domingo, 10 de novembro de 2019

FGV 2019 – LÍNGUA INGLESA – ADMINISTRAÇÃO – 2º SEMESTRE

https://vestibular.fgv.br

  • Texto (1) – Theater of war | The Economist
  • Texto (2) – | Perfect lie | Prospect |
  • 15 MCQs (Multiple Choice Questions) Five-Option Question |

 TEXTO 1: Texto para as perguntas de 1 a 7.

Theater of war

[1º PARÁGRAFO]
On April 12th 2014 Igor Girkin, a former Russian military officer also known as “Strelkov” (“Shooter”), sneaked across the border into Ukraine’s Donbas region with a few dozen men and took control of the small town of Sloviansk, igniting Europe’s bloodiest war since the 1990s. To create the impression of strength, Mr Girkin, an aficionado of historical battlefield re-enactments, masqueraded as a member of Russia’s special forces, and had his men drive two armoured personnel carriers around every night to simulate a large build-up. In fact, his army never exceeded 600 men, mainly Cossacks and war-hungry opportunists like himself.

[2º PARÁGRAFO]
Having just lost Crimea and lacking a functioning government or military command after the Maidan revolution, Ukraine was stunned. As Russia massed its forces on the border with Ukraine, most observers (and participants such as Mr Girkin) expected a swift invasion followed by annexation. Instead, the Kremlin created an ersatz [falsificada] civil war, absurdly portraying the Kiev government as a “fascist” regime and the separatists as freedom fighters. As the Ukrainian army moved in to try to retake Donbas, Mr Girkin and his fighters took up positions in a psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Sloviansk, using its patients as human shields.

[3º PARÁGRAFO]
Today, the ruined psychiatric hospital, resembling a scene out of the battle of Stalingrad, is a symbol of the madness of an essentially theatrical conflict that has cost 10,000 lives and displaced more than 1.7 million people. Yet officially, Russia and Ukraine are not at war. They maintain diplomatic relations and trade with each other. Ukraine has euphemistically designated the conflict zone an area of “anti-terrorist operations.” Most of the people caught up in the war do not care who started it, or what they call it.

[4º PARÁGRAFO]
“I am against everyone,” says Lyudmila Prikhodko, who lives in a restored building among the hospital’s ruins. (The names of civilians in the conflict zone have been changed.) An engineer, Ms Prikhodko was forced to flee Donetsk after refusing to support the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR). She feels equally alienated from Russia and Ukraine. “DNR treats people like me as enemies. Ukraine sees us as potential separatists.”

[5º PARÁGRAFO]
On paper, there is no border between the two parts of Ukraine. In practice, there are several frontier control points, manned by border guards and customs officials and crossed by those who live in the separatist territories but must work, receive pensions or handle bureaucratic problems on the Ukrainian side. Andrei Borisov, a smuggler who carries food, cigarettes and pesticides from Ukrainian territory across the line of control, says everyone is in on the business: customs officers, local officials and separatists on the other side.
  • Adapted from The Economist , May 24th 2017.
01 – Which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?
(A) On April 12th 2014, a Russian military officer led Russian army troops in a secret invasion of Ukraine’s Donbas region.
(B) Under the cover of night, Igor Girkin and a handful of Russian troops defeated 600 Ukrainian army soldiers in the first battle for control of the Donbas region.
(C) Igor Girkin resorted to tricks in an attempt to make his small armed group look more powerful than it really was.
(D) A series of accidents and coincidences turned what had been intended as a quick, surgical Russian military operation into Europe’s bloodiest war of this century.
(E) Most of the men in Igor Girkin’s invading army are neither Russian nor Ukrainian.

•    Gabarito C  
Z

__Gabarito:  (C)__

02 – According to the information in the article,
(A) Because Ukraine lost Crimea, it was unable to make an effective military response to Igor Girkin’s offensive in the Donbas region.
(B) Many people were surprised when Russia did not attempt to take the Donbas region for itself.
(C) By misinterpreting the meaning of Igor Girkin's offensive in the Donbas region, Russia’s government made a major war there inevitable.
(D) Russian massed its troops on its Ukrainian border as a means of guaranteeing the Donbas region’s recently acquired independence.
(E) By exposing the Ukrainian government's fascist ideology, Russia helped the Donbas separatists gain international support.

•    Gabarito B  
Z

__Gabarito:  (B)__

03 – According to the information in the article, when Ukrainian troops attempted to regain control of the Donbas region,
(A) patients at a psychiatric hospital were forced into a life-threatening situation.
(B) they were careful not to provoke elements of the Russian army stationed near Sloviansk.
(C) Igor Girkin and his soldiers retaliated by destroying a psychiatric hospital near Sloviansk.
(D) the only opposition came from rebels that had occupied an abandoned psychiatric hospital.
(E) at first they concentrated their firepower in the area around Sloviansk.

