The first and second paragraphs mainly illustrate
Remember the good old days, when you could have a
heated-yet-enjoyable debate with your friends about things
that didn’t matter that much — times when you could be a true
fan of the Manchester United soccer team when you didn’t
come from the city of Manchester?
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your
colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public
is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your
friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before
you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new
judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a
collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can
all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of
culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’
or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors.
Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to
describe the contrasting ways in which people approach
contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see
them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors,
whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to
consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a
decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether
a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler,
by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably
entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical
industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
Most of us are deeply committed to our beliefs, especially
concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re
presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often
choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs.
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more
than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their
views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to
change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of
the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind
when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our
work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won,
providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments
can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be
more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We
should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the
more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded
and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then
hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive
disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
(Christian Jarrett. www.bbc.com, 14.10.2020. Adaptado.)
How things have changed.
Now disagreements feel deadly serious. Like when your colleague pronounces that wearing a face mask in public is a threat to his liberty. Or when you see that one of your friends has just tweeted that, actually, all lives matter. Before you know it, you’re feeling angry and forming harsh new judgments about your colleagues and friends. Let’s take a collective pause and breathe: there are some ways we can all try to have more civil disagreements in this febrile age of culture wars.
1. ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’
The first is to consider how inclined people are to ‘couple’ or ‘decouple’ topics involving wider political and social factors. Swedish data analyst John Nerst has used the terms to describe the contrasting ways in which people approach contentious issues. Those of us more inclined to ‘couple’ see them as inextricably related to a broader matrix of factors, whereas those more predisposed to ‘decouple’ prefer to consider an issue in isolation. To take a crude example, a decoupler might consider in isolation the question of whether a vaccine provides a degree of immunity to a virus; a coupler, by contrast, would immediately see the issue as inextricably entangled in a mesh of factors, such as pharmaceutical industry power and parental choice.
2.____________________
A study at Arizona State University, U.S., analysed more than 100,000 comments on a forum where users post their views on an issue and invite others to persuade them to change their mind. The researchers found that regardless of the kind of topic, people were more likely to change their mind when confronted with more evidence-based arguments. “Our work may suggest that while attitude change is hard-won, providing facts, statistics and citations for one’s arguments can convince people to change their minds,” they concluded.
3. Just be nicer?
Finally, it’s easier said than done, but let’s all try to be more respectful of and attentive to each other’s positions. We should do this not just for virtuous reasons, but because the more we create that kind of a climate, the more open-minded and intellectually flexible we will all be inclined to be. And then hopefully, collectively, we can start having more constructive disagreements — even in our present very difficult times.
Gabarito comentado
Resposta: Alternativa C
Tema central: leitura e compreensão — identificar a ideia principal e o propósito dos dois primeiros parágrafos: contraste entre o passado (discussões leves) e o presente (divergências tratadas como questões sérias).
Resumo teórico: Em questões de reading comprehension, procure sinais textuais que apontem a intenção do autor — palavras de contraste (ex.: "How things have changed"), exemplos ilustrativos e o tom geral. A ideia principal costuma ser uma generalização que engloba os exemplos fornecidos.
Justificativa da alternativa C: A alternativa C resume com precisão a mensagem: os parágrafos mostram que divergências antes consideradas pouco importantes (ex.: time de futebol) agora são tratadas como conflitos sérios (máscaras, frases como “all lives matter”). Ou seja, o texto compara como se lida com desacordos “antes” e “agora”, enfatizando a intensificação das reações — exatamente o conteúdo de C.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
- A — Foca numa avaliação nostálgica ("vida mais fácil e divertida") além do que o texto afirma; o autor não generaliza sobre toda a vida no passado.
- B — Restrita a debates sobre time de futebol; o exemplo do Manchester United é apenas ilustrativo, não o foco principal.
- D — Muito próxima, mas limita-se ao modo de lidar (agressivo vs. fácil‑going). O texto enfatiza a gravidade atual das divergências, não apenas estilos de conduta entre amigos.
- E — Também restrita ao ato de apoiar um time; não reflete a comparação mais ampla entre tratamento de divergências sociais e culturais.
Estratégia prática: ao responder, pergunte: "Qual ideia engloba todos os exemplos?" Procure frases-guia (ex.: "How things have changed") e descarte alternativas muito específicas que não cobrem o conjunto.
Fontes rápidas: Cambridge Assessment English — Reading strategies; Purdue OWL — Critical reading techniques.
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!
