Questõesde ESPM sobre Inglês

InícioTodas as questões
1
1
Foram encontradas 2 questões
85e3ea83-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

In its opening, the article:


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




A
states the author’s negative opinion about the Beatles.
B
shows the author’s excitement about the film Yesterday.
C
reviews the cast of the film Yesterday
D
summarizes the film plot.
E
invites the reader to imagine a world where the Beatles don’t exist.
85e7eac1-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Sinônimos | Synonyms

The word happenstance, boldface in paragraph 4, can be replaced by all words below, except:


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




A
luck
B
coincidence
C
fortuity
D
chance
E
success
85ec4b52-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the article:


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




A
Quality art pieces are inherently good, regardless of the context they appear in.
B
Success in art is the result of factors other than talent.
C
Music stardom is meritocracy.
D
No band can be as popular are the Beatles.
E
Racial issues do not come into play in showbusiness.
85f08a6c-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The article states that:


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




A
the Beatles songs were technically too poor.
B
the sound effects used in the Beatles songs are much more interesting than the ones used today.
C
complex technical resources and various genre references prevail in compositions today.
D
the four-people set up is no longer accepted in the music scene.
E
the technical innovations proposed by the Beatles are insuperable.
85f3de84-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

For Noah Berlatsky, when we realize that meritocracy is a myth,


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




A
we are able to value all artistic attempts.
B
we favor the least talented.
C
we cannot see merit around us.
D
we end up liking artists who aren’t really talented.
E
we are prejudicial with talented people.
85f74514-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the article, deceptive advertisements are practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. It means that:

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


A
they confuse or disappoint the consumer.
B
they misguide or trick the consumer.
C
they advise or assist the consumer.
D
they dissatisfy or disconcert the consumer.
E
they delude or repulse the consumer
85faa469-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Among the examples of deceptive advertising described in the text there are:

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


A
the ones in which the price of the product advertised is not the real one.
B
he ones in which the taxes and guarantees far exceed the product price.
C
the ones in which the consumer is drawn by distorted features.
D
the ones which show altruistic people using the product, trying to manipulate the consumer emotionally.
E
the ones which, despite overpriced, are sponsored by a powerful messenger.
85fec1e8-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Tempos Verbais | Verb Tenses, Verbos frasais | Phrasal verbs

The phrasal verbs make up, fork over, lure (someone) in, miss out and set up,all boldfaced in the text, mean, respectively:

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


A
form, render, entice, lose, establish.
B
entice, render, form, lose, establish.
C
establish, form, render, lose, entice.
D
form, lose, entice, render, establish.
E
form, establish, lose, render, entice.
8601e9d7-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The following advertisements are examples of which deceptive practices, respectively?



A
Hidden Fees and Bait and Switch.
B
Bait and Switch and Misleading Claims.
C
Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography and Misleading Claims.
D
Misleading Claims and Hidden Fees.
E
Misleading Claims and Bait and Switch.
86053ae0-04
ESPM 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

a1db3714ad4758a8b95e.png (691×220)


In the comic strip above, Calvin becomes upset because:

A
He was making a compliment to his teacher, but she did not understand his inner intentions.
B
He was trying to lure his teacher away, but she realized his inner intentions.
C
Despite the importance of checking homework, his teacher was more interested in telling him off.
D
He believes teachers should be on the streets, not in class, fighting for their right to better salaries.
E
He did his homework even though his teacher was suspicious about it.
4d375132-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

An important idea brought by the text is that James Brown’s song “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” was a milestone in the defense of:

How James Brown Made Black Pride a Hit

It’s been 50 years since he wrote “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,” a song that is still necessary.

By Randall Kennedy

   In the gym at Paul Junior High School in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1968, not that long before the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I asked a buddy whether he was interested in a certain girl. He told me that he was not because she was too dark.