•    Gabarito A  
Z

__Gabarito:  (A)__

04 – The article most likely refers to the armed conflict in the Donbas region as “essentially theatrical” for all of the following reasons except
(A) the violence that has supposedly displaced nearly 2 million people has in fact killed only 10,000 people.
(B) although Russia and Ukraine are clearly involved in some kind of potentially deadly conflict, neither has actually declared war against the other.
(C) Russia and Ukraine have cut off neither diplomatic nor trade relations with each other.
(D) the man responsible for actually starting the Donbas conflict falsely presented himself as a member of a Russian military unit.
(E) when Russia had a real chance to invade and annex the Donbas region, it instead promoted in that region a kind of fake “civil war”.

•    Gabarito A  
Z

__Gabarito:  (A)__

05 – With respect to Lyudmila Prikhodko, the article supports all of the following except
(A) she does not actively favor any of the armed groups involved in the Donbas conflict.
(B) Lyudmila Prikhodko is not her real name.
(C) where she is now living was probably damaged during the fighting around Sloviansk.
(D) because of the terrible things that happened to her, she is actively working against the Donetsk People’s Republic.
(E) she feels little connection to either Russia or Ukraine.

•    Gabarito D  
Z

__Gabarito:  (D)__

06 – In paragraph 5, the sentence “On paper, there is no border between the two parts of Ukraine” most likely refers to which of the following?
(A) Russia and Ukraine are still trying to reach a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict in the Donbas region.
(B) Despite issuing propaganda to the contrary, Russia wants to make sure that Ukraine stays united.
(C) Because of the armed conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas region, crossing the border between that territory and the rest of Ukraine has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
(D) The border between the parts of Ukraine has been deliberately kept vague and porous in order to facilitate corruption.
(E) Although some people are fighting to separate one part of Ukraine permanently from the other, such a separation has not yet been officially recognized.

•    Gabarito E  

In paragraph 5, the sentence “On paper, there is no border between the two parts of Ukraine” most likely refers to which of the following?
No parágrafo 5, a frase "No papel, não há fronteira entre as duas partes da Ucrânia" refere-se provavelmente a qual das seguintes opções?

(A) Russia and Ukraine are still trying to reach a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict in the Donbas region.
A Rússia e a Ucrânia ainda estão a tentar chegar a uma solução negociada para o conflito armado na região do Donbass.

(B) Despite issuing propaganda to the contrary, Russia wants to make sure that Ukraine stays united.
Apesar da propaganda em contrário, a Rússia quer garantir que a Ucrânia se mantém unida.

(C) Because of the armed conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas region, crossing the border between that territory and the rest of Ukraine has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Devido ao conflito armado na região do Donbass, na Ucrânia, a passagem da fronteira entre este território e o resto da Ucrânia tornou-se um pesadelo burocrático.

(D) The border between the parts of Ukraine has been deliberately kept vague and porous in order to facilitate corruption.
A fronteira entre as partes da Ucrânia foi deliberadamente mantida vaga e porosa para facilitar a corrupção.

(E) Although some people are fighting to separate one part of Ukraine permanently from the other, such a separation has not yet been officially recognized.
Embora algumas pessoas estejam lutando para separar permanentemente uma parte da Ucrânia da outra, tal separação ainda não foi oficialmente reconhecida.

07 – According to Andrei Borisov in paragraph 5, what do “customs officers, local officials and separatists on the other side” all have in common?
(A) They eagerly buy his contraband goods, such as food, cigarettes and pesticides.
(B) Despite the armed conflict in the Donbas region, they are working together to keep the daily government bureaucracy on both sides functioning.
(C) Without exception, they are all in one way or another working with contraband.
(D) Andrei Borisov pays all of them so that he can bring contraband goods into the Donbas region.
(E) Although they are all working in some area of government, none of them has any loyalty to any side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

•    Gabarito C  

According to Andrei Borisov in paragraph 5, what do “customs officers, local officials and separatists on the other side” all have in common?
De acordo com Andrei Borisov no parágrafo 5, o que têm em comum os “funcionários alfandegários, as autoridades locais e os separatistas do outro lado”?

(A) They eagerly buy his contraband goods, such as food, cigarettes and pesticides.
Compram avidamente os seus produtos contrabandeados, como alimentos, cigarros e pesticidas.

(B) Despite the armed conflict in the Donbas region, they are working together to keep the daily government bureaucracy on both sides functioning.
Apesar do conflito armado na região do Donbass, trabalham em conjunto para manter a burocracia governamental diária de ambos os lados a funcionar.

(C) Without exception, they are all in one way or another working with contraband.
Sem exceção, todos, de uma forma ou de outra, trabalham com contrabando.

(D) Andrei Borisov pays all of them so that he can bring contraband goods into the Donbas region.
Andrei Borisov paga a todos eles para que possa trazer produtos contrabandeados para a região de Donbass.

(E) Although they are all working in some area of government, none of them has any loyalty to any side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Embora todos trabalhem em alguma área do governo, nenhum deles tem lealdade a qualquer dos lados no conflito Rússia-Ucrânia.

