Questõessobre Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

1
1
Foram encontradas 5029 questões
6c9e30be-ff
URCA 2017 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the text, it is right to say that:

IS A VEGAN DIET HEALTHY?


By Mary Lynch


    As a registered nutritionist, the question “Is the vegan diet healthy?” is one I get all the time, especially at this time of year.

    Frustratingly, the answer is that it depends as much on what you eat as with any other diet. Someone living purely on ready salted crisps or chips, for example, would be technically following a vegan diet, but it would in no way be healthy.

    However, research shows that there are potential benefits to a vegan diet. A recent study indicated that the average vegan diet is higher in vitamin C and fibre, and lower in saturated fat than one containing meat. In addition, statistics show that vegans have a lower BMI (height-to-weight ratio) than meat eaters – in other words, they are skinnier.

    You see, a diet without any meat or dairy products is likely to contain a lot less saturated fat, which is related to increased cholesterol levels and increased risk of heart disease. We also know that fat contains more calories per gram than other foods, and so vegans may consume fewer calories as a result. Finally, a vegan diet is generally thought to contain more cereals, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds than a non¬vegan diet.

    Sounds   great   right?   Not   quite.   In   terms   of   micronutrients,   a   vegan   diet   is   actually   more susceptible to being nutritionally poor. A vegan diet is naturally low in calcium, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B12, zinc and omega-3 fatty acids. Therefore, if you follow a vegan diet it is essential that you get enough of these nutrients through specific vegan food sources – and may even need to take additional supplements. We have many recipes suitable for vegans that can help, just check out our vegan section. In our features we also have this traditional hummus recipe, which contains tahini – a good source of calcium, zinc and iron, which are all micronutrients hard to get a hold of on a vegan diet.

    So there you have it: going vegan does not necessarily mean you are going to be healthier. In fact, I think that much of the improvement in diets among vegans is a result of education rather than going meat free. In other words, if someone chooses to go vegan they are more likely to care about what they are eating and therefore are more likely to educate themselves on the types of foods they should and should not be eating.


From: https://goo.gl/AwDYY7. Accessed on 03/22/2017.

A
Salty crisps and chips are examples of vegan food;
B
Vegan diet is far better for our health than any other diet;
C
Eating meat and dairy products doesn´t bring any benefit for healthy;
D
Any kind of vegan diet can provide all the micronutrients our body needs;
E
Calcium, zinc and iron are micronutrients easily found on a vegan diet.
6c902fde-ff
URCA 2017 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

A vegan would easily eat:

VEGAN VS VEGETARIAN – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

 

By Alina Petre

     

    Vegetarian diets have reportedly been around since as early as 700 B.C. Several typesexist and individuals may practice them for a variety of reasons, including health, ethics, environmentalism and religion. Vegan diets are a little more recent, but are getting a good amount of press.

 

What is a vegetarian diet?

 

     According to the Vegetarian Society, a vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or by-products of animal slaughter. Vegetarian diets contain various levels of fruits, vegetables, grains, pulses, nuts and seeds. The inclusion of dairy and eggs depends on the type of diet you follow.

 

The most common types of vegetarians include:

 

• Lacto-ovo vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid all animal flesh, but do consume dairy and egg products.

• Lacto vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid animal flesh and eggs, but do consume dairy products.

• Ovo vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid all animal products except eggs.

• Vegans: Vegetarians who avoid all animal and animal-derived products.

 

   Those  who do not eat  meat  or poultry but  do consume  fish are considered pescatarians, whereas part-time vegetarians are often referred to as flexitarians.

    Although sometimes considered vegetarians, pescatarians and flexitarians do eat animal flesh. Therefore, they do not technically fall under the definition of vegetarianism.

