Inglês

Technology brought us fake news — and it will help us kill it

“Fake news” – websites disseminating news stories that are false but are believed to be true – was a major feature of the U.S. election season. Some observers believe that it determined the outcome of the election, although there is no way to definitively ascertain its effect on voting.
Fake news is news that affects the digital universe profoundly. Fake news grew because of the ease of creating and disseminating websites and stories that look and read as credible as real news sites (at least to many people). It is disseminated on social media platforms just because dissemination of information without vetting has always been a feature of those platforms. This was designed to facilitate communication – no one removes a negative comment about a restaurant on Facebook.
On the positive side, this means that everyone’s opinion can be disseminated. The awareness of fake news, though, reveals a downside – or perhaps a loophole – of the freedom to post. And fake news may beget1 fake news. Facebook is not the only media company to be an inadvertent host for fake news, but it is by far the largest, with roughly 2 billion users each month.
Forbes indicates that the fallout² from fake news during the election cycle may cause advertisers to pull back from Facebook, as it is less “brand safe” than formerly. If unchecked, fake news could impact the perceived credibility of online sites where fake news runs. Since the election, Facebook has announced plans to refine and increase automated detection of fake news and to make reporting of suspected stories easier for Facebook users. It has also indicated that the current ad system will be changed, to interfere with fake news sites receiving revenue from Facebook.

https://tinyurl.com/y8jfq2t4 Acesso em: 07.11.2017. Adaptado.

Glossário
beget¹: gerar, criar, produzir.
fallout²: efeitos negativos.

Technology brought us fake news — and it will help us kill it

“Fake news” – websites disseminating news stories that are false but are believed to be true – was a major feature of the U.S. election season. Some observers believe that it determined the outcome of the election, although there is no way to definitively ascertain its effect on voting.
Fake news is news that affects the digital universe profoundly. Fake news grew because of the ease of creating and disseminating websites and stories that look and read as credible as real news sites (at least to many people). It is disseminated on social media platforms just because dissemination of information without vetting has always been a feature of those platforms. This was designed to facilitate communication – no one removes a negative comment about a restaurant on Facebook.
On the positive side, this means that everyone’s opinion can be disseminated. The awareness of fake news, though, reveals a downside – or perhaps a loophole – of the freedom to post. And fake news may beget1 fake news. Facebook is not the only media company to be an inadvertent host for fake news, but it is by far the largest, with roughly 2 billion users each month.
Forbes indicates that the fallout² from fake news during the election cycle may cause advertisers to pull back from Facebook, as it is less “brand safe” than formerly. If unchecked, fake news could impact the perceived credibility of online sites where fake news runs. Since the election, Facebook has announced plans to refine and increase automated detection of fake news and to make reporting of suspected stories easier for Facebook users. It has also indicated that the current ad system will be changed, to interfere with fake news sites receiving revenue from Facebook.

https://tinyurl.com/y8jfq2t4 Acesso em: 07.11.2017. Adaptado.

Glossário
beget¹: gerar, criar, produzir.
fallout²: efeitos negativos.

Technology brought us fake news — and it will help us kill it

“Fake news” – websites disseminating news stories that are false but are believed to be true – was a major feature of the U.S. election season. Some observers believe that it determined the outcome of the election, although there is no way to definitively ascertain its effect on voting.
Fake news is news that affects the digital universe profoundly. Fake news grew because of the ease of creating and disseminating websites and stories that look and read as credible as real news sites (at least to many people). It is disseminated on social media platforms just because dissemination of information without vetting has always been a feature of those platforms. This was designed to facilitate communication – no one removes a negative comment about a restaurant on Facebook.
On the positive side, this means that everyone’s opinion can be disseminated. The awareness of fake news, though, reveals a downside – or perhaps a loophole – of the freedom to post. And fake news may beget1 fake news. Facebook is not the only media company to be an inadvertent host for fake news, but it is by far the largest, with roughly 2 billion users each month.
Forbes indicates that the fallout² from fake news during the election cycle may cause advertisers to pull back from Facebook, as it is less “brand safe” than formerly. If unchecked, fake news could impact the perceived credibility of online sites where fake news runs. Since the election, Facebook has announced plans to refine and increase automated detection of fake news and to make reporting of suspected stories easier for Facebook users. It has also indicated that the current ad system will be changed, to interfere with fake news sites receiving revenue from Facebook.

https://tinyurl.com/y8jfq2t4 Acesso em: 07.11.2017. Adaptado.