 TEXTO 2:
Perfect lie 
By Anna Blundy
1    It was as though he was sitting in the consulting room with us, a golden figure of male beauty, intelligent sensitivity, sparkling wit and an endless capacity for good. This was established by my patient as a stark contrast to all her multitudinous failings. “I don’t deserve him,” she said, twisting a tissue in her bitten fingers, legs tucked meekly under her chair. She began (again) to detail her repulsiveness and stupidity.

2    She met this Adonis at university where he excelled at everything. Strangely enough, he liked her and they began a relationship that made her feel inadequate. “He’s just so good socially. Really funny and chatty,” she explained. “I know people look at us and wonder why he’s with me,” she added.

3    I was supposed to nod and understand that it must be very painful to be so ugly and crap while he is so perfect. Did I mention that he is multilingual and that his strong eco-credentials will, sooner rather than later, save the world? Sitting there looking at this crushed girl, I really started to hate this guy. “He says he can’t put up with my depression much longer. He says it’s embarrassing.” Our Adonis was constantly going to Norway for long stretches. “There was a girl who liked him, but nothing happened,” she said, eyes pleading.

4    Two years into our once-a-week sessions, my patient looks very different. She meets my gaze, smiles, is dressed less like a five-year-old and more like a 30-year-old, and is struggling with her now husband. “He’s such a show off. He dominates conversations so nobody else can say anything,” she tells me, describing an excruciating evening at an Indian restaurant. She is exasperated by his bullying at home, always shouting about her incompetent recycling, her use of the central heating and her not switching lights off (when she is actually in the room). While her job in publishing is going well, he is currently out of work, the eco-start up thing that he was involved with didn’t start up.

5    I won’t go into detail about her psychotherapy journey, but she is a favourite in my supervision group because she is funny and insightful, desperate to get out of depression, initially to please her Adonis, but ultimately for herself. She’d chosen someone she felt was her superior in order to prove her lack of self-worth and was re-enacting a miserable childhood in which she was always ignored in favour of (and also by) a golden brother.

6    But now what? I’ve often heard anti-therapy types complain that therapists turn couples against each other, that if one party is in therapy the marriage is doomed. I suspect this is often true—an unhappy person is often unhappy specifically in their relationship. But this relationship was based purely on fantasy. My patient had ludicrously idealised an ordinary guy and he liked it (as it fed his narcissism). She was unable to know the real person, seeing only the glittering fantasy that revealed her own worthlessness. Once she’d recovered her reality-testing, withdrawn her colossal projections of perfection into him, and was more able to see the world as it is, the rose-coloured veil slipped away and she is left with a man as flawed as any other: as flawed as herself.

7    Since she didn’t choose him clear-sightedly, she didn’t choose him at all. She chose a fantasy. Though reality has allowed her to accept herself, she’s now going to have to accept or reject him, without the auriferous sheen [brilho].

Adapted from Prospect, June 2017.

08 – In paragraph 1, “he” in the phrase “It was as though he was sitting in the consulting room with us” most likely refers to the
(A) kind of boyfriend that could truly love the therapy patient.
(B) idealized version of the therapy patient’s boyfriend.
(C) wonderful boyfriend that was ready to abandon the therapy patient.
(D) kind of boyfriend the therapy patient believed she would never have.
(E) boyfriend that the therapy patient had rejected because of her low self-esteem.

•    Gabarito B  
Z

__Gabarito:  (B)__

09 – In paragraph 2, when the author writes Strangely enough, he liked her and they began a relationship that made her feel inadequate,” she is most likely trying to
(A) show how destructive modern relationships can be.
(B) express her belief that the therapy patient should never have started dating her boyfriend.
(C) illustrate how a bad relationship can destroy a person’s selfconfidence.
(D) explain how her therapy patient’s low self-esteem ruined what could have been a good relationship.
(E) comment ironically on the unrealistic opinion that the therapy patient had of her boyfriend and of herself.

•    Gabarito E  
Z

__Gabarito:  (E)__

10 – According to the information in the article, the boyfriend of the therapy patient
(A) often stayed away from her for extended periods of time.
(B) was embarrassed by her fierce devotion.
(C) stayed with her because he knew he could manipulate and dominate her.
(D) had no idea of what he was getting into when he starting dating her.
(E) distorted or exaggerated the important facts about his life when he first met her.

•    Gabarito A  
Z

__Gabarito:  (A)__

11 – In paragraph 4, the phrase dressed less like a five-year-old and more like a 30-year-old” most likely refers to which of the following?
(A) The therapy patient is still struggling to find her own unique sense of style.
(B) The therapy patient’s changed way of dressing is evidence that she is responding positively to her therapy sessions.
(C) The therapy patient’s new husband has been helping her to act in a more mature way.
(D) The therapy patient now dresses to please herself rather than to please her husband.
(E) Getting out of a destructive relationship has helped the therapy patient become a mature, responsible woman.

•    Gabarito B  
Z

__Gabarito:  (B)__

12 – According to the information in the article, nowadays one ironic factor in the life of the therapy patient is the fact that although
(A) her husband constantly mistreats her, she still believes he is perfect.
(B) her husband really does dominate many conversations, most people love what he has to say.
(C) she had considered her husband far superior to herself, his professional life is going badly while hers is going well.
(D) she and her husband have been together for only a short time, she already regards him as mediocre.
(E) her husband works in the environmental area, he does so for money rather than because of any strong sense of idealism.