   
   He and I were African-American. (Then we would have called ourselves Negro.) So was she. All of us supported the Civil Rights Movement and idolized Dr. King, yet I did not hold my friend’s colorstruck judgment against him. And he did not state his opinion with embarrassment. We had both internalized our society’s derogation of blackness.
    Indeed, we luxuriated in the denigration, spending hours trading silly, recycled but revealing insults: “Yo mama so black, she blend in with the chalkboard.” “Yeah, well, yo mama so black, she sweats chocolate.”
   It was precisely because of widespread colorism that James Brown’s anthem “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” posed a challenge, felt so exhilarating, and resonated so powerfully. It still does. Much has changed over the past half century. But, alas, the need to defend blackness against derision continues.
    Various musicians in the 1960s tapped into yearnings for black assertiveness, autonomy and solidarity. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions sang “We’re a Winner.” Sly and the Family Stone offered “Stand.” Sam Cooke (and Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding) performed “A Change is Gonna Come.” But no entertainer equaled Brown’s vocalization of African-Americans’ newly triumphal sense of self-acceptance.
   That Brown created the song most popularly associated with the Black is Beautiful movement is ironic. He generally stayed away from protest, endorsed the presidential re-election of Richard Nixon, lavishly praised Ronald Reagan, and consistently lauded Strom Thurmond.
   His infrequent sallies into politics usually sounded in patriotic, lift-yourselfup-ism. In the song “America is My Home,” he proclaimed without embarrassment that the United States “is still the best country / And that’s without a doubt.” Alluding to his own trajectory, he challenged dissenters to name any other country in which a person could start out as a poor shoeshine boy but end up as a wealthy celebrity shaking hands with the president.
   At the very time that in “Say It Loud,” Brown seemed to be affirming Negritude, he also sported a “conk” — a distinctive hairdo that involved chemically removing kinkiness on the way to creating a bouffant of straightened hair. Many AfricanAmerican political activists, especially those with a black nationalist orientation, decried the conk as an illustration of racial self-hatred. For a brief period, Brown abandoned the conk and adopted an Afro, but that was only temporary. The conk was part of the characteristic look of “The Godfather of Soul.”
   Even though by 1968 uprisings against white supremacism had been erupting for a decade with great intensity and success — the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Children’s’ Crusade in Birmingham, the protest against disenfranchisement in Selma — prejudice against blackness remained prevalent, including among African-Americans.
   Champions of African-American uplift in the 1960s sought to liberate blackness from the layers of contempt, fear, and hatred with which it had been smeared for centuries. Brown’s anthem poignantly reflected the psychic problem it sought to address. People secure in their status don’t feel compelled to trumpet their pride. At the same time “Say it Loud!” was a rousing instance of a reclamation that took many forms. Instead of celebrating light skin, thin lips, and “good” (i.e., straight) hair, increasing numbers of African-Americans began valorizing dark skin, thick lips and “bad” (i.e., kinky) hair.
    The reclamation of blackness in the sixties made tremendous headway quickly. By 1970 my friend would not have dared to repeat out loud what he had told me unapologetically two years before. Here, as elsewhere, however, changes wrought by the black liberation movement, though impressive, were only partial. Nearly four decades after the release of “Say It Loud,” Professors Jennifer Hochschild and Vesla Weaver, having synthesized the pertinent academic literature, declared authoritatively that compared to their lighter-skinned counterparts, dark-skinned blacks continue to be burdened by lower levels of education, income, and job status. They receive longer prison sentences and are less likely to own homes or to marry. Filmmakers, advertisers, modeling agencies, dating websites and other key gatekeepers demonstrate repeatedly the ongoing pertinence of the old saw: If you’re black get back. If you’re brown, stick around. If you’re white you’re alright.
      Intraracial colorism in Black America is often seen as a topic that should, if possible, be avoided, especially in “mixed company.” That sense of embarrassment three decades ago prompted officials at Morehouse College to demand that Spike Lee cease filming on campus once they learned that his movie was exposing, among other things, black collegiate colorism. The impulse toward avoidance remains strong.
    With racial prejudice against all African-Americans still a potent force, many would just as soon ditch the discussion of “black on black” complexional bias. Colorism, however, remains a baleful reality.
   Half a century after James Brown’s proclamation, it remains imperative to assert what should have been assumed and uncontroversial all along: that black is beautiful and as worthy of pride and care and consideration as any other hue.

(Adapted from: www.nytimes.com, 20/07/2018)
A
colorism.
B
African-Americans’ self-consciousness.
C
racial prejudice.
D
a black nationalist orientation.
E
the reclamation of blackness.
4d3a8c71-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

In the second paragraph, the boldfaced sentence: “We had both internalized our society’s derogation of blackness.” means that:

How James Brown Made Black Pride a Hit

It’s been 50 years since he wrote “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,” a song that is still necessary.

By Randall Kennedy

   In the gym at Paul Junior High School in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1968, not that long before the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I asked a buddy whether he was interested in a certain girl. He told me that he was not because she was too dark.