 

From: https://goo.gl/n9yEy1. Accessed on 03/22/2017

A
oysters, milk and honey;
B
shrimp, honey and carrots;
C
rice, beans and vegetables;
D
saussage, pasta and leaves;
E
ham, cheese and eggs.
6c8beb38-ff
URCA 2017 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the text, it is right to say that:

VEGAN VS VEGETARIAN – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

 

By Alina Petre

     

    Vegetarian diets have reportedly been around since as early as 700 B.C. Several typesexist and individuals may practice them for a variety of reasons, including health, ethics, environmentalism and religion. Vegan diets are a little more recent, but are getting a good amount of press.

 

What is a vegetarian diet?

 

     According to the Vegetarian Society, a vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or by-products of animal slaughter. Vegetarian diets contain various levels of fruits, vegetables, grains, pulses, nuts and seeds. The inclusion of dairy and eggs depends on the type of diet you follow.

 

The most common types of vegetarians include:

 

• Lacto-ovo vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid all animal flesh, but do consume dairy and egg products.

• Lacto vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid animal flesh and eggs, but do consume dairy products.

• Ovo vegetarians: Vegetarians who avoid all animal products except eggs.

• Vegans: Vegetarians who avoid all animal and animal-derived products.

 

   Those  who do not eat  meat  or poultry but  do consume  fish are considered pescatarians, whereas part-time vegetarians are often referred to as flexitarians.

    Although sometimes considered vegetarians, pescatarians and flexitarians do eat animal flesh. Therefore, they do not technically fall under the definition of vegetarianism.

 

From: https://goo.gl/n9yEy1. Accessed on 03/22/2017

A
Vegan diet is as old as vegetarian diet;
B
No one knows how long vegetarian diet exists;
C
There are many types of vegan diet;
D
Vegetarian diet followers have different types of justification;
E
Health is the only reason people choose a vegan diet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
92550ec2-02
UNIFOA 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Digital addiction increases loneliness, anxiety and depression

Smartphones are an integral part of most people's lives, allowing us to stay connected and in-the-know at all times. The downside of that convenience is that many of us are also addicted to the constant pings, chimes, vibrations and other alerts from our devices, unable to ignore new emails, texts and images. In a new study published in NeuroRegulation, San Francisco State University Professor of Health Education Erik Peper and Associate Professor of Health Education Richard Harvey argue that overuse of smart phones is just like any other type of substance abuse.

Story from: Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411161316.htm
Published: 11 April 2018

Segundo o texto,

A
o uso de smartphones leva a uma dependência de uma substância abusiva.
B
a conveniência do uso de smartphones é o alerta.
C
o uso excessivo de smartphones é considerado como um abuso de substâncias.
D
os smartphones são incapazes de nos possibilitar ignorar novos e-mails, textos e imagens.
E
as dependências acontecem com pessoas propícias a sentir solidão.
925883a5-02
UNIFOA 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Evidence mounts for Alzheimer's, suicide risks among youth in polluted cities

A University of Montana researcher and her collaborators have published a new study that reveals increased risks for Alzheimer's and suicide among children and young adults living in polluted megacities.

Story from Science Daily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180413155259.htm
Published: 13 April 2018

Podemos afirmar que

A
o texto não informa se o pesquisador é do sexo masculino ou feminino.
B
os colaboradores do estudo são do sexo feminino, pois o texto utiliza um pronome possessivo.
C
o pesquisador é do sexo masculino e os colaboradores são do sexo feminino.
D
o texto não traz nenhuma palavra que explicite o sexo do pesquisador.
E
o pesquisador do estudo apresentado é do sexo feminino pelo uso do pronome her.
925bfa06-02
UNIFOA 2018 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Natural selection gave a freediving people in Southeast Asia bigger spleens


The Bajau people of Southeast Asia, known as Sea Nomads, spend their whole lives at sea, working eight-hour diving shifts with traditional equipment and short breaks to catch fish and shellfish for their families. In a study published April 19 in the journal Cell, researchers report that the extraordinary diving abilities of the Bajau may be thanks in part to their unusually large spleens. The adaptation, the researchers say, is a rare example of natural selection in modern humans -- and one that could provide medically relevant insight into how humans manage acute hypoxia.