•    Gabarito C  
Z

__Gabarito:  (C)__

13 – With respect to the therapy patient, which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?
(A) If she had been happy in her childhood, she would be happy in her current marriage.
(B) Therapy helped her to understand that no one had ever truly loved her.
(C) She believed that making an exceptional man love her would somehow solve the problems of her childhood.
(D) Even her decision to go into therapy could be seen as an example of her tendency to give herself little consideration.
(E) Although she had only one brother, she was never close to him but rather considered him a rival and an enemy.

•    Gabarito D  
Z

__Gabarito:  (D)__

14 – According to the information in the article,
(A) because she believed that she deserved to suffer, the therapy patient deliberately entered what she knew would be a destructive relationship.
(B) experience teaches therapists that modern male-female relationships are inherently exploitative.
(C) no relationship based on fantasy can ever make anyone happy.
(D) in general, the boyfriend (now husband) of the therapy patient was happy with her unrealistic opinion of him.
(E) the therapy patient subconsciously believed that being involved with a truly superior man would mean that she herself was superior.

•    Gabarito D  
According to the information in the article,
(A) because she believed that she deserved to suffer, the therapy patient deliberately entered what she knew would be a destructive relationship.
(B) experience teaches therapists that modern male-female relationships are inherently exploitative.
(C) no relationship based on fantasy can ever make anyone happy.
(D) in general, the boyfriend (now husband) of the therapy patient was happy with her unrealistic opinion of him.
(E) the therapy patient subconsciously believed that being involved with a truly superior man would mean that she herself was superior.

15 – According to the information in the article, which of the following is most likely a question that the therapy patient must now face?
(A) Considering all of the suffering that she has endured, how can she really know the true character of her husband?
(B) Considering that she married a perfect fantasy rather than a flawed human being, how should she deal with that fantasy?
(C) If she terminates therapy, what will happen if she reverts to her old, self-destructive habits?
(D) Can she survive in a relationship with a normal, imperfect human being?
(E) Now that she has a realistic relationship with herself, will she want to maintain a relationship with her husband?

•    Gabarito E  
According to the information in the article, which of the following is most likely a question that the therapy patient must now face?
De acordo com a informação do artigo, qual das seguintes opções é mais provável que a doente em terapia deva enfrentar agora?

(A) Considering all of the suffering that she has endured, how can she really know the true character of her husband?
Considerando todo o sofrimento que suportou, como pode realmente conhecer o verdadeiro carácter do marido?

(B) Considering that she married a perfect fantasy rather than a flawed human being, how should she deal with that fantasy?
Considerando que se casou com um ser humano perfeito e não com um ser humano imperfeito, como deve lidar com esta fantasia?

(C) If she terminates therapy, what will happen if she reverts to her old, self-destructive habits?
Se ela terminar a terapia, o que acontecerá se voltar aos seus antigos hábitos autodestrutivos?

(D) Can she survive in a relationship with a normal, imperfect human being?
Conseguirá ela sobreviver numa relação com um ser humano normal e imperfeito?

(E) Now that she has a realistic relationship with herself, will she want to maintain a relationship with her husband?
Agora que tem uma relação realista consigo própria, desejará manter uma relação com o marido?

FGV/VESTIBULAR–DIREITO–2019.1–1º SEMESTRE–LÍNGUA INGLESA.

www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br

❑  PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
•  VESTIBULAR FGV-2019-DIREITO.
❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:
 3 Questions.

PROVA, TRADUÇÃO, GABARITO & MUITO VOCABULÁRIO

 TEXTO:
THERESA MAY AND THE REVENGE OF THE REMAINERS
[defensores da permanência da UE]
By Anne Applebaum

Theresa May had a plan: Steal the policies of Britain’s “far right” — the U.K. Independence Party — and then steal their voters, too. Since she took office about a year ago, the formerly moderate British prime minister attacked foreigners, jeered [zombou] at the European Union and held Donald Trump’s hand. In April, she called an early general election, confident that UKIP* voters would now endorse her “Hard Brexit” and her watered-down English Tory populism.

Never mind that the moderate centrism of her predecessor, David Cameron, won a Conservative Party majority only two years ago. Never mind that she herself has offered few details about Brexit and what it will mean: May called this a “Brexit election,” declared herself the “strong and stable” candidate, promised tough negotiations with Europe and clearly expected to win a larger majority.

Yes, May had a plan — but it was a plan designed for her base. She ignored the 48 percent of the country that did not vote for Brexit, calling them “citizens of nowhere.” She ignored the anxiety that Brexit has created and the economic consequences that are now just beginning to bite. She ignored younger people, who preferred to stay in the E.U. last year and now prefer the Labour Party to the Tories by a huge margin, 63 percent to 27 percent.

