With respect to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?
FLORIDA HURRICANES
1 Before Hurricane Sandy tore through New York and New Jersey, it stopped in Florida. Huge waves covered beaches, swept over Fort Lauderdale's concrete sea wall and spilled onto A1A, Florida's coastal highway. A month later another series of violent storms hit south Florida, severely eroding Fort Lauderdale's beaches and a section of A1A. Workers are building a new sea wall, mending the highway and adding a couple of pedestrian bridges. Beach erosion forced Fort Lauderdale to buy sand from an inland mine in central Florida; the mine's soft, white sand stands out against the darker, grittier native variety.
2 Hurricanes and storms are nothing new for Florida. But as the oceans warm, hurricanes are growing more intense. To make matters worse, this is happening against a backdrop of sharply rising sea levels, turning what has been a seasonal annoyance into an existential threat.
3 For around 2,000 years sea levels remained relatively constant. Between 1880 and 2011, however, they rose by an average of 0.07 inches (1.8mm) a year, and between 1993 and 2011 the average was between 0.11 and 0.13 inches a year. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast that seas could rise by as much as 23 inches by 2100, though since then many scientists have called that forecast conservative. Seas are also expected to warm up, which may make hurricanes and tropical storms more intense.
4 Even as seas have risen over the past century, Americans have rushed to build homes near the beach. Storms that lash the modern American coastline cause more economic damage than their predecessors because there is more to destroy. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926, a Category 4 storm, caused $1 billion-worth of damage in current dollars. Were it to strike today the insured losses would be $125 billion, reckons Air Worldwide, a catastrophe-modelling firm. In 1992 Hurricane Andrew, a Category 5 storm, caused $23 billion in damage; today it would be twice that
5 Most Floridians live in coastal counties. Buildings cluster on low ground; more people than in any other state live on land less than four feet (1.2 metres) above the high-tide line. Florida's limestone bedrock makes it easy for salt water from surging seas to contaminate its freshwater aquifers. And it relies heavily on canals for flood control, which a sea-level rise of just six inches would devastate.
Adapted from The Economist, June 15th , 2013
1 Before Hurricane Sandy tore through New York and New Jersey, it stopped in Florida. Huge waves covered beaches, swept over Fort Lauderdale's concrete sea wall and spilled onto A1A, Florida's coastal highway. A month later another series of violent storms hit south Florida, severely eroding Fort Lauderdale's beaches and a section of A1A. Workers are building a new sea wall, mending the highway and adding a couple of pedestrian bridges. Beach erosion forced Fort Lauderdale to buy sand from an inland mine in central Florida; the mine's soft, white sand stands out against the darker, grittier native variety.
2 Hurricanes and storms are nothing new for Florida. But as the oceans warm, hurricanes are growing more intense. To make matters worse, this is happening against a backdrop of sharply rising sea levels, turning what has been a seasonal annoyance into an existential threat.
3 For around 2,000 years sea levels remained relatively constant. Between 1880 and 2011, however, they rose by an average of 0.07 inches (1.8mm) a year, and between 1993 and 2011 the average was between 0.11 and 0.13 inches a year. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast that seas could rise by as much as 23 inches by 2100, though since then many scientists have called that forecast conservative. Seas are also expected to warm up, which may make hurricanes and tropical storms more intense.
4 Even as seas have risen over the past century, Americans have rushed to build homes near the beach. Storms that lash the modern American coastline cause more economic damage than their predecessors because there is more to destroy. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926, a Category 4 storm, caused $1 billion-worth of damage in current dollars. Were it to strike today the insured losses would be $125 billion, reckons Air Worldwide, a catastrophe-modelling firm. In 1992 Hurricane Andrew, a Category 5 storm, caused $23 billion in damage; today it would be twice that
5 Most Floridians live in coastal counties. Buildings cluster on low ground; more people than in any other state live on land less than four feet (1.2 metres) above the high-tide line. Florida's limestone bedrock makes it easy for salt water from surging seas to contaminate its freshwater aquifers. And it relies heavily on canals for flood control, which a sea-level rise of just six inches would devastate.
Adapted from The Economist, June 15th , 2013
Gabarito comentado
Alternativa correta: C
Tema central: interpretação de texto — identificar o que o texto afirma explicitamente ou sugere de forma direta e limitada. Aqui é preciso perceber a informação sobre o IPCC e transformar essa pista textual em uma conclusão válida.
Resumo teórico prático: em questões de reading comprehension, prefira respostas que seguem exatamente o que o texto diz. Procure por palavras-chave (ex.: "In 2007 the IPCC forecast... though since then many scientists have called that forecast conservative"). Evite extrapolar além do enunciado ou aceitar alternativas com termos absolutos (“all”, “exclusively”, “majority”) quando o texto usa qualificadores como “many” ou “some”.
Justificativa da alternativa C: o texto afirma que “In 2007 the IPCC forecast that seas could rise by as much as 23 inches by 2100, though since then many scientists have called that forecast conservative.” Isso indica que, desde 2007, alguns cientistas (ou “many scientists”) questionaram a precisão desse prognóstico — interpretando-o como subestimado. Portanto, a afirmação de que desde 2007 alguns cientistas expressaram dúvidas sobre pelo menos uma previsão do IPCC está diretamente apoiada pelo texto.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
A — “A maioria dos cientistas elogiou o IPCC...” Não é apoiada: o texto menciona cientistas que criticaram a previsão; não há informação sobre uma maioria elogiando.
B — “Especialistas acreditam que o IPCC deixou de examinar aspectos suficientes...” O texto não diz isso; fala apenas de críticas à magnitude (conservative) de uma previsão, não de omissão de aspectos.
D — “Previsões do IPCC focaram exclusivamente em variações extremas do nível do mar.” Falso: o texto cita uma previsão sobre elevação do nível do mar, mas não afirma exclusividade nem que o IPCC trate só disso.
E — “Por tecnologia insuficiente, o IPCC deve limitar previsões a períodos de 100 anos.” Não há qualquer menção a limitação tecnológica ou a essa convenção temporal no texto.
Estratégias úteis:
- Localize a frase-chave relacionada ao tema (aqui: menção explícita ao IPCC e à reação científica).
- Compare a força das palavras: “many”/“some” ≠ “the great majority”/“all”.
- Desconfie de alternativas que extrapolam ou introduzem informações não citadas.
Fonte útil para contexto: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) — referência citada no texto; críticas posteriores sobre projeções são tema bem documentado em estudos climáticos.
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!