Vocabulary: Spleens – baços

Hypoxia – hipóxia (baixa concentração de oxigênio nos tecidos)


Story from Science Daily

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180419131128.htm

Published: 19 April 2018


Segundo o estudo apresentado,

A
o povo Bajau é habilidoso no mergulho devido à seleção natural.
B
justifica-se a habilidade do povo Bajau em mergulho pelo uso de equipamento tradicional.
C
o exemplo raro de seleção natural, deve-se ao tempo de mergulho.
D
os incomuns grandes baços do povo Bajau justificam, em parte, suas habilidades de mergulho.
E
a habilidade em mergulho deve-se, exclusivamente, ao turno de oito horas de trabalho diário.
cb72d973-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Read the comic strip bellow and answer question:


According to the comic strip, choose the best alternative:



A
The lion is angry about the noise.
B
The machines are interrupting the lion’s singing
C
The lion is angry because the forest is not on sale.
D
The lion is worried about paper production.
E
The lion is complaining that the area is not clear.
cb68b520-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the article, choose the correct alternative:

Read the text and answer question


How to Make Friends While Traveling Solo

Even in the best cases, traveling alone can get lonely. Here’s how to connect safely with the people you meet along the way.

By Aric Jenkins April 16, 2019

Experiencing another culture on your own terms, at your own pace, with a budget of your own choosing can be an incredibly rewarding and insightful adventure. But while some may find such a journey liberating, others might worry about safety or a period of solitude in a strange, unfamiliar place. Humans, after all, are social animals.
Prospective solo travelers should know that, despite its label, solo travel does not have to mean you’re alone all the time. There are local communities to safely interact with as well as fellow globe-trotters in a similar position.
A 2016 report from travel research company Phocuswright found that a whopping 72 percent of hostel guests in the United States were traveling alone. Airbnb saw similar a trend in its data, with cities like Ho Chi Minh City, Cologne, and Johannesburg experiencing more than a 130 percent increase in individual bookings in 2016.
With solo traveling growing in popularity, it’s clear there are options to socialize with other travelers — it’s just a matter of putting yourself in the right position to do so. Here are some tactics you can use to meet and befriend people abroad, from tried-and-true methods to innovative new apps and technology.
Go on ‘free’ walking tours
The word free is in quotations because, assuming your tour guide is at least half-decent, you should tip them at the end (many earn the majority of their income on commission). But these walking tours can be worth every penny. Not only will the guide give you an informed and hopefully entertaining view of the locale, but you’ll have a chance to interact with other tourists and possibly come away with a new friend.
(…)
Use Airbnb to go on unique experiences hosted by locals
Airbnb may be known more for its lodging arrangements, but it also wants to give you something to do at your destination. Airbnb Experiences connects travelers with local guides who lead guests on paid activities ranging from city tours to bar crawls and hobby and skill classes. Launched in late 2016, Experiences quickly became a popular feature.
Connect with like-minded explorers on social travel apps
Prefer to cut out the middleman and connect directly with other travelers? Try your hand at the crop of social networking apps specifically designed for travel. Travello, free on iOS and Android, allows you to discover other travelers nearby, match itineraries for planned trips and join groups based on similar interests. You can also create a feed by posting photos and updates.
(…)
Stay in hostels
In a world of hospitable hotels and authentic Airbnbs, why do travelers elect to stay in hostels? Two reasons, really: Hostels are cheap and sociable. You’ll find college-esque dormitories with common lounge rooms and kitchens, and sometimes a bar or cafe.
It’s an ideal environment to meet other travelers, and hostel staffs are well aware of this — some will lead city tours or pub crawls designed to foster interaction between hostel mates. Others might host game nights in the common room or arrange family dinners.
(…)
Adapted from the digital edition of The New York Times: www.nytimes.com

A
Travelling alone is terrifying because it is a period of solitude in one unfamiliar place.
B
When people travel alone, they can experience exploring the culture on their own, with the money they have and in their own speed.
C
It is impossible to find people to socialize when you are a stranger in a different culture.
D
It is also dangerous to interact with people you do not know in another country.
E
A report found out that 72% of people travelling abroad travel alone.
cb656db3-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Choose the alternative that best contains the idea of this sentence from the text:


“Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food.”

