FGV – 2008 – SENADO FEDERAL – ANALISTA LEGISLATIVO (PROCESSO LEGISLATIVO) – LÍNGUA INGLESA – CONCURSO PÚBLICO – GABARITO.

❑ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL- ANALISTA LEGISLATIVO (PROCESSO LEGISLATIVO-09/11/2008.

https://conhecimento.fgv.br/concursos

❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:

➭ 10 Multiple Choice Questions / 5 Options Each Question.

➭ Text (1) – | Judicial reasoning | www.win-more-cases.com |

➭ Text (2) – | How does a lawyer snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? | www.research-one.com.au |

❑ PROVA:

❑ TEXTO 1: Read text I and answer questions 31 to 36.

Judicial reasoning

            Judicial reasoning refers both to the process of thought by which a judge reaches a conclusion as to the appropriate result in a case, and to the written explanation of that process in a published judgment. The latter is the principal mechanism of judicial accountability: an explanation of the reasons for decision is owed not only to the unsuccessful litigant, but to everyone with an interest in the judicial process, including other institutions of government and ultimately the public. No other public decision makers are under such a heavy obligation to explain the reasons for their decisions. Yet the specialised nature of legal discourse means that the function of public justification is often imperfectly realised: the explanations are designed to be understood primarily by other judges and by the legal profession in general.
            While the published reasons for decision lend themselves to objective analysis, the underlying processes of thought involved in exploring and resolving a legal problem are so complex and variable that neither judges nor writers on
jurisprudence have been able to reduce them to an adequate explanatory or prescriptive model. Ideally, the written reasons for judgment not only provide an accurate mirror of the underlying reasoning process, but may actually help to shape it: the task of reducing one’s thinking to writing is itself an aid to thinking, and sometimes a decisive aid.

http://www.win-more-cases.com/judicial-reasoning.htm)

31 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)

According to the text, the processes of judicial reasoning cannot be
(A) systematized.
(B) contested.
(C) annotated.
(D) realized.
(E) advocated.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  A 
De acordo com o texto, os processos de raciocínio judicial não podem ser

*Item (A) CORRETO: sistematizado.

*Item (b) incorreto: contestado.

*Item (C) incorreto: anotado/comentado.

*Item (D) incorreto: percebido.

*Item (E) incorreto: defendido.

32 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
In relation to judicial reasoning processes, the written version may in fact
(A) simplify them.
(B) reverse them.
(C) retard them.
(D) reflect them.
(E) hinder them.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  D 
Em relação aos processos de raciocínio judicial, a versão escrita pode, de fato,

*Item (A) incorreto: simplificá-los.

*Item (b) incorreto: revertê-los.

*Item (C) incorreto: retardá-los.

*Item (D) incorreto: refleti-los.

*Item (E) CORRETO: obstruí-los

33 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
The verb in "reaches a conclusion" (line 2) can be replaced by:
(A) jumps to.
(B) abides by.
(C) arrives at.
(D) hands down.
(E) dallies with.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  C 
O verbo em "alcança uma conclusão" (linha 2) pode ser substituído por:

*Item (A) incorreto: pular para.

*Item (b) incorreto: respeitar as.

*Item (C) CORRETO: chegar a.
"[...] Judicial reasoning refers both to the process of thought by which a judge reaches a conclusion as to the appropriate result in a case, and to the written explanation of that process in a published judgment."
(O raciocínio judicial se refere tanto ao processo de pensamento pelo qual um juiz chega a uma conclusão quanto ao resultado apropriado em um caso e à explicação escrita desse processo em um julgamento publicado.)

*Item (D) incorreto: passar para.

*Item (E) incorreto: flertar com.

34 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
In "as to the appropriate result" (lines 2-3) appropriate means
(A) astounding.
(B) casual.
(C) riotous.
(D) bewildering.
(E) suitable.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  E 
Em "quanto ao resultado apropriado" (linhas 2-3), significa apropriado

*Item (A) incorreto: surpreendente.

*Item (b) incorreto: casual.

*Item (C) incorreto: desenfreado/descomedido.

*Item (D) incorreto: desconcertante.

*Item (E) CORRETO: adequado/conveniente.

35 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
The underlined word in "The latter is the principal mechanism"(line 4) refers to
(A) conclusion.
(B) explanation.
(C) process.
(D) result.
(E) judgment.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  B 
A palavra sublinhada em "O último é o mecanismo principal" refere-se a

*Item (A) incorreto: conclusão.

*Item (b) CORRETO: explicação.
"[...] Judicial reasoning refers both to the process of thought by which a judge reaches a conclusion as to the appropriate result in a case, and to the written explanation of that process in a published judgment. The latter is the principal mechanism of judicial accountability:"
(O raciocínio judicial se refere tanto ao processo de pensamento pelo qual um juiz chega a uma conclusão quanto ao resultado apropriado em um caso e à explicação escrita desse processo em um julgamento publicado. Este último é o principal mecanismo de responsabilidade judicial:)

*Item (C) incorreto: processo.

*Item (D) incorreto: resultado.

