No trecho do quinto parágrafo “For the top 10 percent, though,
it jumped by about 28 percent.”, o termo em destaque pode
ser substituído, sem alteração de sentido, por
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
O conectivo é responsável pela coesão textual. É uma palavra que introduz uma ideia conectando-a com a frase (ou ideia) anterior, unindo estas duas partes do texto.
Coesão é a ligação harmônica entre dois elementos textuais, utilizada como forma de obter um texto claro e compreensível. Assim, em segundo plano, a questão também mede a capacidade de interpretação de texto do candidato, que deverá escolher a alternativa que não fere a coesão textual.
O conectivo “though" é uma conjunção adversativa e introduz uma oração cujo conteúdo faz oposição ou restrição ao que foi dito na oração anterior. Pode ser traduzido como porém, contudo, todavia.
Na frase sob análise temos: “For the top 10 percent, though, it jumped by about 28 percent.". Como visto, “though" faz oposição ao que foi dito na frase anterior, qual seja: “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."
Percebe-se que o autor esta confrontando lados opostos do crescimento da expectativa de vida. A oposição se dá no fato de que, enquanto para os pobres a expectativa de vida subiu apenas 3%, para os ricos ela saltou cerca de 28%.
É preciso, portanto, escolher um substituto que conserve a ideia de oposição demonstrada acima.
Para os que conhecem de cór os sinônimos de “though", a questão se apresenta de forma fácil, visto que “however", presente na alternativa D, é um desses sinônimos. Porém, é improvável que alguém saiba todos os sinônimos de todos os termos que podem figurar em um concurso. Então, vamos às opções:
Alternativa A.
A conjunção “otherwise" pode ser taduzida para “de outra forma" ou “caso contrário". Geralmente, usamos “otherwise" para juntar duas oração nas quais a segunda representa o resultado negativo do descumprimento da primeira. Por exemplo: I'd better study hard; otherwise, I won't pass the exams.
Vê-se que esta conjunção não confronta duas ideias contrastantes, razão pela qual a opção está ERRADA.
Alternativa B.
“Furthermore" é usado para adicionar uma informação, normalmente, adiciona uma informação considerada pelo autor mais importante que a anterior. Carrega uma ideia de soma, adição e pode ser traduzida como “além disso".
A opção também está ERRADA, pois não conserva a ideia de opção presente na frase original.
Alternativa C
“Therefore" significa por esta razão ou por causa disso. Assim, “therefore" é usado para introduzir a conclusão de um raciocínio, podendo ser traduzido como “portanto". Não é este o caso do texto sob análise. A alternativa está ERRADA.
Alternativa D
“However" é usado para introduzir uma declaração que contrasta ou contradiz o que foi dito antes. Trata-se de uma conjunção adversativa que é comumente traduzida como “contudo". Por manter a ideia de contradição, esta é a alternativa CORRETA.
Alternativa E
“Whenever" significa a qualquer tempo ou em qualquer ocasião. Podemos traduzir este termo para “sempre que" ou “quando". A opção está INCORRETA, pois é necessário substituir “though" por outra conjunção que introduza uma idéia de contraste.
RESPOSTA: D
