No trecho do quarto parágrafo “emotions may be the key to
changing minds”, o termo sublinhado pode ser substituído,
sem alteração de sentido no texto, por:
In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we
can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other
with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make
a difference. A progressive person might show you the same
climate change graphs over and over while a conservative
person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national
debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so
obvious!”
Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many
experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity.
There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link
between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no
match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their
young children.
Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College
London, studies how our minds work and how we process
new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind,
she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people
to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to
new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs.
We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as
neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found,
we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.
So, having the data on your side is not always enough.
For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key
to changing minds.
(Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)
In today’s political climate, it sometimes feels like we can’t even agree on basic facts. We bombard each other with statistics and figures, hoping that more data will make a difference. A progressive person might show you the same climate change graphs over and over while a conservative person might point to the trillions of dollars of growing national debt. We’re left wondering, “Why can’t they just see? It’s so obvious!”
Certain myths are so pervasive that no matter how many experts disprove them, they only seem to grow in popularity. There’s no shortage of serious studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, for example, but these are no match for an emotional appeal to parents worried for their young children.
Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, studies how our minds work and how we process new information. In her upcoming book, The Influential Mind, she explores why we ignore facts and how we can get people to actually listen to the truth. Tali shows that we’re open to new information – but only if it confirms our existing beliefs. We find ways to ignore facts that challenge our ideals. And as neuroscientist Bahador Bahrami and colleagues have found, we weigh all opinions as equally valid, regardless of expertise.
So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.
(Shankar Vedantam. www.npr.org. Adaptado.)
Gabarito comentado
A questão cobra interpretação de um texto sobre fatos, "fake news" e crenças pessoais e também cobra conhecimento de gramática, especificamente sobre modal verbs.
Vamos analisar o trecho em que se encontra a frase do enunciado:
So, having the data on your side is not always enough. For better or for worse, Sharot says, emotions may be the key to changing minds.Tradução - Portanto, ter os dados do seu lado nem sempre é suficiente. Para o bem ou para o mal, diz Sharot, as emoções podem ser a chave para mudar as mentes.
O verbo modal "may" é usado para indicar:
- permissão: May I borrow your car today? (Posso pegar seu carro emprestado
hoje?)
- possibilidade: I may be able to help you, if you need. (Posso ajudá-lo, se precisar.)
- permissão: Can I borrow your car today? (Posso pegar seu
carro emprestado hoje?)
- habilidade: Can you swim? (Você sabe nadar?)
- possibilidade: I can help you, if you need. (Eu posso te ajudar, se você
precisar)
Gabarito do Professor: Alternativa C