wide that “the lie can no longer beaccepted,” Mr Deneen writes. What better proof of this19than the vision of 1,000 private planes whisking theiroccupants to Davos to discuss the question of “creating ashared future in a fragmented world”?22 Mr Deneen uses the term “liberalism” in itsphilosophical rather than its popular sense. He is describingthe great tradition of political theory that is commonly25traced to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke rather than theset of vaguely leftish attitudes that Americans nowassociate with the word. But this is no work of28philosophical cud-chewing. Most political theorists arguethat liberalism has divided into two independent streams:classical liberalism, which celebrates the free market, and31left-liberalism which celebrates civil rights. For Mr Deneenthey have an underlying unity. Most political observersthink that the debate about the state of liberalism has34nothing to do with them. Mr Deneen argues that liberalismis a ruling philosophy, dictating everything from courtdecisions to corporate behaviour. Theory is practice.37 The underlying unity lies in individual self-expression. Both classical and left liberals conceive ofhumans as rights-bearing individuals who should be given40as much space as possible to fulfil their dreams. The aim ofgovernment is to secure rights. The legitimacy of thesystem is based on a shared belief in a “social contract”43between consenting adults. But this produces a paradox.Because the liberal spirit mechanically destroys inheritedcustoms and local traditions, sometimes in the name of46market efficiency and sometimes in the name of individualrights, it creates more room for the expansion of the state,48as marketmaker and law-enforcer.

In: Political thought: the problem with liberalism. The Economist, Edição impressa, p. 74, 27 jan. 2018.

As far as comprehension of the text above is concerned, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 1.

    “Hubris” (line 4) means “unwillingness or incapacity to adapt or adjust”.

  2. 2.

    Mr Deneen’s book provides a long-term analysis of the liberal phenomenon.

  3. 3.

    An anti-religion movement swept across America and destroyed some people’s belief in their Christian principles.

  4. 4.

    The prevailing view Americans hold of liberalism has departed significantly from that the historical political theorists had.

  5. 5.

    From its inception liberalism could never live up to its promise of “creating a shared future in a fragmented world” (lines 20 and 21).

  6. 6.

    Meritocratic aristocracy is a mere construct, a contradiction in terms and therefore does not exist.

  7. 7.

    Americans’ historical attachment to democratic values have prevented them from accepting the notion of an aristocracy, even if it has a democratic appearance.

  8. 8.

    The new meritocratic aristocracy’s distinguishing features are distancing or remoteness and a lack of moral and social responsibility.

  9. 9.

    Historically, liberal values have failed to reflect the actual political and social reality for they are based on falsehoods.

  10. 10.

    “Wreckage” (line 7) is synonymous with “speed”.

  11. 11.

    “Twilight” (line 7) can be correctly replaced with “a period of decline.”

  12. 12.

    “Drudgery” (line 15) means “boring, hard, routine work”.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado

Debating Diplomacy 1  In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the 4 popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi 7 government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the 10 global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was 13 involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and 16 Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United 19 Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.  This debate about diplomacy raises a number of 22 questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question 25 is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy 28 shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy 31 in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what 34 constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? 37 The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary 40 environment.  That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and 43 understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others 46 have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practice debate, arise when more radically different and 49 incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Considering the ideas and vocabulary presented in the text, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 13.

    The author argues that the debate around diplomacy stems from the need to create an epistemological framework.

  2. 14.

    According to the author, the general public formed an opinion regarding the Iraqi situation having all the possible facts available.

  3. 15.

    “Under the aegis of” (line 18) is the same as to face strife.

  4. 16.

    In the second paragraph, the word “underpinnings” (line 25) means support, basis or basic structure.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado
1 No matter where I was posted, whether abroad orback in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a briefsummer vacation in France. There I dispensed with4women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried towrite a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times,with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never7intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it“My Century,” but the title had already been employed bya celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was10driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table inthe shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of ExtraStrong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and13orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth,intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river thatdebouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only16a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton ofdead fish. Most people considered great were in realityonly average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for19amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should notbe airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, thiswas of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no22spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I haddone nearly everything I wanted, and had been assuccessful as my aunt had hoped.25 After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside,open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was givenyears ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an28examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.”Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean,wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be31a mirage projection of Corsica. Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch athome, went down for a swim early, when no one was34around, played some tennis at a court up near the railwaystation, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of afew weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and37locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not betempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the39wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

Based on the text, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 17.