Glossário
beget¹: gerar, criar, produzir.
fallout²: efeitos negativos.

It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds. Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.
Today, the head is on display in a museum,with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”
There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.
To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds. Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.
Today, the head is on display in a museum,with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”
There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.
To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

It’s a perilous time to be a statue. Not that it has ever been a particularly secure occupation, exposed as statues are to the elements, bird droppings and political winds. Just ask Queen Victoria, whose rounded frame perches atop hundreds of plinths across the Commonwealth, with an air of solemn, severe solidity. But in 1963 in Quebec, members of a separatist paramilitary group stuck dynamite under the dress of her local statue. It exploded with a force so great that her head was found 100 yards away.
Today, the head is on display in a museum,with her body preserved in a room some miles away. The art historian Vincent Giguère said that “the fact it’s damaged is what makes it so important.”
There’s another reason to conserve the beheaded Victoria. Statues of women, standing alone and demanding attention in a public space, are extremely rare.
To be made a statue, a woman had to be a naked muse, royalty or the mother of God. Or occasionally, an icon of war, justice or virtue: Boadicea in her chariot in London, the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Still, of 925 public statues in Britain, only 158 are women standing on their own. Of those, 110 are allegorical or mythical, and 29 are of Queen Victoria.

Algorithms are everywhere. They play the stockmarket, decide whether you can have a mortgage and may one day drive your car for you. They search the internet when commanded, stick carefully chosen advertisements into the sites you visit and decide what prices to show you in online shops. (…) But what exactly are algorithms, and what makes them so powerful?
An algorithm is, essentially, a brainless way of doing clever things. It is a set of precise steps that need no great mental effort to follow but which, if obeyed exactly and mechanically, will lead to some desirable outcome. Long division and column addition are examples that everyone is familiar with—if you follow the procedure, you are guaranteed to get the right answer. So is the strategy, rediscovered thousands of times every year by schoolchildren bored with learning mathematical algorithms, for playing a perfect game of noughts and crosses. The brainlessness is key: each step should be as simple and as free from ambiguity as possible. Cooking recipes and driving directions are algorithms of a sort. But instructions like “stew the meat until tender” or “it’s a few miles down the road” are too vague to follow without at least some interpretation.
(…)

Algorithms are everywhere. They play the stockmarket, decide whether you can have a mortgage and may one day drive your car for you. They search the internet when commanded, stick carefully chosen advertisements into the sites you visit and decide what prices to show you in online shops. (…) But what exactly are algorithms, and what makes them so powerful?
An algorithm is, essentially, a brainless way of doing clever things. It is a set of precise steps that need no great mental effort to follow but which, if obeyed exactly and mechanically, will lead to some desirable outcome. Long division and column addition are examples that everyone is familiar with—if you follow the procedure, you are guaranteed to get the right answer. So is the strategy, rediscovered thousands of times every year by schoolchildren bored with learning mathematical algorithms, for playing a perfect game of noughts and crosses. The brainlessness is key: each step should be as simple and as free from ambiguity as possible. Cooking recipes and driving directions are algorithms of a sort. But instructions like “stew the meat until tender” or “it’s a few miles down the road” are too vague to follow without at least some interpretation.
(…)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Examine a tira para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

(http://roadapplesalmanac.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 11 a 20.

Can plants hear?
Flora may be able to detect the
sounds of flowing water or munching insects

Pseudoscientific claims that music helps plants grow have been made for decades, despite evidence that is shaky at best. Yet new research suggests some flora may be capable of sensing sounds, such as the gurgle of water through a pipe or the buzzing of insects.
In a recent study, Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had dry soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. She hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.
The research, reported earlier this year in Oecologia, is not the first to suggest flora can detect and interpret sounds. A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations – the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi M. Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

(Marta Zaraska. www.scientificamerican.com, 17.05.2017.)

Examine a tira para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

(http://roadapplesalmanac.com. Adaptado.)

