Considerando os aspectos estruturais do texto, é CORRETO afirmar:
Leia o texto abaixo e responda às questões de 1 a 3.
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
Ending corporal punishment is an issue which touches most people very personally. Most of us were hit as
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em: 
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado).
Hitting Children is Wrong and the Law Must Say So - Now
children; most parents have hit their growing children. So far, globally, only about 17 states have completely
prohibited all corporal punishment, with six or seven more committed to do so. In this region, I know that at least
two – Brazil and Costa Rica – have had prohibition Bills presented to their Parliaments.
At the first two Regional Consultations for the UN Secretary General’s Study, in the Caribbean and two weeks
ago in South Asia, clear recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment, including in the family, were
adopted. But I still heard government officials and NGOs and others making more excuses: “We must wait until
there is more support for parents; more training for teachers; smaller classes. Let’s educate first and then
change the law…” and so on. From children’s perspective this is intolerable. From the perspective of
international human rights law it is illegal. Why should children wait? Would we wait to prohibit violence against
women until we can provide full employment and universal anger management classes for men? Would we wait
to ban hitting of elderly confused relatives until we have full-time nursing care, and full training for all carers,
available for them?
No more excuses: this UN Study provides the opportunity to move quickly on, to put in the past the idea that
states should authorise violence against children and instead focus on giving priority to ending all violence
against children. State governments and all of us have to take a deep breath and stop deceiving ourselves -
hitting children is wrong and the law must say so - now.
NEWELL, Peter. Disponível em:
. Acesso em: 16 ago. 2010. (Adaptado). Gabarito comentado
Resposta correta: A
Tema central: aspectos estruturais do inglês — referência de pronomes reflexivos, formação do possessivo, concordância pronominal e transformação de voz (passiva ↔ ativa).
Resumo teórico: Reflexive pronouns (myself, ourselves, etc.) devem referir‑se ao sujeito da frase. Segundo gramáticas como Cambridge/Quirk, o reflexivo é usado quando o sujeito e o objeto da ação são a mesma entidade. Para possessivos, formas corretas dependem do número e do substantivo (children → children’s; boys plural possessive → boys’). Na mudança de voz, a voz passiva transforma o objeto em sujeito — o agente pode ser explícito (our parents) ou implícito.
Justificativa da alternativa A: Na frase destacada, o sujeito composto é "State governments and all of us". O pronome "ourselves" é reflexivo e corretamente retoma esse sujeito. Logo, A está certa porque respeita a regra de referência reflexiva: o pronome refere‑se ao próprio sujeito da oração.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
B — Incorreta. Substituir "children’s" por "boys’s and girls’s" está errado: a forma possessiva de boys e girls no plural é boys’ and girls’, mas essa expressão é mais longa e pouco natural; além disso, "children’s" já engloba ambos os sexos e é a forma correta e concisa.
C — Incorreta. A resposta proposta apresenta discordância de número e de referência: "children" (plural) não pode ser respondido com "him" (singular masculino). Mesmo corrigindo para "them", a justificativa não responde ao sentido retórico da pergunta; o autor quer indicar que não há razão para adiar a proibição.
D — Incorreta. "Most of us were hit as children" é passiva. A transformação para a ativa correta manteria o agente: por exemplo, "Our parents hit most of us as children" ou "People hit most of us as children". A forma "They used to hit most of us as children" introduz "used to" (hábito) e um sujeito vago "they", mudando nuance e não sendo a conversão direta mais adequada.
Dica de prova: ao identificar pronomes reflexivos, cheque sempre o sujeito imediato. Para transformações de voz, mantenha o mesmo agente quando possível ou use agentes plausíveis (parents/people) para não alterar o sentido.
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!