    The character in the story wanted to write a book but gave up, since the title he intended to use was already taken.

  2. 18.

    The fragment “and returned to the wrack and low tide of my profession” (lines 38 and 39) states that the character is elated with his career.

  3. 19.

    The word “contempt” (line 18) can be correctly replaced with disdain.

  4. 20.

    In the fragment “I would have called it ‘My Century’” (lines 7 and 8), the pronoun it refers to the book the character is trying to write.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado
1 OVER the past four centuries liberalism has been sosuccessful that it has driven all its opponents off thebattlefield. Now it is disintegrating, destroyed by a mix of4hubris and internal contradictions, as professor PatrickDeneen claims in his recently published work WhyLiberalism Failed.7 The gathering wreckage of liberalism’s twilight yearscan be seen all around, especially in America, Mr Deneen’smain focus. The founding tenets of the faith have been10shattered. Equality of opportunity has produced a newmeritocratic aristocracy that has all the aloofness of the oldaristocracy with none of its sense of noblesse oblige.13Democracy has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd.And technological advances are reducing ever more areasof work into meaningless drudgery. “The gap between16liberalism’s claims about itself and the lived reality of thecitizenry” is now so wide that “the lie can no longer beaccepted,” Mr Deneen writes. What better proof of this19than the vision of 1,000 private planes whisking theiroccupants to Davos to discuss the question of “creating ashared future in a fragmented world”?22 Mr Deneen uses the term “liberalism” in itsphilosophical rather than its popular sense. He is describingthe great tradition of political theory that is commonly25traced to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke rather than theset of vaguely leftish attitudes that Americans nowassociate with the word. But this is no work of28philosophical cud-chewing. Most political theorists arguethat liberalism has divided into two independent streams:classical liberalism, which celebrates the free market, and31left-liberalism which celebrates civil rights. For Mr Deneenthey have an underlying unity. Most political observersthink that the debate about the state of liberalism has34nothing to do with them. Mr Deneen argues that liberalismis a ruling philosophy, dictating everything from courtdecisions to corporate behaviour. Theory is practice.37 The underlying unity lies in individual self-expression. Both classical and left liberals conceive ofhumans as rights-bearing individuals who should be given40as much space as possible to fulfil their dreams. The aim ofgovernment is to secure rights. The legitimacy of thesystem is based on a shared belief in a “social contract”43between consenting adults. But this produces a paradox.Because the liberal spirit mechanically destroys inheritedcustoms and local traditions, sometimes in the name of46market efficiency and sometimes in the name of individualrights, it creates more room for the expansion of the state,48as marketmaker and law-enforcer.

In: Political thought: the problem with liberalism. The Economist, Edição impressa, p. 74, 27 jan. 2018.

As far as grammar is concerned, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 21.

    The referent of the word “them” (line 34) is “civil rights” (line 31).

  2. 22.

    The suffix “-ish” in “leftish” (line 26) adds the notion of “somewhat or tending to” to the adjective “left”.

  3. 23.

    The word “this” (line 18) refers to “lie” (line 17).

  4. 24.

    The word “ever” (line 14) can be correctly replaced with “increasingly”, in this particular context, without effecting any change in the original meaning.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado
1 No matter where I was posted, whether abroad orback in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a briefsummer vacation in France. There I dispensed with4women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried towrite a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times,with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never7intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it“My Century,” but the title had already been employed bya celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was10driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table inthe shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of ExtraStrong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and13orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth,intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river thatdebouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only16a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton ofdead fish. Most people considered great were in realityonly average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for19amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should notbe airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, thiswas of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no22spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I haddone nearly everything I wanted, and had been assuccessful as my aunt had hoped.25 After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside,open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was givenyears ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an28examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.”Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean,wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be31a mirage projection of Corsica. Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch athome, went down for a swim early, when no one was34around, played some tennis at a court up near the railwaystation, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of afew weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and37locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not betempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the39wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

Considering the vocabulary in the text, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 25.