Examine a tira para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

(http://roadapplesalmanac.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

HERE'S HOW LONG YOU CAN WORK BEFORE YOUR BRAIN 1SHUTS DOWN

I’m having a hard time starting this article. According to research out of the University of Melbourne, that might be because I’m middle-aged and work too much. Economists determined that burning the midnight oil makes you, well, dumber. “Our study highlights that too much work can have adverse effects on cognitive functioning,” they conclude.
Tell us something we didn’t know. Who hasn’t, at the end of a seemingly endless workweek, found themselves staring blankly at their computer screen or into space unable to remember what they had for lunch, let alone form a coherent thought about the task at hand?
For some employees, of course – the average resident ²physician or, these days, that “³gig economy”worker who makes ends meet by banging away at multiple projects – long hours are a fact of modern working life. And there’s a cost. Medical researchers have shown that working too much can affect emp|oyees’ physica| and mental health.
So how much is too much? For people age 40 and older, working up to roughly 25 hours per week boosts memory, the ability to quickly process information and other aspects of Cognitive function, according to the study, which drew on a longitudinal survey that tracks the well-being of 6,000 Australians. Beyond 25 hours a week, the middle-aged brain doesn’t work as well, the study indicates, noting that the findings apply to both men and women.


Glossário
^l to shut down: parar de operar/funcionar.
²physician: médico.
³gig economy: ambiente de trabalho baseado em empregos temporários e contratos de curta duração.

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 30.

When does the brain work best?
The peak times and ages for learning

Pixabay

What’s your ideal time of the day for brain performance? Surprisingly, the answer to this isn’t as simple as being a morning or a night person. New research has shown that certain times of the day are best for completing specific tasks, and listening to your body’s natural clock may help you to accomplish more in 24 hours.
Science suggests that the best time for our natural peak productivity is late morning. Our body temperatures start to rise just before we wake up in the morning and continue to increase through midday, Steve Kay, a professor of molecular and computational biology at the University of Southern California told The Wall Street Journal. This gradual increase in body temperature means that our working memory, alertness, and concentration also gradually improve, peaking at about mid morning. Our alertness tends to dip after this point, but one study suggested that midday fatigue may actually boost our creative abilities. For a 2011 study, 428 students were asked to solve a series of two types of problems, requiring either analytical or novel thinking. Results showed that their performance on the second type was best at nonpeak times of day when they were tired.
As for the age where our brains are at peak condition, science has long held that fluid intelligence, or the ability to think quickly and recall information, peaks at around age 20. However, a 2015 study revealed that peak brain age is far more complicated than previously believed and concluded that there are about 30 subsets of intelligence, all of which peak at different ages for different people. For example, the study found that raw speed in processing information appears to peak around age 18 or 19, then immediately starts to decline, but short-term memory continues to improve until around age 25, and then begins to drop around age 35, Medical Xpress reported. The ability to evaluate other people’s emotional states peaked much later, in the 40s or 50s. In addition, the study suggested that out our vocabulary may peak as late as our 60s’s or 70’s.
Still, while working according to your body’s natural clock may sound helpful, it’s important to remember that these times may differ from person to person. On average, people can be divided into two distinct groups: morning people tend to wake up and go to sleep earlier and to be most productive early in the day. Evening people tend to wake up later, start more slowly and peak in the evening. If being a morning or evening person has been working for you the majority of your life, it may be best to not fix what’s not broken.

(Dana Dovey. www.medicaldaily.com, 08.08.2016. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

In the excerpt from the eighth paragraph – If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences… – the word in bold can be correctly replaced, without meaning change, by

Leia o texto para responder a questão

Why the world’s best footballers are cheaper than they seem

August 12, 2017
For football clubs, August is often the costliest month, when they make vast bids for each other’s players. This year has been particularly lavish. On August 3rd Paris SaintGermain (PSG), a French team, signed Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, a Brazilian forward, from Barcelona for €222m ($264m), more than twice the prior record price for a footballer.
With three weeks of the transfer “window” left, teams in Europe’s “big five” leagues — the top divisions in England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France — have paid €3.2bn, just short of the record of €3.4bn set last year. The €179m splurged by Manchester City, an English club, on defenders outstrips 47 countries’ defence budgets. Arsène Wenger, a veteran manager of Arsenal, a London team, and an economics graduate, describes the modern transfer market as “beyond calculation and beyond rationality”.