   
   He and I were African-American. (Then we would have called ourselves Negro.) So was she. All of us supported the Civil Rights Movement and idolized Dr. King, yet I did not hold my friend’s colorstruck judgment against him. And he did not state his opinion with embarrassment. We had both internalized our society’s derogation of blackness.
    Indeed, we luxuriated in the denigration, spending hours trading silly, recycled but revealing insults: “Yo mama so black, she blend in with the chalkboard.” “Yeah, well, yo mama so black, she sweats chocolate.”
   It was precisely because of widespread colorism that James Brown’s anthem “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” posed a challenge, felt so exhilarating, and resonated so powerfully. It still does. Much has changed over the past half century. But, alas, the need to defend blackness against derision continues.
    Various musicians in the 1960s tapped into yearnings for black assertiveness, autonomy and solidarity. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions sang “We’re a Winner.” Sly and the Family Stone offered “Stand.” Sam Cooke (and Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding) performed “A Change is Gonna Come.” But no entertainer equaled Brown’s vocalization of African-Americans’ newly triumphal sense of self-acceptance.
   That Brown created the song most popularly associated with the Black is Beautiful movement is ironic. He generally stayed away from protest, endorsed the presidential re-election of Richard Nixon, lavishly praised Ronald Reagan, and consistently lauded Strom Thurmond.
   His infrequent sallies into politics usually sounded in patriotic, lift-yourselfup-ism. In the song “America is My Home,” he proclaimed without embarrassment that the United States “is still the best country / And that’s without a doubt.” Alluding to his own trajectory, he challenged dissenters to name any other country in which a person could start out as a poor shoeshine boy but end up as a wealthy celebrity shaking hands with the president.
   At the very time that in “Say It Loud,” Brown seemed to be affirming Negritude, he also sported a “conk” — a distinctive hairdo that involved chemically removing kinkiness on the way to creating a bouffant of straightened hair. Many AfricanAmerican political activists, especially those with a black nationalist orientation, decried the conk as an illustration of racial self-hatred. For a brief period, Brown abandoned the conk and adopted an Afro, but that was only temporary. The conk was part of the characteristic look of “The Godfather of Soul.”
   Even though by 1968 uprisings against white supremacism had been erupting for a decade with great intensity and success — the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Children’s’ Crusade in Birmingham, the protest against disenfranchisement in Selma — prejudice against blackness remained prevalent, including among African-Americans.
   Champions of African-American uplift in the 1960s sought to liberate blackness from the layers of contempt, fear, and hatred with which it had been smeared for centuries. Brown’s anthem poignantly reflected the psychic problem it sought to address. People secure in their status don’t feel compelled to trumpet their pride. At the same time “Say it Loud!” was a rousing instance of a reclamation that took many forms. Instead of celebrating light skin, thin lips, and “good” (i.e., straight) hair, increasing numbers of African-Americans began valorizing dark skin, thick lips and “bad” (i.e., kinky) hair.
    The reclamation of blackness in the sixties made tremendous headway quickly. By 1970 my friend would not have dared to repeat out loud what he had told me unapologetically two years before. Here, as elsewhere, however, changes wrought by the black liberation movement, though impressive, were only partial. Nearly four decades after the release of “Say It Loud,” Professors Jennifer Hochschild and Vesla Weaver, having synthesized the pertinent academic literature, declared authoritatively that compared to their lighter-skinned counterparts, dark-skinned blacks continue to be burdened by lower levels of education, income, and job status. They receive longer prison sentences and are less likely to own homes or to marry. Filmmakers, advertisers, modeling agencies, dating websites and other key gatekeepers demonstrate repeatedly the ongoing pertinence of the old saw: If you’re black get back. If you’re brown, stick around. If you’re white you’re alright.
      Intraracial colorism in Black America is often seen as a topic that should, if possible, be avoided, especially in “mixed company.” That sense of embarrassment three decades ago prompted officials at Morehouse College to demand that Spike Lee cease filming on campus once they learned that his movie was exposing, among other things, black collegiate colorism. The impulse toward avoidance remains strong.
    With racial prejudice against all African-Americans still a potent force, many would just as soon ditch the discussion of “black on black” complexional bias. Colorism, however, remains a baleful reality.
   Half a century after James Brown’s proclamation, it remains imperative to assert what should have been assumed and uncontroversial all along: that black is beautiful and as worthy of pride and care and consideration as any other hue.

(Adapted from: www.nytimes.com, 20/07/2018)
A
they were both lenient.
B
they were both criticizing white people racist behavior.
C
they were black and they were proud.
D
they didn’t acknowledge themselves as black.
E
they were self-conscious about their color.
4d3d69ad-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The text mentions a certain paradox in Brown’s attitudes. This is because:

How James Brown Made Black Pride a Hit

It’s been 50 years since he wrote “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,” a song that is still necessary.

By Randall Kennedy

   In the gym at Paul Junior High School in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1968, not that long before the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I asked a buddy whether he was interested in a certain girl. He told me that he was not because she was too dark.