May also assumed that the centrists and moderates who had voted Conservative in 2015 and to “Remain” in Europe in 2016 would have to vote for her because they would have nowhere else to go. They couldn’t possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, the quasi-Marxist, left-wing Labour Party leader who campaigned on high taxes for the rich, heavy spending, and deep skepticism toward Britain’s traditional defense and foreign policies. They couldn’t possibly prefer a Labour Party that is itself divided over Brexit. But as the campaign went on, as May grew stiffer and more prone to error, as her “strong and stable” tagline [mote, slogan] wore thin, a lot of people in the floating center looked at Corbyn and thought, “Is he really that much worse?”

And the result? Remainers’ revenge. In Canterbury, a long-standing Brexiteer member of Parliament lost to a Labour candidate, apparently thanks to a surge in student voting. In Kensington, an overwhelmingly Conservative seat — but also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit — the vote was so close that recounting was suspended at 8 a.m. on Friday so that election officials could go home and rest. Across the country, people voted Labour despite not liking Corbyn. People told pollsters that they were worried about the future of the National Health Service, that they didn’t like May’s flip-flops on elderly care, that they were unnerved by instability unleashed by the Tories.

Play to your base, insult your opponents: It’s a tactic beloved of many, including President Trump. But here’s a lesson for the opponents of populists all over the West: “Play to your base” doesn’t work when you have high turnout — and in this election it was higher than predicted. It doesn’t work when you face angry, alienated voters. And it didn’t work in Britain at all.

The outcome is a disaster, but it’s hard not to enjoy the many ironies. The Tories campaigned against a “coalition of chaos” — but now it is they who lead exactly that. May campaigned to get a larger majority, but now Britain has a hung Parliament, meaning that no party has enough seats to form a government. May tried to portray herself as a singular leader, but now she can stay in power only with the help of one of the small Northern Irish parties. If she remains prime minister — if her famously regicidal party doesn’t defenestrate her immediately — her majority will be neither strong nor stable, particularly because her party is torn by divisions over Brexit, too.