Neymar, as he is known, will cost PSG’s owners, a branch of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund, about €500m over five years. In the betting markets, his arrival has boosted PSG’s implied chances of winning the Champions League, Europe’s most coveted club competition — but only from around 5.5% to about 9%. And prize money and ticket sales alone struggle to generate enough revenue to recoup such an outlay.
That does not make Neymar a bad investment. The goals he scores may matter less than the gloss he lends to the club’s brand and the sponsors he will lure. He earns more from endorsements than any footballer except Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Some 59% of PSG’s revenue of €520m last year was commercial (that is, other than ticket sales and broadcasting fees), more than any other club in the big five leagues. Neymar has more followers on Instagram, a social network, than does Nike, his main sponsor and the provider of PSG’s kit, for which privilege it pays €24m a year. Neymar’s popularity will help PSG when this deal is renegotiated. Nike has already agreed to pay Barcelona €155m a season from 2018.
PSG’s owners are confident of breaking even, though they could afford a loss. Qatar has been spending €420m a week preparing for the 2022 World Cup, and the signing of Neymar is a message that the otherwise embattled country remains strong and rich. The danger is to PSG, since under “financial fair play” rules, teams are punished if they fail to limit their losses. In 2014 the club was fined for violating these. Another failure to balance the books could mean a ban from the Champions League.
Such spending caps irk billionaire owners, but they have helped prevent the inflation of a transfer-fee bubble. The rapid rise is a result of European football’s expanding fan base. In the English Premier League, football’s richest, average net spending on players per club has stayed roughly constant, hovering at around 15% of revenue since the 1990s, according to the 21st Club, a football consultancy.
As long as clubs’ revenues keep growing, the transfer boom is likely to persist. Broadcasting revenue, the game’s first big injection of cash in the 1990s, has become, in the internet era, the weakest link. British television audiences for live games have dipped as some fans opt for illegal streaming sites or free highlights. Zach Fuller, a media analyst, reckons that signing a sponsorship magnet like Neymar is a hedge against volatility in that market.
Audiences are more robust elsewhere: around 100m Chinese viewers tune into the biggest games. Manchester United are the most popular team on Chinese social media, despite qualifying for the Champions League only twice in the past four seasons. They have overtaken Real Madrid, who have won the trophy three times in the same period, as the world’s most prosperous club. If Neymar unlocks new markets as well as defences, then PSG ____________ a winner.

(www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/
21726098-share-clubs-revenues-highest-transfer-
fees-have-been-fairly-constant. Adaptado)

TEXTO PARA AS QUESTÕES DE 19 A 21

Plants not only remember when you touch them, but they can also make risky decisions that are as sophisticated as those made by humans, all without brains or complex nervous systems.
Researchers showed that when faced with the choice between a pot containing constant levels of nutrients or one with unpredictable levels, a plant will pick the mystery pot when conditions are sufficiently poor.
In a set of experiments, Dr. Shemesh, from Tel-Hai College in Israel, and Alex Kacelnik, from Oxford University, grew pea plants and split their roots between two pots. Both pots had the same amount of nutrients on average, but in one, the levels were constant; in the other, they varied over time. Then the researchers switched the conditions so that the average nutrients in both pots would be equally high or low, and asked: Which pot would a plant prefer?
When nutrient levels were low, the plants laid more roots in the unpredictable pot. But when nutrients were abundant, they chose the one that always had the same amount.

TEXTO PARA AS QUESTÕES DE 19 A 21

Plants not only remember when you touch them, but they can also make risky decisions that are as sophisticated as those made by humans, all without brains or complex nervous systems.
Researchers showed that when faced with the choice between a pot containing constant levels of nutrients or one with unpredictable levels, a plant will pick the mystery pot when conditions are sufficiently poor.
In a set of experiments, Dr. Shemesh, from Tel-Hai College in Israel, and Alex Kacelnik, from Oxford University, grew pea plants and split their roots between two pots. Both pots had the same amount of nutrients on average, but in one, the levels were constant; in the other, they varied over time. Then the researchers switched the conditions so that the average nutrients in both pots would be equally high or low, and asked: Which pot would a plant prefer?
When nutrient levels were low, the plants laid more roots in the unpredictable pot. But when nutrients were abundant, they chose the one that always had the same amount.

TEXTO PARA AS QUESTÕES DE 19 A 21

Plants not only remember when you touch them, but they can also make risky decisions that are as sophisticated as those made by humans, all without brains or complex nervous systems.
Researchers showed that when faced with the choice between a pot containing constant levels of nutrients or one with unpredictable levels, a plant will pick the mystery pot when conditions are sufficiently poor.
In a set of experiments, Dr. Shemesh, from Tel-Hai College in Israel, and Alex Kacelnik, from Oxford University, grew pea plants and split their roots between two pots. Both pots had the same amount of nutrients on average, but in one, the levels were constant; in the other, they varied over time. Then the researchers switched the conditions so that the average nutrients in both pots would be equally high or low, and asked: Which pot would a plant prefer?
When nutrient levels were low, the plants laid more roots in the unpredictable pot. But when nutrients were abundant, they chose the one that always had the same amount.