   
   He and I were African-American. (Then we would have called ourselves Negro.) So was she. All of us supported the Civil Rights Movement and idolized Dr. King, yet I did not hold my friend’s colorstruck judgment against him. And he did not state his opinion with embarrassment. We had both internalized our society’s derogation of blackness.
    Indeed, we luxuriated in the denigration, spending hours trading silly, recycled but revealing insults: “Yo mama so black, she blend in with the chalkboard.” “Yeah, well, yo mama so black, she sweats chocolate.”
   It was precisely because of widespread colorism that James Brown’s anthem “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” posed a challenge, felt so exhilarating, and resonated so powerfully. It still does. Much has changed over the past half century. But, alas, the need to defend blackness against derision continues.
    Various musicians in the 1960s tapped into yearnings for black assertiveness, autonomy and solidarity. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions sang “We’re a Winner.” Sly and the Family Stone offered “Stand.” Sam Cooke (and Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding) performed “A Change is Gonna Come.” But no entertainer equaled Brown’s vocalization of African-Americans’ newly triumphal sense of self-acceptance.
   That Brown created the song most popularly associated with the Black is Beautiful movement is ironic. He generally stayed away from protest, endorsed the presidential re-election of Richard Nixon, lavishly praised Ronald Reagan, and consistently lauded Strom Thurmond.
   His infrequent sallies into politics usually sounded in patriotic, lift-yourselfup-ism. In the song “America is My Home,” he proclaimed without embarrassment that the United States “is still the best country / And that’s without a doubt.” Alluding to his own trajectory, he challenged dissenters to name any other country in which a person could start out as a poor shoeshine boy but end up as a wealthy celebrity shaking hands with the president.
   At the very time that in “Say It Loud,” Brown seemed to be affirming Negritude, he also sported a “conk” — a distinctive hairdo that involved chemically removing kinkiness on the way to creating a bouffant of straightened hair. Many AfricanAmerican political activists, especially those with a black nationalist orientation, decried the conk as an illustration of racial self-hatred. For a brief period, Brown abandoned the conk and adopted an Afro, but that was only temporary. The conk was part of the characteristic look of “The Godfather of Soul.”
   Even though by 1968 uprisings against white supremacism had been erupting for a decade with great intensity and success — the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Children’s’ Crusade in Birmingham, the protest against disenfranchisement in Selma — prejudice against blackness remained prevalent, including among African-Americans.
   Champions of African-American uplift in the 1960s sought to liberate blackness from the layers of contempt, fear, and hatred with which it had been smeared for centuries. Brown’s anthem poignantly reflected the psychic problem it sought to address. People secure in their status don’t feel compelled to trumpet their pride. At the same time “Say it Loud!” was a rousing instance of a reclamation that took many forms. Instead of celebrating light skin, thin lips, and “good” (i.e., straight) hair, increasing numbers of African-Americans began valorizing dark skin, thick lips and “bad” (i.e., kinky) hair.
    The reclamation of blackness in the sixties made tremendous headway quickly. By 1970 my friend would not have dared to repeat out loud what he had told me unapologetically two years before. Here, as elsewhere, however, changes wrought by the black liberation movement, though impressive, were only partial. Nearly four decades after the release of “Say It Loud,” Professors Jennifer Hochschild and Vesla Weaver, having synthesized the pertinent academic literature, declared authoritatively that compared to their lighter-skinned counterparts, dark-skinned blacks continue to be burdened by lower levels of education, income, and job status. They receive longer prison sentences and are less likely to own homes or to marry. Filmmakers, advertisers, modeling agencies, dating websites and other key gatekeepers demonstrate repeatedly the ongoing pertinence of the old saw: If you’re black get back. If you’re brown, stick around. If you’re white you’re alright.
      Intraracial colorism in Black America is often seen as a topic that should, if possible, be avoided, especially in “mixed company.” That sense of embarrassment three decades ago prompted officials at Morehouse College to demand that Spike Lee cease filming on campus once they learned that his movie was exposing, among other things, black collegiate colorism. The impulse toward avoidance remains strong.
    With racial prejudice against all African-Americans still a potent force, many would just as soon ditch the discussion of “black on black” complexional bias. Colorism, however, remains a baleful reality.
   Half a century after James Brown’s proclamation, it remains imperative to assert what should have been assumed and uncontroversial all along: that black is beautiful and as worthy of pride and care and consideration as any other hue.

(Adapted from: www.nytimes.com, 20/07/2018)
A
despite his colorism, he constantly praised white people.
B
although he spoke high of Negritude, his hair looks didn’t match his say.
C
even though he fought for the Civil Rights, he proclaimed that the United States was the best country to live in.
D
although his song stuck up for black pride, he was subdued by a stronger need of fitting in the American society.
E
in spite of his conk hairdo, he objected coming across as an American patriot.
4d4059cb-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

As of late 1960s, after the release of “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud”:

How James Brown Made Black Pride a Hit

It’s been 50 years since he wrote “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,” a song that is still necessary.

By Randall Kennedy

   In the gym at Paul Junior High School in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1968, not that long before the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I asked a buddy whether he was interested in a certain girl. He told me that he was not because she was too dark.


