Questõesde PUC - SP 2017 sobre Inglês

Anna Karenina

By Leo Tolstoy - PART ONE - Chapter 1

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Everything was in confusion in the Oblonskys’ house. The wife had discovered that the husband was carrying on an intrigue with a French girl, who had been a governess in their family, and she had announced to her husband that she could not go on living in the same house with him. This position of affairs had now lasted three days, and not only the husband and wife themselves, but all the members of their family and household, were painfully conscious of it. Every person in the house felt that there was no sense in their living together, and that the stray people brought together by chance in any inn had more in common with one another than they, the members of the family and household of the Oblonskys. The wife did not leave her own room, the husband had not been at home for three days. The children ran wild all over the house; the English governess quarreled with the housekeeper, and wrote to a friend asking her to look out for a new situation for her; the man-cook had walked off the day before just at dinner time; the kitchen-maid, and the coachman had given warning.

1994, Ramdom House, Inc.

Two houses in Oakland go up for sale for just $1 for the pair 

Two Bay Area houses on the market for $1 might sound like a cruel joke for many living in the area, which faces some of the highest housing rates in the nation - but it's no hoax.

It is true that two turn-of-thecentury homes in Oakland, California, have been listed for just $1, but there's a catch: The houses are available for such a low price because the land they sit on isn't included. The houses have to be removed from the property by April 30 to make way for a new 127-unit apartment complex.

Anyone who buys the homes will have to pay the costly price of transporting the homes from their current location to another plot of land, that he or she would have to find and purchase separately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4345762 - Acessado em 24/03/2017

A New Zealand pizza chain aims to become the world's first company to offer a commercial drone delivery service, a milestone in the onceunthinkable quest to save time and money with an air-borne supply chain dispensing with people. Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd conducted a demonstration pizza delivery by drone in the New Zealand city of Auckland on Thursday, and afterwards said it aimed to be the first company to launch a regular drone service, late this year, despite the fact that Domino's Chief Executive Officer Don Meij had said in a statement "We've always said that it doesn't make sense to have a 2-tonne machine delivering a 2-kilogram order."

Even though Domino’s Pizza used in its test drones provided by U.S.-headquarted Australian drone company Flirtey, Philip Solaris, director of a New Zealand based drone company called X-craft Enterprises, said that while New Zealand has accommodating regulations on drones, Domino’s would be held back by a rule requiring drones to be kept in sight at all times, and added “I can't truly see how commercially viable that idea is because you would have to literally have somebody walking along to keep it in the line of sight, watching it at all times.” Other than that, he warned that “Domino’s service would still need to overcome random hazards (like) power lines, moving vehicles, children in the backyard playing”.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-drones-food-idUSKCN1100H0 Acessado 12/01/2017. Adaptado para fins educacionais

A New Zealand pizza chain aims to become the world's first company to offer a commercial drone delivery service, a milestone in the onceunthinkable quest to save time and money with an air-borne supply chain dispensing with people. Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd conducted a demonstration pizza delivery by drone in the New Zealand city of Auckland on Thursday, and afterwards said it aimed to be the first company to launch a regular drone service, late this year, despite the fact that Domino's Chief Executive Officer Don Meij had said in a statement "We've always said that it doesn't make sense to have a 2-tonne machine delivering a 2-kilogram order."

Even though Domino’s Pizza used in its test drones provided by U.S.-headquarted Australian drone company Flirtey, Philip Solaris, director of a New Zealand based drone company called X-craft Enterprises, said that while New Zealand has accommodating regulations on drones, Domino’s would be held back by a rule requiring drones to be kept in sight at all times, and added “I can't truly see how commercially viable that idea is because you would have to literally have somebody walking along to keep it in the line of sight, watching it at all times.” Other than that, he warned that “Domino’s service would still need to overcome random hazards (like) power lines, moving vehicles, children in the backyard playing”.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-drones-food-idUSKCN1100H0 Acessado 12/01/2017. Adaptado para fins educacionais

Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities

By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.

In a unanimous decision with majorn implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.

“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”

There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.

The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.

While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.

Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.

“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” *reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.

In: <https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilitie> 30.03.2018

Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with Disabilities

By Lauren Camera, Education Reporter - March 22, 2017. Adaptado.

In a unanimous decision with majorn implications for students with disabilities, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that schools must provide higher educational standards for children with special needs. Schools must do more than provide a ‘merely more than de minimis’ education for students with disabilities and instead must provide them with an opportunity to make "appropriately ambitious" progress in line with the federal education law.

“When all is said and done,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, “a student offered an education program providing a ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” He continued, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on special education: “For children with disabilities, receiving an instruction that aims so low would be equivalent to ‘sitting idly... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.’”

There are roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages 3 to 21, representing roughly 13 percent of all students, according to Institute for Education Statistics. Each year 300,000 of those students leave school and just 65 percent of students with disabilities complete high school.

The case which culminated in the Supreme Court decision originated with an autistic boy in Colorado named Endrew. His parents pulled him out of school in 5th grade because they disagreed with his individualized education plan. Under federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must work with families to develop individualized learning plans for students with disabilities.

While Endrew had been making progress in the public schools, his parents felt his plan for that year simply replicated goals from years past. As a result, they enrolled him in a private school where, they argued, Endrew made academic and social progress.

Seeking tuition reimbursement*, they filed a complaint with the state’s department of education in which they argued that Endrew had been denied a "free appropriate public education". The school district won the suit, and when his parents filed a lawsuit in federal district court, the judge also sided with the school district. In the Supreme Court case, Endrew and his family asked for clarification about the type of education benefits the federal law requires of schools, specifically, whether it requires ‘merely more than de minimis’, or something greater.

“The IDEA demands more,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” *reimbursement – a sum paid to cover money that has been spent or lost.

In: <https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilitie> 30.03.2018