TEXTO PARA AS QUESTÕES 22 E 23

A study carried out by Lauren Sherman of the University of California and her colleagues investigated how use of the “like” button in social media affects the brains of teenagers lying in body scanners.
Thirty-two teens who had Instagram accounts were asked to lie down in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner. This let Dr. Sherman monitor their brain activity while they were perusing both their own Instagram photos and photos that they were told had been added by other teenagers in the experiment. In reality, Dr. Sherman had collected all the other photos, which included neutral images of food and friends as well as many depicting risky behaviours like drinking, smoking and drug use, from other peoples’ Instagram accounts. The researchers told participants they were viewing photographs that 50 other teenagers had already seen and endorsed with a “like” in the laboratory.
The participants were more likely themselves to “like” photos already depicted as having been “liked” a lot than they were photos depicted with fewer previous “likes”. When she looked at the fMRI results, Dr. Sherman found that activity in the nucleus accumbens, a hub of reward circuitry in the brain, increased with the number of “likes” that a photo had.

TEXTO PARA AS QUESTÕES 22 E 23

A study carried out by Lauren Sherman of the University of California and her colleagues investigated how use of the “like” button in social media affects the brains of teenagers lying in body scanners.
Thirty-two teens who had Instagram accounts were asked to lie down in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner. This let Dr. Sherman monitor their brain activity while they were perusing both their own Instagram photos and photos that they were told had been added by other teenagers in the experiment. In reality, Dr. Sherman had collected all the other photos, which included neutral images of food and friends as well as many depicting risky behaviours like drinking, smoking and drug use, from other peoples’ Instagram accounts. The researchers told participants they were viewing photographs that 50 other teenagers had already seen and endorsed with a “like” in the laboratory.
The participants were more likely themselves to “like” photos already depicted as having been “liked” a lot than they were photos depicted with fewer previous “likes”. When she looked at the fMRI results, Dr. Sherman found that activity in the nucleus accumbens, a hub of reward circuitry in the brain, increased with the number of “likes” that a photo had.

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 21 a 25.

It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.
There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.
Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.
Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

(www.learning.uclg.org)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 21 a 25.

It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.
There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.
Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.
Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

(www.learning.uclg.org)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 21 a 25.

It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.
There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.
Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.
Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

(www.learning.uclg.org)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 21 a 25.

It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.
There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.
Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.
Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

(www.learning.uclg.org)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 21 a 25.

It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.
There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.
Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.
Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

(www.learning.uclg.org)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 26 a 30.

“One never builds something finished”:
the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

“All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88- year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.
But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravitydefying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 26 a 30.

“One never builds something finished”:
the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

“All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88- year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.
But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravitydefying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 26 a 30.

“One never builds something finished”:
the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

“All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88- year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.
But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravitydefying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 26 a 30.

“One never builds something finished”:
the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

“All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88- year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.
But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravitydefying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

The Birth of My Kitchen-Table Fiction

By Haruki Murakami

Most people – most of us who are part of Japanese society – graduate from school, then find work, then, after some time has passed, get married. Even I originally intended to follow that pattern. Yet in reality I married, then started working, then finally managed to graduate. In other words, the order I chose was the exact opposite to what was considered normal.



Since I hated the idea of working for a company, I decided to open my own establishment, a place where people could go to listen to jazz records, have a coffee, eat snacks and drink. It was a simple, rather happy-golucky kind of idea: running a business like that would let me relax listening to my favorite music from morning till night.

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 26 a 30.

“One never builds something finished”:
the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

“All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88- year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.
But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravitydefying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Ranking Universities by ‘Greenness’

Universities these days are working hard to improve their sustainability credentials, with efforts that include wind power, organic food and competitions to save energy. They are also adding courses related to sustainability and energy. But which university is the greenest?
Several ranking systems have emerged to offer their take. The Princeton Review recently came out with its second annual green ratings. Fifteen colleges earned the highest possible score — including Harvard, Yale and the University of California, Berkeley.
Another group, the Sustainable Endowment Institute’s GreenReportCard.org, rates colleges on several different areas of green compliance, such as recycling, student involvement and green building. Its top grade for overall excellence, an A-, was earned by 15 schools.

