Questão df2a9ee2-b0
Prova:UFT 2013
Disciplina:Inglês
Assunto:Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
Mark the CORRECT alternative, according to the text.
Mark the CORRECT alternative, according to the text.
Read the text below to answer question.
Whaling Today
By Meghan E. Marrero and Stuart Thornton
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
In 1946, several countries joined to form the International
Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC’s purpose is to prevent
overhunting of whales. Its original regulations, however, were loose,
and quotas were high. Whale stocks continued to decline. The IWC
eventually established whaling-free sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean
(1979) and the ocean surrounding Antarctica (1994). The IWC called for a moratorium on commercial whaling in
1982. Both Japan and Norway voted against this policy. Today,
Norway supports hunting minke whales for meat. Japan allows whaling
for scientific purposes, although many experts question if more whales
are taken than are necessary. Meat from whales killed for research is
sold as food. Many species of whale have benefitted from the IWC’s
moratorium. Dave Weller, a research biologist at NOAA’s Southwest
Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California, says the eastern
Pacific gray whale population has recovered. “I think there is pretty good evidence that a moratorium on
hunting has allowed certain populations to recover from depleted
status when they were being whaled,” he says. According to Weller, the IWC’s moratorium on whale hunting
is one of two major steps the organization is taking. “The other thing that the IWC has very successfully done is
to collect information and provide analysis of data to help us
understand the status of various populations that in some cases we
knew very little about,” he says. Despite the general moratorium, limited whaling is permitted
to indigenous cultures. “In the United States, the Inuit Eskimos in the north slope of
Alaska, in Barrow, Alaska, still hunt for bowhead whales,” Weller says.
“There is a request by the Makah Indian tribe, which is in northern
Washington state, to resume gray whale hunting, which they had
traditionally done. But that’s pending deliberations right now.”
Source: http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/news/
(Adapted)
Read the text below to answer question.
Whaling Today
By Meghan E. Marrero and Stuart Thornton
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
In 1946, several countries joined to form the International
Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC’s purpose is to prevent
overhunting of whales. Its original regulations, however, were loose,
and quotas were high. Whale stocks continued to decline. The IWC
eventually established whaling-free sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean
(1979) and the ocean surrounding Antarctica (1994).
The IWC called for a moratorium on commercial whaling in
1982. Both Japan and Norway voted against this policy. Today,
Norway supports hunting minke whales for meat. Japan allows whaling
for scientific purposes, although many experts question if more whales
are taken than are necessary. Meat from whales killed for research is
sold as food.
Many species of whale have benefitted from the IWC’s
moratorium. Dave Weller, a research biologist at NOAA’s Southwest
Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California, says the eastern
Pacific gray whale population has recovered.
“I think there is pretty good evidence that a moratorium on
hunting has allowed certain populations to recover from depleted
status when they were being whaled,” he says.
According to Weller, the IWC’s moratorium on whale hunting
is one of two major steps the organization is taking.
“The other thing that the IWC has very successfully done is
to collect information and provide analysis of data to help us
understand the status of various populations that in some cases we
knew very little about,” he says.
Despite the general moratorium, limited whaling is permitted
to indigenous cultures.
“In the United States, the Inuit Eskimos in the north slope of
Alaska, in Barrow, Alaska, still hunt for bowhead whales,” Weller says.
“There is a request by the Makah Indian tribe, which is in northern
Washington state, to resume gray whale hunting, which they had
traditionally done. But that’s pending deliberations right now.”
Source: http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/news/
(Adapted)
A
Both countries, Japan and Norway, allows whaling for
scientific purposes only, and experts do not express doubts
about the facts.
B
The IWC's moratorium has been beneficial to many species
of whale, including the gray whale population.
C
Dave Weller said that he believes that a moratorium on
hunting could be more strict to certain populations of whales.
D
According to Weller, besides the moratorium on whale
hunting, IWC is not doing much so far.
E
Even natives to specific geographical areas are not allowed
to whaling, according to the general moratorium.
Gabarito comentado
T
Thiago Oliveira Monitor com apoio de IA
Gabarito: B
Fundamento decisivo: O critério decisivo é a correspondência literal/parafrástica com informação explícita do texto, especialmente nos trechos “Many species of whale have benefitted from the IWC’s moratorium.” e “the eastern Pacific gray whale population has recovered.”; por isso, a alternativa B é a correta, pois reproduz essa informação sem distorção.
Tema central: informação explícita no texto
Análise das alternativas
A
Errada
Está errada por contradição direta com o texto. O texto distingue os dois países: “Norway supports hunting minke whales for meat. Japan allows whaling for scientific purposes...”. Logo, não é verdade que ambos permitem caça apenas para fins científicos. Além disso, a alternativa afirma que os especialistas não têm dúvidas, mas o texto diz o contrário: “many experts question if more whales are taken than are necessary.”
B
Certa
A alternativa B está correta porque preserva fielmente o conteúdo expresso no texto: o moratorium da IWC beneficiou muitas espécies de baleias e, como exemplo concreto, a população da gray whale do Pacífico oriental se recuperou. Trata-se de paráfrase correta, sem acréscimo, negação ou mudança de sentido.
C
Errada
Está errada porque atribui a Weller uma opinião que não aparece no texto. Ele não diz que o moratorium deveria ser mais rígido para certas populações. O que ele afirma é que há boa evidência de que o moratorium permitiu a recuperação de certas populações antes exploradas. A alternativa troca um efeito positivo comprovado no texto por uma proposta normativa inexistente.
D
Errada
Está errada porque nega expressamente uma segunda atuação da IWC mencionada por Weller. O texto afirma: “The other thing that the IWC has very successfully done is to collect information and provide analysis of data...”. Portanto, além do moratorium, a IWC também atua com sucesso na coleta de informações e análise de dados. A alternativa contradiz esse trecho.
E
Errada
Está errada por contrariar literalmente a ressalva do texto: “Despite the general moratorium, limited whaling is permitted to indigenous cultures.” Portanto, o moratorium geral não impede totalmente a caça por povos indígenas; há permissão limitada. A alternativa erra ao transformar a regra geral em proibição absoluta.
Pegadinha da questão
A banca explora distorções de trechos explícitos do texto: igualar Japão e Noruega, transformar recuperação de populações em defesa de maior rigor, ignorar a expressão “The other thing” e desconsiderar a exceção introduzida por “Despite the general moratorium”.
Dica para questões semelhantes
- Localize no texto as frases afirmativas centrais e procure a alternativa que as reproduz por paráfrase fiel.
- Elimine opções que trocam finalidade, causa ou efeito de fatos expressamente mencionados no texto.
- Preste atenção a conectores e ressalvas como “the other thing” e “despite”, porque eles costumam derrubar alternativas absolutas.
- Se a alternativa acrescenta opinião, regra mais dura ou generalização que o texto não afirmou, ela deve ser rejeitada.