Read the text below and answer question


Is it really possible that plant-based foods such as the Impossible Whopper are healthful?


By Cara Rosenbloom September 9, 2019 


With many American consumers interested in reducing their consumption of animal products without becoming vegetarian or vegan, the food industry has come up with a new craze: plant-based. Look around your grocery store, and you’ll see a growing number of dairy, egg and meat substitutes bearing this label.

But the industry has taken liberties with the definition of “plant-based.” Rather than focusing on whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, which is what health professionals mean when they recommend “plant-based eating,” food manufacturers are developing ultra-processed burgers out of pea or soy protein, methylcellulose and maltodextrin, and liquid “eggs” out of mung bean protein isolate and gellan gum. Then they crown this ultra-processed food with an undeserved health halo.

(…)

Plant-based ultra-processed products such as these are formulated to taste like the real deal. Thus, consumers can feel virtuous or principled for choosing plants over meat without sacrificing too much flavor. But is there any value to plant-based products that have been crushed, extruded and shaped into facsimiles of the foods they are replacing? Let’s look at that question through several lenses — considering nutrients, how processed the food is and how producing the food affects the planet.

When I was in nutrition school, the health value of food was mostly calculated based on the presence of desirable nutrients, such as fiber and vitamins, and on the absence of negative nutrients, such as sodium or trans fat. If you compare ultra-processed plant-based foods and similar animal-based foods solely on their nutrients, you’ll find they are roughly the same. 

Plant-based foods are purposely formulated to mimic animal-based foods, so plant-based milk is enriched with calcium and vitamin D to mimic cow’s milk, while veggie burgers are rich in protein and made with iron and zinc to imitate beef. But they aren’t always made to reduce the presence of less-healthy nutrients. Sometimes, the processed plant-based food will have more sodium than the processed animal-based food, and sometimes the animal food will be higher in calories or saturated fat.

(…)

Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food. True plant-based eating doesn’t mean opting for an Impossible Whopper in the drive-through or scrambling up some 15-ingredient “egg alternative.” It means a diet that includes nourishing options such as black beans, broccoli and brown rice. We’re always looking for some magical way to eat junky food and achieve health. Don’t be fooled by this plant-based pretense.

Adapted from the digital edition of The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com 



A
Plant-based is just marketing, we are eating junk food.
B
Plant-based is an attempt to offer healthier food.
C
By labeling “plant-based”, marketers are trying to re-brand exactly the same old animal-based food.
D
The term “plant-based” is an attempt to create a synonym of junk food.
E
Industries are trying to create a healthier food to replace junk food.
cb6257d2-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

Choose the INCORRECT alternative, according to the text:

Read the text below and answer question


Is it really possible that plant-based foods such as the Impossible Whopper are healthful?


By Cara Rosenbloom September 9, 2019 


With many American consumers interested in reducing their consumption of animal products without becoming vegetarian or vegan, the food industry has come up with a new craze: plant-based. Look around your grocery store, and you’ll see a growing number of dairy, egg and meat substitutes bearing this label.

But the industry has taken liberties with the definition of “plant-based.” Rather than focusing on whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, which is what health professionals mean when they recommend “plant-based eating,” food manufacturers are developing ultra-processed burgers out of pea or soy protein, methylcellulose and maltodextrin, and liquid “eggs” out of mung bean protein isolate and gellan gum. Then they crown this ultra-processed food with an undeserved health halo.