Why Everyone Should Read Harry Potter

September 9, 2014

Harry Potter is the best selling book series of all time. But it’s had its reproaches. Various Christian groups claimed the books promoted paganism and witchcraft to children. Washington Post book critic Ron Charles called the fact that adults were also hooked on Potter a "bad case of cultural infantilism.” Charles and others also cited a certain artistic banality in massively commercial story-telling, while others criticized Hogwarts, the wizardry academy attended by Potter, for only rewarding innate talents.
The Anglo-American writer Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, praised J. K. Rowling for freeing English children’s literature from dreams of riches and class and snobbery and giving us a world of youthful democracy and diversity. A growing body of evidence suggests that reading Rowling’s work, at least as a youth, might be a good thing.

Roman documents discovered

We often think that the best information from the Roman world comes from Egypt, where the dryness preserves papyri. However, in Britain the reverse conditions occur. At Vindolanda – a Roman fort located two miles behind Hadrian’s Wall – the humidity preserved wooden writing tablets that were thrown into a bonfire when the fort was evacuated in CE 105.
These wooden tablets were one of the most important discoveries made in Roman Britain in the 20th century. They were used not for grand writings but for memoranda and accounts, so they provide the best insight into life in the Roman army found anywhere in the world. One of the tablets says:
Octavius to Candidus: “I need money. I have bought 5,000 bushels of grain, and unless you send me some money, I shall lose my deposit and be embarrassed”.

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 71 a 80.

The placebo effect: amazing and real

The placebo effect is a mysterious thing. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea that something as inert and harmless as a sugar pill could relieve a person’s pain or hasten their recovery just by the expectation that it would. Studies use placebos – an inactive treatment, such as a sugar pill – in an attempt to understand the true impact of the active drug. Comparing what happens to a group of patients taking the active drug with the results of those taking a placebo can help researchers understand just how good the active drug is.
The word “placebo” comes from Latin and means “I shall please.” And “please” it does. In study after study, many patients who take a placebo show improvement in their symptoms or condition.

The placebo effect is for real

Recent research on the placebo effect only confirms how powerful it can be – and that the benefits of a placebo treatment aren’t just “all in your head.” Measureable physiological changes can be observed in those taking a placebo, similar to those observed among people taking effective medications. In particular, blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results have been shown to improve among subsets of research subjects who responded to a placebo.
Of course, not everyone has a therapeutic response to a placebo. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need medications at all. Instead, we could simply wield the power of suggestion. Understanding why certain people improve with placebo treatment and others do not is the “holy grail” of placebo research.

Nocebo: Placebo’s evil twin

The power of suggestion is a double-edged sword. If you expect a treatment to help you, it’s more likely to do so. And if you expect a treatment will be harmful, you are more likely to experience negative effects. That phenomenon is called the “nocebo effect” (from the Latin “I shall harm”). For example, if you tell a person that a headache is a common side effect of a particular medication, that person is more likely to report headaches even if they are actually taking a placebo. The power of expectation is formidable and probably plays a significant role in the benefits and the side effects of commonly prescribed medications.

(www.health.harvard.edu. Adaptado.)

Examine a tira e o texto, para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

Examine a tira e o texto, para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

Examine a tira e o texto, para responder às questões de 21 a 23.

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Leia o texto para responder às questões de 24 a 29.

Question: Is there anything I can do to train my body to need less sleep?

Many people think they can teach themselves to need less sleep, but they’re wrong, said Dr. Sigrid Veasey, a professor at the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. We might feel that we’re getting by fine on less sleep, but we’re deluding ourselves, Dr. Veasey said, largely because lack of sleep skews our self-awareness. “The more you deprive yourself of sleep over long periods of time, the less accurate you are of judging your own sleep perception,” she said.
Multiple studies have shown that people don’t functionally adapt to less sleep than their bodies need. There is a range of normal sleep times, with most healthy adults naturally needing seven to nine hours of sleep per night, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Those over 65 need about seven to eight hours, on average, while teenagers need eight to 10 hours, and school-age children nine to 11 hours. People’s performance continues to be poor while they are sleep deprived, Dr. Veasey said.
Health issues like pain, sleep apnea or autoimmune disease can increase people’s need for sleep, said Andrea Meredith, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. A misalignment of the clock that governs our sleep-wake cycle can also drive up the need for sleep, Dr. Meredith said. The brain’s clock can get misaligned by being stimulated at the wrong time of day, she said, such as from caffeine in the afternoon or evening, digital screen use too close to bedtime, or even exercise at a time of day when the body wants to be winding down.