    In “middling masters I held in contempt.” (line 18) the underlined word is a verb.

  2. 26.

    In the second paragraph, the word “wisp” (line 30) refers to something small.

  3. 27.

    The fragment “tamed and orderly design of streams and rivulets” (lines 12 and 13) refers to an object that was in the terrace.

  4. 28.

    The word churn up (line 16) means “to move something with great force or violently”.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado

Debating Diplomacy 1  In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the 4 popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi 7 government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the 10 global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was 13 involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and 16 Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United 19 Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.  This debate about diplomacy raises a number of 22 questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question 25 is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy 28 shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy 31 in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what 34 constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? 37 The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary 40 environment.  That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and 43 understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others 46 have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practice debate, arise when more radically different and 49 incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Regarding the vocabulary of the text, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 29.

    The word “apposite” (line 43) could be replaced by opposed without changing the meaning of the sentence.

  2. 30.

    “Irrespective of” (line 12) could be replaced by regardless of without changing the meaning of the sentence.

  3. 31.

    In the fragment “and hence to take military action against Iraq” (lines 19 and 20), the subject is the United Nations.

  4. 32.

    The word “far-reaching” (line 38) means “to have great influence or many effects”.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado

Could climate change trigger a financial crisis? 1  In recent years regulators have begun warning about the threat that climate change poses to the stability of the financial system. Following its strategy review in July, the 4 European Central Bank (ecb) will assemble a “climate change action plan”. Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, warned of financial risks from 7 climate change as long ago as 2015. In America the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last year published a 200-page report beginning “Climate change 10 poses a major risk to the stability of the US financial system.” […] Just how damaging does climate risk stand to be, though? Early stress tests by central banks and 13 disclosures of companies are starting to shed light on the question. For the most part, the evidence that it could bring down the financial system is underwhelming. But a lot 16 hangs on whether governments set out a clear path for reducing emissions, such as through carbon taxes and energy-efficiency standards, giving banks enough time to 19 prepare.  Climate change can affect the financial system in three ways. The first is through what regulators describe as 22 “transition risks”. These are most likely to arise if governments pursue tougher climate policies. If they do, the economy restructures: capital moves away from dirty 25 sectors and towards cleaner ones. Companies in polluting industries may default on loans or bonds; their share prices may collapse. 28  The second channel is financial firms’ exposure to the hazards of rising temperatures. Attributing individual natural disasters to climate change is tricky, but the 31 Financial Stability Board, a group of regulators, estimates that global economic losses resulting from weather-related catastrophes went from $214bn in the 1980s, in 2019 34 prices, to $1.62trn in the 2010s, roughly trebling as a share of global gdp. These losses are often borne by insurers (though over time the costs should be passed on to 37 customers through higher premiums).  The financial system could also be exposed to any wider economic damage caused by climate change, say if 40 it triggered swings in asset prices. This third channel is harder to quantify. Academic estimates of the effect of 3°C of warming (relative to pre-industrial temperatures) veer 43 from financial losses of around 2% to 25% of world gdp, according to the Network for Greening the Financial System, a group of supervisors. Even the gloomiest 46 estimate might prove too rosy if climate change triggers 47 conflicts or mass migrations. […]

Could climate change trigger a financial crisis? Available at: <www.economist.com>. Retrieved on: July. 21. 2023, with adaptations.

According to the text, mark the statements below as right (C) or wrong (E).

  1. 33.

    The author presents three arguments to explain how climate change affects the financial system.

  2. 34.

    Natural disasters due to rising temperatures, changes and unbalanced prices of assets can negatively impact the financial system.

  3. 35.

    The word “assemble” (line 4) can be correctly replaced by the word “propose”.

  4. 36.

    Companies may be in debt if a transition risk is taken into account.

Cadastre-se para responder e ver o gabarito comentado

Quer responder e ver o gabarito comentado?

Na Lumen você marca Certo ou Errado, vê o gabarito e o comentário de cada item, acompanha seu desempenho por matéria e estuda pelo edital verticalizado.

Cadastre-se

Outras matérias do CACD 2023