   
   He and I were African-American. (Then we would have called ourselves Negro.) So was she. All of us supported the Civil Rights Movement and idolized Dr. King, yet I did not hold my friend’s colorstruck judgment against him. And he did not state his opinion with embarrassment. We had both internalized our society’s derogation of blackness.
    Indeed, we luxuriated in the denigration, spending hours trading silly, recycled but revealing insults: “Yo mama so black, she blend in with the chalkboard.” “Yeah, well, yo mama so black, she sweats chocolate.”
   It was precisely because of widespread colorism that James Brown’s anthem “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” posed a challenge, felt so exhilarating, and resonated so powerfully. It still does. Much has changed over the past half century. But, alas, the need to defend blackness against derision continues.
    Various musicians in the 1960s tapped into yearnings for black assertiveness, autonomy and solidarity. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions sang “We’re a Winner.” Sly and the Family Stone offered “Stand.” Sam Cooke (and Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding) performed “A Change is Gonna Come.” But no entertainer equaled Brown’s vocalization of African-Americans’ newly triumphal sense of self-acceptance.
   That Brown created the song most popularly associated with the Black is Beautiful movement is ironic. He generally stayed away from protest, endorsed the presidential re-election of Richard Nixon, lavishly praised Ronald Reagan, and consistently lauded Strom Thurmond.
   His infrequent sallies into politics usually sounded in patriotic, lift-yourselfup-ism. In the song “America is My Home,” he proclaimed without embarrassment that the United States “is still the best country / And that’s without a doubt.” Alluding to his own trajectory, he challenged dissenters to name any other country in which a person could start out as a poor shoeshine boy but end up as a wealthy celebrity shaking hands with the president.
   At the very time that in “Say It Loud,” Brown seemed to be affirming Negritude, he also sported a “conk” — a distinctive hairdo that involved chemically removing kinkiness on the way to creating a bouffant of straightened hair. Many AfricanAmerican political activists, especially those with a black nationalist orientation, decried the conk as an illustration of racial self-hatred. For a brief period, Brown abandoned the conk and adopted an Afro, but that was only temporary. The conk was part of the characteristic look of “The Godfather of Soul.”
   Even though by 1968 uprisings against white supremacism had been erupting for a decade with great intensity and success — the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Children’s’ Crusade in Birmingham, the protest against disenfranchisement in Selma — prejudice against blackness remained prevalent, including among African-Americans.
   Champions of African-American uplift in the 1960s sought to liberate blackness from the layers of contempt, fear, and hatred with which it had been smeared for centuries. Brown’s anthem poignantly reflected the psychic problem it sought to address. People secure in their status don’t feel compelled to trumpet their pride. At the same time “Say it Loud!” was a rousing instance of a reclamation that took many forms. Instead of celebrating light skin, thin lips, and “good” (i.e., straight) hair, increasing numbers of African-Americans began valorizing dark skin, thick lips and “bad” (i.e., kinky) hair.
    The reclamation of blackness in the sixties made tremendous headway quickly. By 1970 my friend would not have dared to repeat out loud what he had told me unapologetically two years before. Here, as elsewhere, however, changes wrought by the black liberation movement, though impressive, were only partial. Nearly four decades after the release of “Say It Loud,” Professors Jennifer Hochschild and Vesla Weaver, having synthesized the pertinent academic literature, declared authoritatively that compared to their lighter-skinned counterparts, dark-skinned blacks continue to be burdened by lower levels of education, income, and job status. They receive longer prison sentences and are less likely to own homes or to marry. Filmmakers, advertisers, modeling agencies, dating websites and other key gatekeepers demonstrate repeatedly the ongoing pertinence of the old saw: If you’re black get back. If you’re brown, stick around. If you’re white you’re alright.
      Intraracial colorism in Black America is often seen as a topic that should, if possible, be avoided, especially in “mixed company.” That sense of embarrassment three decades ago prompted officials at Morehouse College to demand that Spike Lee cease filming on campus once they learned that his movie was exposing, among other things, black collegiate colorism. The impulse toward avoidance remains strong.
    With racial prejudice against all African-Americans still a potent force, many would just as soon ditch the discussion of “black on black” complexional bias. Colorism, however, remains a baleful reality.
   Half a century after James Brown’s proclamation, it remains imperative to assert what should have been assumed and uncontroversial all along: that black is beautiful and as worthy of pride and care and consideration as any other hue.

(Adapted from: www.nytimes.com, 20/07/2018)
A
there have been vanishingly fewer cases of racial prejudice in the United States.
B
colorism remains a menacing certainty.
C
black people have been more and more contemptuous about their color.
D
awareness about racism has been gradually decreasing.
E
intraracial colorism has increasingly appeared in the spotlight of college discussions.
4d433ac4-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The author of the article:

Beyonce, colorism, and why all of this needs to end


by Ernest Owens


    Yes, the Super Bowl was on fire. As one who is very critical of halftime show performances, I cannot deny that Beyoncé brought the energy and attention. All of this led to her releasing her tour dates for the Mrs. Carter Show. As excited as I was to actually buy these tickets, something turned me off. The poster.