It’s funny — but it’s also tragic, for May could have played all of this differently. When she took over last year, she could have recognized Brexit for the constitutional and political crisis that it has turned out to be. She could have called for national unity to deal with this divisive issue. She could have appealed across party lines, or asked people what outcome they preferred, or sought compromise. Instead she stuck to her formula — “Hard Brexit,” tough-sounding language, “it’s all about immigration.” She kept her base — and lost everyone else.
Adapted from The Washington Post, June 9, 2017
*UKIP: United Kingdom Independence Party, a Euroskeptic and right-wing populist political party that is a strong supporter of Brexit.
 TRADUÇÃO-TEXTO:
Theresa May and the revenge of the remainers
Theresa May e a vingança dos remanescentes
[defensores da permanência da UE]
By Anne Applebaum
[1º PARÁGRAFO]
Theresa May had a plan: Steal the policies of Britain’s “far right” — the U.K. Independence Party — and then steal their voters, too.
Theresa May tinha um plano: roubar as políticas da “extrema direita” britânica – o Partido da Independência do Reino Unido – e depois roubar também os seus eleitores.
Since she took office about a year ago, the formerly moderate British prime minister attacked foreigners, jeered [zombou] at the European Union and held Donald Trump’s hand.
Desde que assumiu o cargo, há cerca de um ano, a ex-primeira-ministra britânica moderada atacou estrangeiros, zombou da União Europeia e segurou a mão de Donald Trump.
In April, she called an early general election, confident that UKIP* voters would now endorse her “Hard Brexit” and her watered-down English Tory populism.
Em Abril, ela convocou eleições gerais antecipadas, confiante de que os eleitores do UKIP* apoiariam agora o seu “Brexit Duro” e o seu diluído populismo conservador inglês.
  • "early general election" – eleições gerais antecipadas.
[2º PARÁGRAFO]
Never mind that the moderate centrism of her predecessor, David Cameron, won a Conservative Party majority only two years ago.
Não importa que o centrismo moderado do seu antecessor, David Cameron, tenha conquistado a maioria do Partido Conservador apenas há dois anos.
  • "Never mind that" – Não importa que.
Never mind that she herself has offered few details about Brexit and what it will mean: May called this a “Brexit election,” declared herself the “strong and stable” candidate, promised tough negotiations with Europe and clearly expected to win a larger majority.
Não importa que ela própria tenha oferecido poucos detalhes sobre o Brexit e o que isso significará: May chamou isto de “eleições do Brexit”, declarou-se a candidata “forte e estável”, prometeu negociações duras com a Europa e esperava claramente ganhar uma maioria maior.
[3º PARÁGRAFO]
Yes, May had a plan — but it was a plan designed for her base.
Sim, May tinha um plano – mas era um plano elaborado para sua base.
She ignored the 48 percent of the country that did not vote for Brexit, calling them “citizens of nowhere.”
Ela ignorou os 48% do país que não votaram a favor do Brexit, chamando-os de “cidadãos de lugar nenhum”.
She ignored the anxiety that Brexit has created and the economic consequences that are now just beginning to bite.
Ela ignorou a ansiedade que o Brexit criou e as consequências econômicas que agora começam a fazer efeito.
She ignored younger people, who preferred to stay in the E.U. last year and now prefer the Labour Party to the Tories by a huge margin, 63 percent to 27 percent.
Ela ignorou os mais jovens, que preferiram ficar na UE. no ano passado e agora preferem o Partido Trabalhista aos Conservadores por uma margem enorme, 63% contra 27%.
  • "the Labour Party" – o Partido Trabalhista.
  • "the Tories" – os Conservadores.
[4º PARÁGRAFO]
May also assumed that the centrists and moderates who had voted Conservative in 2015 and to “Remain” in Europe in 2016 would have to vote for her because they would have nowhere else to go.
May também assumiu que os centristas e moderados que votaram nos Conservadores em 2015 e que “permaneceram” na Europa em 2016 teriam de votar nela porque não teriam mais para onde ir. 
They couldn’t possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, the quasi-Marxist, left-wing Labour Party leader who campaigned on high taxes for the rich, heavy spending, and deep skepticism toward Britain’s traditional defense and foreign policies.
Não poderiam votar em Jeremy Corbyn, o líder quase marxista e de esquerda do Partido Trabalhista que fez campanha a favor dos elevados impostos para os ricos, dos gastos pesados ​​e do profundo cepticismo em relação à defesa tradicional e às políticas externas da Grã-Bretanha.
They couldn’t possibly prefer a Labour Party that is itself divided over Brexit.
Eles não poderiam preferir um Partido Trabalhista que está dividido em relação ao Brexit.
But as the campaign went on, as May grew stiffer and more prone to error, as her “strong and stable” tagline [mote, slogan] wore thin, a lot of people in the floating center looked at Corbyn and thought, “Is he really that much worse?”
Mas à medida que a campanha prosseguia, à medida que May se tornava mais rígida e mais propensa a erros, à medida que o seu slogan “forte e estável” [mote, slogan] se esgotava, muitas pessoas no centro flutuante olharam para Corbyn e pensaram: “Ele está realmente muito pior?
[5º PARÁGRAFO]
And the result? Remainers’ revenge.
E o resultado? A vingança dos remanescentes.
In Canterbury, a long-standing Brexiteer member of Parliament lost to a Labour candidate, apparently thanks to a surge in student voting.
Em Canterbury, um membro do Parlamento de longa data, defensor do Brex, perdeu para um candidato trabalhista, aparentemente graças a um aumento na votação dos estudantes.
In Kensington, an overwhelmingly Conservative seat — but also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit — the vote was so close that recounting was suspended at 8 a.m. on Friday so that election officials could go home and rest.
Em Kensington, uma cadeira esmagadoramente conservadora – mas também esmagadoramente anti-Brexit – a votação foi tão apertada que a recontagem foi suspensa às 8h00 de sexta-feira para que os funcionários eleitorais pudessem ir para casa e descansar.
Across the country, people voted Labour despite not liking Corbyn.
Em todo o país, as pessoas votaram nos Trabalhistas apesar de não gostarem de Corbyn. 
People told pollsters that they were worried about the future of the National Health Service, that they didn’t like May’s flip-flops on elderly care, that they were unnerved by instability unleashed by the Tories.
As pessoas disseram aos pesquisadores que estavam preocupadas com o futuro do Serviço Nacional de Saúde, que não gostaram das cambalhotas de May nos cuidados aos idosos, que estavam nervosas com a instabilidade desencadeada pelos Conservadores.
  • "pollsters" – pesquisadores, entrevistadores, institutos de pesquisa.
  • "unleashed" – desencadeada, liberada, solta.
[6º PARÁGRAFO]
Play to your base, insult your opponents: It’s a tactic beloved of many, including President Trump.
Jogue com base na sua base, insulte os seus oponentes: é uma tática apreciada por muitos, incluindo o presidente Trump.
But here’s a lesson for the opponents of populists all over the West: “Play to your base” doesn’t work when you have high turnout — and in this election it was higher than predicted.
Mas aqui vai uma lição para os oponentes dos populistas em todo o Ocidente: “Jogar para a sua base” não funciona quando há uma elevada participação – e nestas eleições foi superior ao previsto.
It doesn’t work when you face angry, alienated voters. And it didn’t work in Britain at all.
Não funciona quando você enfrenta eleitores irritados e alienados. E não funcionou na Grã-Bretanha.
[7º PARÁGRAFO]
The outcome is a disaster, but it’s hard not to enjoy the many ironies.
O resultado é um desastre, mas é difícil não gostar das muitas ironias.
The Tories campaigned against a “coalition of chaos” — but now it is they who lead exactly that.
Os Conservadores fizeram campanha contra uma “coligação do caos” – mas agora são eles que lideram exatamente isso.
May campaigned to get a larger majority, but now Britain has a hung Parliament, meaning that no party has enough seats to form a government.
May fez campanha para obter uma maioria maior, mas agora a Grã-Bretanha tem um Parlamento dividido, o que significa que nenhum partido tem assentos suficientes para formar um governo. 
May tried to portray herself as a singular leader, but now she can stay in power only with the help of one of the small Northern Irish parties.
May tentou apresentar-se como uma líder singular, mas agora só consegue permanecer no poder com a ajuda de um dos pequenos partidos da Irlanda do Norte.
If she remains prime minister — if her famously regicidal party doesn’t defenestrate her immediately — her majority will be neither strong nor stable, particularly because her party is torn by divisions over Brexit, too.
Se ela continuar a ser primeira-ministra – se o seu famoso partido regicida não a defender imediatamente – a sua maioria não será nem forte nem estável, especialmente porque o seu partido também está dilacerado por divisões sobre o Brexit.
[8º PARÁGRAFO]
It’s funny — but it’s also tragic, for May could have played all of this differently.
É engraçado – mas também é trágico, pois May poderia ter interpretado tudo isso de forma diferente.
When she took over last year, she could have recognized Brexit for the constitutional and political crisis that it has turned out to be.
Quando assumiu o cargo no ano passado, poderia ter reconhecido o Brexit pela crise constitucional e política que acabou por ser.
She could have called for national unity to deal with this divisive issue.
Ela poderia ter apelado à unidade nacional para lidar com esta questão divisiva.
She could have appealed across party lines, or asked people what outcome they preferred, or sought compromise.
Ela poderia ter apelado para além das linhas partidárias, ou perguntado às pessoas qual resultado elas preferiam, ou procurado um acordo.
Instead she stuck to her formula — “Hard Brexit,” tough-sounding language, “it’s all about immigration.” She kept her base — and lost everyone else.
Em vez disso, ela manteve a sua fórmula: “Brexit duro”, linguagem que soa dura, “é tudo uma questão de imigração”. Ela manteve sua base – e perdeu todos os outros.
Adapted from The Washington Post, June 9, 2017
  • UKIP: United Kingdom Independence Party, a Euroskeptic and right-wing populist political party that is a strong supporter of Brexit.
  • UKIP: Partido da Independência do Reino Unido, um partido político eurocético e populista de direita que é um forte defensor do Brexit.
 INTRODUÇÃO:
In this article from The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analyzes the United Kingdom’s recent general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative (Tory) Party suffered a great disappointment.
(Neste artigo do The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum analisa as recentes eleições gerais no Reino Unido, nas quais o Partido Conservador (Conservador) da Primeira-Ministra Theresa May sofreu uma grande desilusão.)
Presenting her thoughts against the backdrop of the Brexit controversy, the author looks at Britain’s parties and politicians, the behavior of Britain’s voters, and the election results. Read the text and answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
(Apresentando os seus pensamentos tendo como pano de fundo a controvérsia do Brexit, a autora analisa os partidos e os políticos britânicos, o comportamento dos eleitores britânicos e os resultados eleitorais. Leia o texto e responda às questões abaixo. Aconselhamos que você leia as perguntas com atenção e dê respostas que sejam de relevância direta. Lembre-se: Sua resposta à Pergunta 1 deve ser escrita em português, mas suas respostas às Perguntas 2 e 3 devem ser escritas em inglês. Com estas duas últimas perguntas, você pode usar o inglês americano ou o inglês britânico, mas deve ser consistente o tempo todo.)