(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)

Observe o cartum.

Examine a tira do cartunista argentino Quino (1932- )

Leia o trecho inicial de Raízes do Brasil, do historiador brasileiro Sérgio Buarque de Holanda (1902-1982), para responder a questão.

A tentativa de implantação da cultura europeia em extenso território, dotado de condições naturais, se não adversas, largamente estranhas à sua tradição milenar, é, nas origens da sociedade brasileira, o fato dominante e mais rico em consequências. Trazendo de países distantes nossas formas de convívio, nossas instituições, nossas ideias, e timbrando em manter tudo isso em ambiente muitas vezes desfavorável e hostil, somos ainda hoje uns desterrados em nossa terra. Podemos construir obras excelentes, enriquecer nossa humanidade de aspectos novos e imprevistos, elevar à perfeição o tipo de civilização que representamos: o certo é que todo o fruto de nosso trabalho ou de nossa preguiça parece participar de um sistema de evolução próprio de outro clima e de outra paisagem.
Assim, antes de perguntar até que ponto poderá alcançar bom êxito a tentativa, caberia averiguar até onde temos podido representar aquelas formas de convívio, instituições e ideias de que somos herdeiros. É significativa, em primeiro lugar, a circunstância de termos recebido a herança através de uma nação ibérica. A Espanha e Portugal são, com a Rússia e os países balcânicos (e em certo sentido também a Inglaterra), um dos territórios-ponte pelos quais a Europa se comunica com os outros mundos. Assim, eles constituem uma zona fronteiriça, de transição, menos carregada, em alguns casos, desse europeísmo que, não obstante, mantêm como um patrimônio necessário.
Foi a partir da época dos grandes descobrimentos marítimos que os dois países entraram mais decididamente no coro europeu. Esse ingresso tardio deveria repercutir intensamente em seus destinos, determinando muitos aspectos peculiares de sua história e de sua formação espiritual. Surgiu, assim, um tipo de sociedade que se desenvolveria, em alguns sentidos, quase à margem das congêneres europeias, e sem delas receber qualquer incitamento que já não trouxesse em germe.
Quais os fundamentos em que assentam de preferência as formas de vida social nessa região indecisa entre a Europa e a África, que se estende dos Pireneus a Gibraltar? Como explicar muitas daquelas formas, sem recorrer a indicações mais ou menos vagas e que jamais nos conduziriam a uma estrita objetividade?
Precisamente a comparação entre elas e as da Europa de além-Pireneus faz ressaltar uma característica bem peculiar à gente da península Ibérica, uma característica que ela está longe de partilhar, pelo menos na mesma intensidade, com qualquer de seus vizinhos do continente. É que nenhum desses vizinhos soube desenvolver a tal extremo essa cultura da personalidade, que parececonstituir o traço mais decisivo na evolução da gente hispânica, desde tempos imemoriais. Pode dizer-se, realmente, que pela importância particular que atribuem ao valor próprio da pessoa humana, à autonomia de cada um dos homens em relação aos semelhantes no tempo e no espaço, devem os espanhóis e portugueses muito de sua originalidade nacional. [...]
É dela que resulta largamente a singular tibieza das formas de organização, de todas as associações que impliquem solidariedade e ordenação entre esses povos. Em terra onde todos são barões não é possível acordo coletivo durável, a não ser por uma força exterior respeitável e temida.

(Raízes do Brasil, 2000.)

(www.theguardian.com)

(www.theguardian.com)

(www.theguardian.com)

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he said.

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he said.

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he said.

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

No trecho inicial do quarto parágrafo “As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows”, o ter mo em destaque tem sentido equivalente, em português, a

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he said.

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14% of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20% of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan. “Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change.”
Between 30 and 40% of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers. The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India adopt western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned. Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world’s population grows, emissions associated with food waste could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5 GT annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. It is widely argued that cutting food waste and distributing the world’s surplus food where it is needed could help tackle hunger in places that do not have enough – especially given that land to expand farming is limited.
But Jürgen Kropp, another of the study’s co-authors and PIK’s head of climate change and development, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the potential for food waste curbs to reduce emissions should be given more attention. “It is not a strategy of governments at the moment,” he said.

(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)