   If you haven’t seen the photographs for Beyonce’s new world tour, you probably wouldn’t even recognize her. You will see an image of what looks like a Victorian white woman in the Elizabethan era. Her (prosthetic) blonde hair puffed and extended to reveal a face that is almost as white as snow. Lips red and her skin powdered. This is not the same bronze Beyonce that I saw rocking the stage in an all female band with her darker Destiny’s Child counterparts. I was only left with memories of previous patterns that the multi-Grammy award winning artist had done in previous years in regards to her skin. And I asked myself the question: why, Bey?

     Let’s not act like this is something new. Over the years, it seems as though Beyonce has gotten lighter as she has gotten older. No, this is not genetics and let’s not pretend her skin color in her first Destiny’s Child album cover matches that of her latest album. Whether it is that highly controversial Revlon advertisement or her own album cover art, Beyonce has consistently been called out on alterations done to her pigments.

    What does this say about our society for black women? It tells me that, an independent, confident and successful woman of color still struggles to have the confidence to fully embrace the skin she is in. If one of the most powerful women in entertainment feels she has to lighten her skin for projection, what does that say for the rest of us?

    Believe it or not, colorism, the stigma associated with skin complexion, has been an ill that has not yet been dissolved by the black community. What was first given to us by slave masters in separating the house slaves from the field ones, has now taken place in how we objectify our women and each other.

    This is pretty problematic in many ways. It’s first of all self-loathing and unnecessary for today’s times. The fact that our nation had an African-American first lady with a complexion that isn’t on the lighter side of the spectrum, nor does it try to be, shows a compelling advancement in appreciation for all women of color in many ways.

     Furthermore, the only reason why such stigma in our country continues is contributed to our own behavior that is shaped by the influential people of color around us. It devastated me when I saw that Sammy Sosa had lightened his skin. As successful as he was in a field that was not necessarily fixated on male skin complexion, it saddened me to see him do it. In many ways, it even made me reflect back on the transition of the late great Michael Jackson and what explanations he had for such a more pale white appearance.

    And why does all of this matter? Because I grew up hearing stories of young dark black girls getting their faces scrubbed with skin lightening soaps out of their free will. Tales of young women being abandoned by their mothers because they were too dark.

    If this is the reality that had more implications back in the early 20th century than it does now, please stop it. Stop trying to explain why you are dating the ebony skin girl. Stop making it seem exceptional that a girl of a darker complexion is actually attractive. Celebrities, stop putting extraneous powders and lighteners on your skin: we all know what you used to look like and we still love you. And people of color: let’s not continue to perpetuate an oppressive cycle of self-loathing of our appearance and heritage. If this can be accomplished, then perhaps even in our own race we can truly make our lives not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.


(adapted from www.huffingtonpost.com, 14/02/2013)

A
indicated that he wanted to attend a concert by Beyoncé.
B
wasn’t really into attending a show given by Beyoncé.
C
was interested in the artist when he saw the ad of the tour.
D
seems to enjoy watching Super Bowl halftime performances.
E
is a critic of pop music.
4d46e6a4-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The author of the article criticizes the fact that the producers:

Beyonce, colorism, and why all of this needs to end


by Ernest Owens


    Yes, the Super Bowl was on fire. As one who is very critical of halftime show performances, I cannot deny that Beyoncé brought the energy and attention. All of this led to her releasing her tour dates for the Mrs. Carter Show. As excited as I was to actually buy these tickets, something turned me off. The poster.




   If you haven’t seen the photographs for Beyonce’s new world tour, you probably wouldn’t even recognize her. You will see an image of what looks like a Victorian white woman in the Elizabethan era. Her (prosthetic) blonde hair puffed and extended to reveal a face that is almost as white as snow. Lips red and her skin powdered. This is not the same bronze Beyonce that I saw rocking the stage in an all female band with her darker Destiny’s Child counterparts. I was only left with memories of previous patterns that the multi-Grammy award winning artist had done in previous years in regards to her skin. And I asked myself the question: why, Bey?

     Let’s not act like this is something new. Over the years, it seems as though Beyonce has gotten lighter as she has gotten older. No, this is not genetics and let’s not pretend her skin color in her first Destiny’s Child album cover matches that of her latest album. Whether it is that highly controversial Revlon advertisement or her own album cover art, Beyonce has consistently been called out on alterations done to her pigments.

    What does this say about our society for black women? It tells me that, an independent, confident and successful woman of color still struggles to have the confidence to fully embrace the skin she is in. If one of the most powerful women in entertainment feels she has to lighten her skin for projection, what does that say for the rest of us?

    Believe it or not, colorism, the stigma associated with skin complexion, has been an ill that has not yet been dissolved by the black community. What was first given to us by slave masters in separating the house slaves from the field ones, has now taken place in how we objectify our women and each other.

    This is pretty problematic in many ways. It’s first of all self-loathing and unnecessary for today’s times. The fact that our nation had an African-American first lady with a complexion that isn’t on the lighter side of the spectrum, nor does it try to be, shows a compelling advancement in appreciation for all women of color in many ways.