01 – (FGV/VESTIBULAR-DIREITO-2019.1-1º SEMESTRE)
  • In April 2017, citizens of the United Kingdom voted in an early general election that had been called by Prime Minister Theresa May. According to the information in the article, what did May hope to achieve by holding an election so soon after she had become Prime Minister? What logic did she use in her campaign? What mistakes did she make, and what could she have done to encourage a more favorable outcome [resultado]? What lesson can be drawn from this election?
  • In your opinion, is Theresa May a good leader or a mediocre one? How would you describe her character and ability as well as her approach to Brexit? Does being a woman put her at a disadvantage in British politics?
      RESPOSTA      
 1ª PARTE 
:
>>(to be answered in Portuguese).
>>(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
Em abril, Theresa May convocou uma eleição geral antecipada, confiante de que os eleitores do Partido de extrema direita UKIP agora endossariam seu “Hard Brexit” e seu populismo conservador inglês diluído.
A lógica que ela usou na campanha foi atacar estrangeiros, zombar da União Europeia e segurar a mão de Donald TrumpMay se declarou a candidata “forte e estável”, prometeu negociações difíceis com a Europa e claramente esperava obter uma maioria maior.
Os erros cometidos pela primeira-ministra May foram:  ignorar os 48% do país que não votaram no Brexit, chamando-os de “cidadãos de lugar nenhum”; Ela ignorou a ansiedade que o Brexit criou e as consequências econômicas que agora estão apenas começando a aparecer. Ela ignorou os jovens, que preferiram permanecer na E.U. no ano passado e agora preferem o Partido Trabalhista aos Conservadores por uma margem enorme, 63% a 27%.
A fim de atingir um resultado mais favorável, May poderia ter jogado tudo isso de maneira diferente. Quando ela assumiu no ano passado, ela poderia ter reconhecido o Brexit pela crise constitucional e política que acabou sendo. Ela poderia ter clamado por unidade nacional para lidar com esta questão divisionista. Ela poderia ter apelado através das linhas partidárias, ou perguntado às pessoas que resultado elas preferiam, ou buscado um acordo. Em vez disso, ela manteve sua fórmula - "Hard Brexit", linguagem que soa dura, "é tudo sobre imigração." Ela manteve sua base - e perdeu todos os outros.
Mas aqui vai uma lição para os oponentes dos populistas de todo o Ocidente: “Jogar com sua base” não funciona quando você tem uma alta participação - e nesta eleição foi maior do que o previsto. Não funciona quando você enfrenta eleitores irritados e alienados. E não funcionou na Grã-Bretanha de jeito nenhum.

