Questões de Língua Inglesa do ano 2025

Pesquise questões de concurso nos filtros abaixo

Listagem de Questões de Língua Inglesa do ano 2025

#Questão 1078397 - Língua Inglesa, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension, CESPE / CEBRASPE, 2025, EMBRAPA, Pesquisador – Área: Ciências da Saúde – Subárea: Nutrição

        Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally.


        Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South.


        Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. 


Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food.

Internet: <nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com> (adapted).

Judge the following item about the text above.


The presence of inverted commas (“) in “primitive” and “backward” indicate that the authors agree with the descriptions used by imperial authorities to define some specific peoples. 

#Questão 1078398 - Língua Inglesa, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension, CESPE / CEBRASPE, 2025, EMBRAPA, Pesquisador – Área: Ciências da Saúde – Subárea: Nutrição

        Many studies reveal the contributions of plant breeding and agronomy to farm productivity and their role in reshaping global diets. However, historical accounts also implicate these sciences in the creation of new problems, from novel disease vulnerabilities propagated through industrial monocrops to the negative ecological and public health consequences of crops dependent on chemical inputs and industrialized food systems more generally.


        Increasingly, historical analyses also highlight the expertise variously usurped, overlooked, abandoned, or suppressed in the pursuit of “modern” agricultural science. Experiment stations and “improved” plants were instruments of colonialism, means of controlling lands and lives of peoples typically labeled as “primitive” and “backward” by imperial authorities. In many cases, the assumptions of colonial improvers persisted in the international development programs that have sought since the mid-20th century to deliver “modern” science to farming communities in the Global South.


        Awareness of these issues has brought alternative domains of crop science such as agroecology to the fore in recent decades, as researchers reconcile the need for robust crop knowledge and know-how with the imperatives of addressing social and environmental injustice. 


Helen Anne Curry; Ryan Nehring. The history of crop science and the future of food.

Internet: <nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com> (adapted).

Judge the following item about the text above.


According to the text, the farming communities in the Global South are no longer under the assumptions typical of the “international development programs” created in the 20th century. 

#Questão 1078770 - Língua Inglesa, Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions, CESPE / CEBRASPE, 2025, IBAMA,

        In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned. However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies (mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their profits.

        These countries scored a victory with the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources that they have been conserving from generation to generation. States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when used by multinational firms.

        The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a share of the profits that may result from their use.

       In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up in the interest of the people of these countries.

         In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card. In answering this question, it is important to more clearly emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.

Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal>  (adapted). 

Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.


The word “However”, in the second sentence of the last paragraph, can be correctly replaced with Nevertheless, without changing the original meaning of the fragment. 

#Questão 1078771 - Língua Inglesa, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension, CESPE / CEBRASPE, 2025, IBAMA,

        In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned. However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies (mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their profits.

        These countries scored a victory with the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources that they have been conserving from generation to generation. States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when used by multinational firms.

        The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a share of the profits that may result from their use.

       In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up in the interest of the people of these countries.

         In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card. In answering this question, it is important to more clearly emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.

Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal>  (adapted). 

Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.


The text argues that the spread of intellectual property rights has clearly benefited the countries of the South, proving that it is not an obstacle to their development.  

#Questão 1078772 - Língua Inglesa, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension, CESPE / CEBRASPE, 2025, IBAMA,

        In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned. However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies (mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their profits.

        These countries scored a victory with the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources that they have been conserving from generation to generation. States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when used by multinational firms.

        The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a share of the profits that may result from their use.

       In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up in the interest of the people of these countries.

         In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card. In answering this question, it is important to more clearly emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.

Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal>  (adapted). 

Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.


The shift from the perception of genetic resources as mankind’s common heritage to its condition of property of national sovereignty was demanded by countries of the South. 

Navegue em mais matérias e assuntos

{TITLE}

{CONTENT}

{TITLE}

{CONTENT}
Estude Grátis