     Furthermore, the only reason why such stigma in our country continues is contributed to our own behavior that is shaped by the influential people of color around us. It devastated me when I saw that Sammy Sosa had lightened his skin. As successful as he was in a field that was not necessarily fixated on male skin complexion, it saddened me to see him do it. In many ways, it even made me reflect back on the transition of the late great Michael Jackson and what explanations he had for such a more pale white appearance.

    And why does all of this matter? Because I grew up hearing stories of young dark black girls getting their faces scrubbed with skin lightening soaps out of their free will. Tales of young women being abandoned by their mothers because they were too dark.

    If this is the reality that had more implications back in the early 20th century than it does now, please stop it. Stop trying to explain why you are dating the ebony skin girl. Stop making it seem exceptional that a girl of a darker complexion is actually attractive. Celebrities, stop putting extraneous powders and lighteners on your skin: we all know what you used to look like and we still love you. And people of color: let’s not continue to perpetuate an oppressive cycle of self-loathing of our appearance and heritage. If this can be accomplished, then perhaps even in our own race we can truly make our lives not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.


(adapted from www.huffingtonpost.com, 14/02/2013)

A
chose to employ a caucasian model.
B
wanted to associate the singer to a specific historic period.
C
intended to make the singer look unrecognizable.
D
edited Beyonce’s complexion to make it lighter.
E
hardly used makeup on the singer.
4d4a505a-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According the article:

Beyonce, colorism, and why all of this needs to end


by Ernest Owens


    Yes, the Super Bowl was on fire. As one who is very critical of halftime show performances, I cannot deny that Beyoncé brought the energy and attention. All of this led to her releasing her tour dates for the Mrs. Carter Show. As excited as I was to actually buy these tickets, something turned me off. The poster.




   If you haven’t seen the photographs for Beyonce’s new world tour, you probably wouldn’t even recognize her. You will see an image of what looks like a Victorian white woman in the Elizabethan era. Her (prosthetic) blonde hair puffed and extended to reveal a face that is almost as white as snow. Lips red and her skin powdered. This is not the same bronze Beyonce that I saw rocking the stage in an all female band with her darker Destiny’s Child counterparts. I was only left with memories of previous patterns that the multi-Grammy award winning artist had done in previous years in regards to her skin. And I asked myself the question: why, Bey?

     Let’s not act like this is something new. Over the years, it seems as though Beyonce has gotten lighter as she has gotten older. No, this is not genetics and let’s not pretend her skin color in her first Destiny’s Child album cover matches that of her latest album. Whether it is that highly controversial Revlon advertisement or her own album cover art, Beyonce has consistently been called out on alterations done to her pigments.

    What does this say about our society for black women? It tells me that, an independent, confident and successful woman of color still struggles to have the confidence to fully embrace the skin she is in. If one of the most powerful women in entertainment feels she has to lighten her skin for projection, what does that say for the rest of us?

    Believe it or not, colorism, the stigma associated with skin complexion, has been an ill that has not yet been dissolved by the black community. What was first given to us by slave masters in separating the house slaves from the field ones, has now taken place in how we objectify our women and each other.

    This is pretty problematic in many ways. It’s first of all self-loathing and unnecessary for today’s times. The fact that our nation had an African-American first lady with a complexion that isn’t on the lighter side of the spectrum, nor does it try to be, shows a compelling advancement in appreciation for all women of color in many ways.

     Furthermore, the only reason why such stigma in our country continues is contributed to our own behavior that is shaped by the influential people of color around us. It devastated me when I saw that Sammy Sosa had lightened his skin. As successful as he was in a field that was not necessarily fixated on male skin complexion, it saddened me to see him do it. In many ways, it even made me reflect back on the transition of the late great Michael Jackson and what explanations he had for such a more pale white appearance.

    And why does all of this matter? Because I grew up hearing stories of young dark black girls getting their faces scrubbed with skin lightening soaps out of their free will. Tales of young women being abandoned by their mothers because they were too dark.

    If this is the reality that had more implications back in the early 20th century than it does now, please stop it. Stop trying to explain why you are dating the ebony skin girl. Stop making it seem exceptional that a girl of a darker complexion is actually attractive. Celebrities, stop putting extraneous powders and lighteners on your skin: we all know what you used to look like and we still love you. And people of color: let’s not continue to perpetuate an oppressive cycle of self-loathing of our appearance and heritage. If this can be accomplished, then perhaps even in our own race we can truly make our lives not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.