(…)

Plant-based ultra-processed products such as these are formulated to taste like the real deal. Thus, consumers can feel virtuous or principled for choosing plants over meat without sacrificing too much flavor. But is there any value to plant-based products that have been crushed, extruded and shaped into facsimiles of the foods they are replacing? Let’s look at that question through several lenses — considering nutrients, how processed the food is and how producing the food affects the planet.

When I was in nutrition school, the health value of food was mostly calculated based on the presence of desirable nutrients, such as fiber and vitamins, and on the absence of negative nutrients, such as sodium or trans fat. If you compare ultra-processed plant-based foods and similar animal-based foods solely on their nutrients, you’ll find they are roughly the same. 

Plant-based foods are purposely formulated to mimic animal-based foods, so plant-based milk is enriched with calcium and vitamin D to mimic cow’s milk, while veggie burgers are rich in protein and made with iron and zinc to imitate beef. But they aren’t always made to reduce the presence of less-healthy nutrients. Sometimes, the processed plant-based food will have more sodium than the processed animal-based food, and sometimes the animal food will be higher in calories or saturated fat.

(…)

Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food. True plant-based eating doesn’t mean opting for an Impossible Whopper in the drive-through or scrambling up some 15-ingredient “egg alternative.” It means a diet that includes nourishing options such as black beans, broccoli and brown rice. We’re always looking for some magical way to eat junky food and achieve health. Don’t be fooled by this plant-based pretense.

Adapted from the digital edition of The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com 



A
Plant-based food is planned to taste exactly like products that contain meat.
B
Flavour doesn’t change a lot from the original, made of meat, and the plantbased food.
C
The nutritional value of food is calculated taking into account the positive, healthy nutrients and the negative, unhealthy nutrients.
D
The presence of sodium, fat and the number of calories are different in plant-based and animal based food.
E
In terms of nutrients, plant-based and animal based are completely different.
cb5e79b7-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the text, choose the correct alternative:

Read the text below and answer question


Is it really possible that plant-based foods such as the Impossible Whopper are healthful?


By Cara Rosenbloom September 9, 2019 


With many American consumers interested in reducing their consumption of animal products without becoming vegetarian or vegan, the food industry has come up with a new craze: plant-based. Look around your grocery store, and you’ll see a growing number of dairy, egg and meat substitutes bearing this label.

But the industry has taken liberties with the definition of “plant-based.” Rather than focusing on whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, which is what health professionals mean when they recommend “plant-based eating,” food manufacturers are developing ultra-processed burgers out of pea or soy protein, methylcellulose and maltodextrin, and liquid “eggs” out of mung bean protein isolate and gellan gum. Then they crown this ultra-processed food with an undeserved health halo.

(…)

Plant-based ultra-processed products such as these are formulated to taste like the real deal. Thus, consumers can feel virtuous or principled for choosing plants over meat without sacrificing too much flavor. But is there any value to plant-based products that have been crushed, extruded and shaped into facsimiles of the foods they are replacing? Let’s look at that question through several lenses — considering nutrients, how processed the food is and how producing the food affects the planet.

When I was in nutrition school, the health value of food was mostly calculated based on the presence of desirable nutrients, such as fiber and vitamins, and on the absence of negative nutrients, such as sodium or trans fat. If you compare ultra-processed plant-based foods and similar animal-based foods solely on their nutrients, you’ll find they are roughly the same. 

Plant-based foods are purposely formulated to mimic animal-based foods, so plant-based milk is enriched with calcium and vitamin D to mimic cow’s milk, while veggie burgers are rich in protein and made with iron and zinc to imitate beef. But they aren’t always made to reduce the presence of less-healthy nutrients. Sometimes, the processed plant-based food will have more sodium than the processed animal-based food, and sometimes the animal food will be higher in calories or saturated fat.

