No trecho do segundo parágrafo “not only in income, but also
in years of life”, a expressão “not only … but also” indica
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing
Sabrina Tavernise
February 12, 2016
Experts have long known that rich people generally
live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data
shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances
in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap
between high-income and low-income Americans has been
widening sharply.
The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also
in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the
early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings
ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of
the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis
by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001,
and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer
counterpart.
New research released this month contains even more
jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income
spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that
for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life
expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the
bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had
more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to
13 years, from 4.7 years. “There has been this huge spreading
out,” said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study.
The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has
surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic
debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed
concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. “This
may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion,” said
Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at
Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern.
The causes are still being investigated, but public health
researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the
affluent and educated may partly explain the difference.
Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy
for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just
3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born
in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about
28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure – life
expectancy at age 50 – and included data from 1984 to 2012.)
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
Disparity in life spans of the rich and the poor is growing
Sabrina Tavernise
February 12, 2016
Experts have long known that rich people generally live longer than poor people. But a growing body of data shows a more disturbing pattern: Despite big advances in medicine, technology and education, the longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans has been widening sharply.
The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life, the most basic measure of well-being. In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half, according to an analysis by the Social Security Administration. Fast-forward to 2001, and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart.
New research released this month contains even more jarring numbers. Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920, there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom 10 percent. For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled, to 14 years. For women, the gap grew to 13 years, from 4.7 years. “There has been this huge spreading out,” said Gary Burtless, one of the authors of the study.
The growing chasm is alarming policy makers, and has surfaced in the presidential campaign. During a Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton expressed concern over shortening life spans for some Americans. “This may be the next frontier of the inequality discussion,” said Peter Orszag, a former Obama administration official now at Citigroup, who was among the first to highlight the pattern. The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference.
Overall, according to the Brookings study, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of wage earners improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 compared with those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent. (The researchers used a common measure – life expectancy at age 50 – and included data from 1984 to 2012.)
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
Gabarito comentado
A construção conectiva “not only ... (but) also" é usada para relacionar duas coisas, dando ênfase a última delas. Isto é, quando usamos “not only ... (but) also" estamos apresentando duas informações e queremos dar enfoque à segunda delas, pois tal informação é ainda melhor ou pior, mais supreendente ou impressionante, ou mais chocante que a primeira.
É possível traduzir-se “not only ... but also" para “não apenas ... como também". No texto em questão temos: “The poor are losing ground not only in income, but also in years of life". Em português: “Os pobres estão perdendo terreno não apenas em renda, como também em anos de vida".
Veja que o autor, ao usar a construção conectiva “not only... (but) also" deseja destacar que os pobres estão perdendo terreno em renda e também, o que é ainda pior, em anos de vida. Ao elemento receita é somado o elemento anos de vida. Trata-se, assim, de uma ideia de soma destes elementos. Presente a ideia da adição, está CORRETA a alternativa E.
Para que não restem dúvidas, vamos analisar as alternativas.
Alternativa A.
A admitir-se a ideia de exclusão, a construção conectiva “not only ... (but) also" excluiria os elementos “renda" e “anos de vida" dos elementos perdidos pelos pobres. É exatamente o contrário. Os pobres perdem terreno nestes dois quesitos.
A alternativa A está INCORRETA.
Alternativa B
Conjunções alternativas exprimem uma ideia de alternância ou alternativa. Em outras palavras, ou um elemento ou o outro está presente. Porém, vemos que ambos os elementos introduzidos pela conjunção “not only... (but) also" (renda e anos de vida) são concomitantes, coexistem.
A alternativa B também está INCORRETA.
Alternativa C.
Seguindo a ideia de negação, os conectores extrairiam os elementos “renda" e “anos de vida" dos elementos perdidos pelos pobres. Assim, os pobres não perderiam terreno nem em renda, nem em anos de vida.
Isto não é verdade, como vimos, de acordo com o texto, os pobres perdem terreno tanto em renda quanto em anos de vida. A alternativa C está, pois, INCORRETA.
Alternativa D.
Contraste sinaliza oposição ou distinção entre duas coisas. Daí, conectivos de contraste são usados quando o autor pretende contrastar ideias, ou seja, mostrar o contrário do que foi exposto. Não é o caso. Não há oposição na frase destacada. A alternativa D está ERRADA.
Alternativa E.
Como já vimos acima, o autor destaca que os pobres estão perdendo terreno em renda e também, o que é ainda pior, em anos de vida. Trata-se, assim, de uma ideia de soma destes elementos. Está CORRETA a alternativa E.
RESPOSTA: E