(adapted from www.huffingtonpost.com, 14/02/2013)

A
some influential black people keep falling in the colorism trap.
B
influential black people are no longer victims of colorism.
C
Beyonce had no choice but to modify her looks to boost her career.
D
women of color nowadays refuse to alter their looks for projection.
E
the colorism stigma is a thing of the past.
4d4deecb-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Pronome demonstrativo | Demonstrative pronoun, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension, Pronomes | Pronouns

The pronoun “it” in the phrase “nor does it try to be”, bold faced, in paragraph 6 refers to:

Beyonce, colorism, and why all of this needs to end


by Ernest Owens


    Yes, the Super Bowl was on fire. As one who is very critical of halftime show performances, I cannot deny that Beyoncé brought the energy and attention. All of this led to her releasing her tour dates for the Mrs. Carter Show. As excited as I was to actually buy these tickets, something turned me off. The poster.




   If you haven’t seen the photographs for Beyonce’s new world tour, you probably wouldn’t even recognize her. You will see an image of what looks like a Victorian white woman in the Elizabethan era. Her (prosthetic) blonde hair puffed and extended to reveal a face that is almost as white as snow. Lips red and her skin powdered. This is not the same bronze Beyonce that I saw rocking the stage in an all female band with her darker Destiny’s Child counterparts. I was only left with memories of previous patterns that the multi-Grammy award winning artist had done in previous years in regards to her skin. And I asked myself the question: why, Bey?

     Let’s not act like this is something new. Over the years, it seems as though Beyonce has gotten lighter as she has gotten older. No, this is not genetics and let’s not pretend her skin color in her first Destiny’s Child album cover matches that of her latest album. Whether it is that highly controversial Revlon advertisement or her own album cover art, Beyonce has consistently been called out on alterations done to her pigments.

    What does this say about our society for black women? It tells me that, an independent, confident and successful woman of color still struggles to have the confidence to fully embrace the skin she is in. If one of the most powerful women in entertainment feels she has to lighten her skin for projection, what does that say for the rest of us?

    Believe it or not, colorism, the stigma associated with skin complexion, has been an ill that has not yet been dissolved by the black community. What was first given to us by slave masters in separating the house slaves from the field ones, has now taken place in how we objectify our women and each other.

    This is pretty problematic in many ways. It’s first of all self-loathing and unnecessary for today’s times. The fact that our nation had an African-American first lady with a complexion that isn’t on the lighter side of the spectrum, nor does it try to be, shows a compelling advancement in appreciation for all women of color in many ways.

     Furthermore, the only reason why such stigma in our country continues is contributed to our own behavior that is shaped by the influential people of color around us. It devastated me when I saw that Sammy Sosa had lightened his skin. As successful as he was in a field that was not necessarily fixated on male skin complexion, it saddened me to see him do it. In many ways, it even made me reflect back on the transition of the late great Michael Jackson and what explanations he had for such a more pale white appearance.

    And why does all of this matter? Because I grew up hearing stories of young dark black girls getting their faces scrubbed with skin lightening soaps out of their free will. Tales of young women being abandoned by their mothers because they were too dark.

    If this is the reality that had more implications back in the early 20th century than it does now, please stop it. Stop trying to explain why you are dating the ebony skin girl. Stop making it seem exceptional that a girl of a darker complexion is actually attractive. Celebrities, stop putting extraneous powders and lighteners on your skin: we all know what you used to look like and we still love you. And people of color: let’s not continue to perpetuate an oppressive cycle of self-loathing of our appearance and heritage. If this can be accomplished, then perhaps even in our own race we can truly make our lives not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.


(adapted from www.huffingtonpost.com, 14/02/2013)

A
spectrum
B
the first lady
C
complexion
D
nation
E
lighter side
4d510432-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

The cartoon:

    Theodor Seuss “Ted” Geisel was an American author, political cartoonist, poet, animator, book publisher, and artist, best known for authoring more than 60 children’s books under the pen name Doctor Seuss (abbreviated Dr. Seuss). As World War II began, he turned to political cartoons, drawing over 400 in two years as editorial cartoonist for the left-leaning New York City daily newspaper. He strongly supports US entry into the war. This is one of his creations from 1941:


A
was intended for child audiences.
B
criticizes violence in fairy tales.
C
condemns America’s indifference to the death of foreign children.
D
repudiates Adolf Hitler’s decisions.
E
depicts American mothers are mean and cold.
4d544213-fd
ESPM 2018 - Inglês - Preposições | Prepositions

The use of the prepositions “up” and “out” after “chewed” and "spit" change the original meanings of the verbs. With them, the new meaning:

    Theodor Seuss “Ted” Geisel was an American author, political cartoonist, poet, animator, book publisher, and artist, best known for authoring more than 60 children’s books under the pen name Doctor Seuss (abbreviated Dr. Seuss). As World War II began, he turned to political cartoons, drawing over 400 in two years as editorial cartoonist for the left-leaning New York City daily newspaper. He strongly supports US entry into the war. This is one of his creations from 1941:


A
is only softened.
B
is stronger and more aggressive.
C
of “chewed” is softened but of “spit” is strengthened.
D
weakens the degree of sophistication to the original meaning.
E
is completely different from the original.