(…)

Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food. True plant-based eating doesn’t mean opting for an Impossible Whopper in the drive-through or scrambling up some 15-ingredient “egg alternative.” It means a diet that includes nourishing options such as black beans, broccoli and brown rice. We’re always looking for some magical way to eat junky food and achieve health. Don’t be fooled by this plant-based pretense.

Adapted from the digital edition of The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com 



A
Many American people are becoming vegetarian and vegan.
B
American industry is producing a lot of healthy products made of real vegetables.
C
According to the industry, “Plant-based”means food produced by using whole food, natural food.
D
“Plant-based”, according to the text, is just ultra-processed food made by peas, soy protein, liquid eggs and other chemicals.
E
Because it is ultra-processed, the industry calls it healthy
cb6be601-02
MACKENZIE 2019 - Inglês - Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

According to the article, choose the correct alternative.

I. Walking tours are free because you don’t have to pay anything for them.
II. Airbnb Experiences also provides a way to interact with people through a local guest.
III. Social Travels Apps can connect you to local people so that they can help you plan your trips and join local groups.

Read the text and answer question


How to Make Friends While Traveling Solo

Even in the best cases, traveling alone can get lonely. Here’s how to connect safely with the people you meet along the way.

By Aric Jenkins April 16, 2019

Experiencing another culture on your own terms, at your own pace, with a budget of your own choosing can be an incredibly rewarding and insightful adventure. But while some may find such a journey liberating, others might worry about safety or a period of solitude in a strange, unfamiliar place. Humans, after all, are social animals.
Prospective solo travelers should know that, despite its label, solo travel does not have to mean you’re alone all the time. There are local communities to safely interact with as well as fellow globe-trotters in a similar position.
A 2016 report from travel research company Phocuswright found that a whopping 72 percent of hostel guests in the United States were traveling alone. Airbnb saw similar a trend in its data, with cities like Ho Chi Minh City, Cologne, and Johannesburg experiencing more than a 130 percent increase in individual bookings in 2016.
With solo traveling growing in popularity, it’s clear there are options to socialize with other travelers — it’s just a matter of putting yourself in the right position to do so. Here are some tactics you can use to meet and befriend people abroad, from tried-and-true methods to innovative new apps and technology.
Go on ‘free’ walking tours
The word free is in quotations because, assuming your tour guide is at least half-decent, you should tip them at the end (many earn the majority of their income on commission). But these walking tours can be worth every penny. Not only will the guide give you an informed and hopefully entertaining view of the locale, but you’ll have a chance to interact with other tourists and possibly come away with a new friend.
(…)
Use Airbnb to go on unique experiences hosted by locals
Airbnb may be known more for its lodging arrangements, but it also wants to give you something to do at your destination. Airbnb Experiences connects travelers with local guides who lead guests on paid activities ranging from city tours to bar crawls and hobby and skill classes. Launched in late 2016, Experiences quickly became a popular feature.
Connect with like-minded explorers on social travel apps
Prefer to cut out the middleman and connect directly with other travelers? Try your hand at the crop of social networking apps specifically designed for travel. Travello, free on iOS and Android, allows you to discover other travelers nearby, match itineraries for planned trips and join groups based on similar interests. You can also create a feed by posting photos and updates.
(…)
Stay in hostels
In a world of hospitable hotels and authentic Airbnbs, why do travelers elect to stay in hostels? Two reasons, really: Hostels are cheap and sociable. You’ll find college-esque dormitories with common lounge rooms and kitchens, and sometimes a bar or cafe.
It’s an ideal environment to meet other travelers, and hostel staffs are well aware of this — some will lead city tours or pub crawls designed to foster interaction between hostel mates. Others might host game nights in the common room or arrange family dinners.
(…)
Adapted from the digital edition of The New York Times: www.nytimes.com

A
I is TRUE and II and III are FALSE
B
I is FALSE and II and III are TRUE
C
I and III are FALSE and II is TRUE
D
II and III are FALSE and I is TRUE
E
I and II are FALSE and III is TRUE