*Item (E) incorreto: julgamento

36 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
When the text states that "the published reasons for decision lend themselves to objective analysis" (lines 15-16) this means they
(A) allow it.
(B) elude it.
(C) carry it out.
(D) exhibit it.
(E) defy it.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  A 
Quando o texto afirma que "os motivos de decisão publicados se prestam a análise objetiva", isso significa que eles ...

*Item (A) CORRETO: eles permitem a análise objetiva.

*Item (b) incorreto: eles evitam a análise objetiva.

*Item (C) incorreto: eles realizam a análise objetiva.

*Item (D) incorreto: eles exibem a análise objetiva.

*Item (E) incorreto: eles desafiam/provocam a análise objetiva.

❑ TEXTO 2: Read text II and answer questions 37 to 40.
            How does a lawyer snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The answer may surprise some lawyers, according to research company Research One.
            In 7 years of providing specialist legal research, writing, and analysis services to lawyers worldwide, multi-award winning research company Research One has compiled the best information there is on why some lawyers lose “unlosable” cases, cases where everything points to a good outcome — law, history, policy, and basic fairness — yet the court still decides the other way. CEO, Troy Simpson, says the commonest mistake lawyers make is to raise every argument imaginable. “The fear of losing a case compels lawyers to raise every argument conceivable. It may seem counter-intuitive, and might contradict what you’re taught in law school, but raising a mishmash of legal theories in fact creates an even bigger risk for a lawyer. Unless you find the real point of the case and toss out the arguments that have no legs, then you risk diverting the court’s attention and you dilute the strength
of your ‘real’ argument”, Simpson says.
            Forgetting to look outside your area of expertise is also high on the list of ways to lose the unlosable case. “No lawyer can master every area of law, so lawyers compartmentalize the law and focus on 1 or 2 areas of expertise. But the law can’t be so neatly contained, which means you may miss a
winning argument if it’s outside your experience”, Simpson says…
            Several deeper problems affect lawyers’ success rates, according to Research One. The first problem is lawyers’ shortage of time: “You may have no time to think through your argument properly, but deadlines push you on. So you paper over the gaps in logic and end-up presenting nonsense”. Second, too many lawyers work in noisy and busy environments, poorly suited to the work of lawyers: “It’s hard
to think in the hustle and bustle of big cities. The work of a good thinker is quiet and unhurried.” The third problem is a lack of objectivity: “When you’re anxious for a particular result, you may sometimes not look as objectively at a legal problem or legal argument as you should”, Simpson says.
            To confront these and other problems, lawyers around the common law world are finding their way to a new resource that aims to reduce the risk of making potentially costly and embarrassing mistakes. The resource is Win More Cases: The
Lawyer’s Toolkit, a groundbreaking 200-page step-by-step guide on solving legal problems persuasively in writing.

(http://www.research- one.com.au/Portals/0/PressRelease_HardCopy_7.pdf)

37 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
The research company mentioned says that three main problems affect lawyers' success, one of which is
(A) lofty offices.
(B) unfit conditions.
(C) unlucky circumstances.
(D) unsafe surroundings.
(E) embarrassing spots.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  B 
A empresa de pesquisa mencionou que três principais problemas afetam o sucesso dos advogados, um dos quais é ...

*Item (A) incorreto: escritórios imponentes.

*Item (b) CORRETO: condições impróprias.

*Item (C) incorreto: circunstâncias desafortunadas.

*Item (D) incorreto: ambiente inseguro.

*Item (E) incorreto: pontos embaraçosos.

38 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
The expression "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" (line1) indicates the case is ultimately
(A) arguable.
(B) hopeless.
(C) unaltered.
(D) disputed.
(E) pending.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  anulada 
A expressão "derrotar a derrota dos maxilares da vitória" (linha 1) indica que o caso é em última instância ...

*Item (A) incorreto: discutível.

*Item (b) incorreto: sem solução.

*Item (C) incorreto: sem modificação.

*Item (D) incorreto: disputado.

*Item (E) incorreto: pendente(aguarda solução).

39 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
In "yet the court still decide the other way" (lines 9 and 10) yet can be replaced by
(A) moreover.
(B) hitherto.
(C) until.
(D) however.
(E) henceforth.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  D 
Em "ainda, o tribunal ainda decide o contrário" (linhas 9 e 10), ainda pode ser substituído por

*Item (A) incorreto: além disso.

*Item (b) incorreto: até agora.

*Item (C) incorreto: até.

*Item (D) CORRETO: embora.

*Item (E) incorreto: daqui em diante.

40 – (FGV-2008-SENADO FEDERAL-CONCURSO PÚBLICO)
When the text informs that the court may decide "the other way" (line10), this means the decision may be
(A) fair.
(B) favorable.
(C) unchanged.
(D) unexpected.
(E) unbiased.
👍 Comentários e Gabarito  D 
Quando o texto informa que o tribunal pode decidir "o contrário" (linha 10), isso significa que a decisão pode ser ...

*Item (A) incorreto: justa.

*Item (b) incorreto: favorável.

*Item (C) incorreto: inalterada.

*Item (D) CORRETO: inesperada/imprevista.

*Item (E) incorreto: imparcial.