No trecho do último parágrafo “we will all be inclined to be”, o
termo sublinhado indica uma
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: D — possibilidade
Tema central: interpretação do valor semântico do verbo modal will no contexto da frase. A questão exige perceber se will indica decisão, necessidade, certeza, possibilidade ou sugestão.
Resumo teórico rápido: Will é um modal com vários usos: para decisões espontâneas ("I will do it"), previsões ou probabilidade futura ("It will rain"), e para afirmar fatos futuros. O significado exato depende do contexto e de palavras que o acompanham. Fontes úteis: Cambridge Dictionary e Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries sobre usos de modais.
Justificativa da alternativa correta (D): na expressão “we will all be inclined to be”, o núcleo é a locução be inclined to = “estar propenso a / ter tendência a”. Ao aparecer com will, o conjunto transmite uma previsão de tendência — ou seja, uma possibilidade futura, não uma decisão deliberada nem uma obrigação. Logo, possibilidade é o sentido mais adequado.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
A — decisão: Decisão costuma vir com will quando o falante se compromete ou decide naquele momento ("I will help you"). Aqui não há ação escolhida por quem fala, mas previsão de uma tendência coletiva.
B — necessidade: Necessidade é expressa por modais como must ou locuções como have to. Will não indica obrigação neste contexto.
C — certeza: Embora will às vezes denote certeza, a presença de be inclined to suaviza essa força e produz ideia de probabilidade/tendência, não de absoluta certeza.
E — sugestão: Sugestões usam modais como should ou estruturas imperativas/let’s. Não é o caso aqui.
Estratégia prática para provas: sempre leia o contexto imediato: identifique collocations (ex.: inclined to) e determine se o modal está qualificando intenção, obrigação, previsão ou possibilidade. Elimine alternativas que exigem modais ou estruturas diferentes.
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!