      RESPOSTA      
  2ª PARTE  
:
  • In your opinion, is Theresa May a good leader or a mediocre one? How would you describe her character and ability as well as her approach to Brexit? Does being a woman put her at a disadvantage in British politics?
Ela não é uma boa líder, pois embora o resultado do referendum tenha sido favorável à saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia, faltou à primeira-ministra um pouco de flexibilidade para lidar com questões políticas e econômicas, dada a complexidade do Brexit.
O fato de ser homem ou mulher não influi na capacidade do ser humano de ser um bom líder e comandar qualquer Estado, portanto, de forma alguma o fato de ser mulher a colocou em desvantagem na política britânica.

01 – (FGV/VESTIBULAR-DIREITO-2019.1-1º SEMESTRE)
(to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Allowing a person or entity that has freely entered a partnership or association to leave that partnership or association can be controversial. For example, although it is often a simple matter to quit a job, “quitting” the Armed Forces in time of war, even if you are a volunteer, is a crime. And one need only remember that some decades ago divorce was illegal in Brazil.

The United States came into being when 13 separate English colonies decided to leave the British Empire and form a federal union. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
• By 1860, however, the Southern states, believing that what they considered the tyranny of the Northern states and the Federal Government was threatening their way of life, a way of life supported by the institution of legalized slavery (which the South wanted not only to preserve but also to extend into new territories in the West), decided they had the right to secede and to form their own country, the Confederate States of America. President Abraham Lincoln declared they did not have such a right, and a bloody civil war ensued, at first to preserve the union but eventually to abolish slavery forever in the United States. At the war’s end, the South was all but destroyed.
• You should keep in mind that the Southerners wanted to preserve their independence and the inviolability of their culture – to “take back control,” so to speak. Moreover, at the beginning of the war, owning slaves, while controversial, was certainly not illegal, at least not in the South. You should keep in mind as well that had the Confederate States of America succeeded, it would have been the first country in history founded upon the idea of eternal slave labor and that, even before the war, Lincoln had said publicly, “If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”
• In your opinion, therefore, did the South, which had voluntarily become part of the United States, have the right to secede? What about the rights of those human beings the South kept in bondage [escravidão]? If the South had not permitted slavery, would it then have had the right to leave the United States – or would the existence or non-existence of slavery have been irrelevant in this question?
• Furthermore, is it possible that Brexit – which is also causing serious personal, economic, and diplomatic problems for Britain and Europe, but has not led to war – could be right, but the South’s attempted secession wrong? How are the two situations similar or different? In short, when may a geopolitical entity be justified in separating itself from a union with other geopolitical entities? What should be the guiding principle: law, morality, common sense?
• In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.

QUESTION 3 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
• “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it… Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in the occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.” – Thomas Jefferson (1789)
• “Each generation…has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1816)
• “From the earliest times the old have rubbed it into the young that they are wiser than they, and before the young had discovered what nonsense this was they were old too, and it profited them to carry on the imposture.”
– W. Somerset Maugham (1930)
“I want my country back.” “I don’t recognize the U.K. anymore.” “We’re losing our identity.” “Immigrants come over here to take our jobs or to live the easy life on public assistance. Britain should be for the British, not for a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, and possibly dangerous foreigners.”
– What many Brexit supporters said before the referendum.
• With the above ideas in mind, consider the following question: If the people of a country vote on an irrevocable decision, should all votes be equal? After all, British young people, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the E.U., are the ones who will have to spend the majority of their adult lives dealing with the after-effects of the decision to leave, a decision made in large part by their elders, who, while presumably wiser than they, will (statistically speaking) not need to suffer for so long if that decision turns out to have been a bad one.
• So, just as there is an age limit for voting, should some questions be restricted to a certain group? In a representative democracy, the principle of one person, one vote is sacrosanct. That being so, in your opinion, it is fair or is it the tyranny of a self-interested majority to implement decisions that will negatively affect one generation in perpetuity? Is there any way around this or must we accept that democracy is imperfect and that sometimes people, like it or not, will suffer because of political decisions?
• The following may help you formulate an answer: 
According to The Economist, because of Brexit the U.K. can expect its economy to shrink by 2.4%, even more if immigration is restricted. Only 40% of British young people aged 18 to 24 bothered to vote in the referendum that, to the surprise of many, approved Brexit.
Last and perhaps most important, should the U.K. declare Brexit null and void, and petition to be reinstated in the E.U.?
• In answering, you may take into account legal, ethical, and practical considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.