CACD – DISCURSIVA 2016 – DIPLOMATA – LÍNGUA INGLESA –WRITING EXAMINATION

www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br

❑ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:

• CEBRASPE-2016-DIPLOMATA-PROVA ESCRITA.

www.cebraspe.org.br

www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/instituto-rio-branco

❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA ESCRITA (WRITING EXAMINATION):

• (1) TRANSLATION  | 20 pontos |

• (2)  VERSION  | 15 pontos |

• (3)  SUMMARY | 15 pontos |

• (4) COMPOSITION | Quotations| 50 pontos|

- Assunto (geral) – You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race. || Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right and always successful, right or wrong.

- Tema (específico) – Do ponto de vista de um diplomata, comparar e discutir as visões de patriotismo.

1 - TRANSLATION:

[value: 20 marks]

Translate into Portuguese the following excerpt:

As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision. I am not referring to telepathy or mind control or the other obsessions of fringe science; even in the depictions of believers these are blunt instruments compared to an ability that is uncontroversially present in every one of us. That ability is language. Simply by making noises with our mouths, we can reliably cause precise new combinations of ideas to arise in each other's minds. The ability comes so naturally that we are apt to forget what a miracle it is.
           
In any natural history of the human species, language would stand out as the preeminent trait.
          
To be sure, a solitary human is an impressive problem-solver and engineer. But what is truly arresting about our kind is better captured in the story of the Tower of Babel, in which humanity, speaking a single language, came so close to reaching heaven that God himself felt threatened.

Adapted from Steven Pinker.

The language instinct. Penguin Books, 1995

➽ TRADUÇÃO:

Enquanto você lê essas palavras, você toma parte em uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Pois você e eu pertencemos a uma espécie com uma capacidade notável: nós podemos moldar eventos com exímia precisão no cérebro um do outro. Não me refiro à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da pseudociência; mesmo na descrições dos crentes, esses são instrumentos grosseiros comparados a uma habilidade que está presente em cada um de nós. Essa capacidade é a linguagem. Fazendo, simplesmente, ruídos com nossas bocas, podemos, com segurança, causar novas combinações precisas de ideias a serem concebidas na mente de cada um. A capacidade é tão natural que tendemos a esquecer o milagre que ela é.

Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se destacaria como traço proeminente.

Seguramente, o humano solitário é um solucionador de problemas e um engenheiro impressionante. Mas o que é verdadeiramente admirável sobre nosso gênero é melhor ilustrado na história da Torre de Babel, em que a humanidade, falando uma única língua, chegou tão próxima de alcançar o paraíso que até Deus se sentiu ameaçado.

➽ PIOR TRADUÇÃO:          

À medida que você lê essas palavras, entra em contato com uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Como você e eu pertencemos a uma espécie com notória habilidade, nós podemos condicionar  eventos no cérebro de cada um com uma precisão notória. Não estou me referindo à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da ciência louca; mesmo nas descrições dos que creem, esses são instrumentos loucos, comparados com uma habilidade que é, de modo incontroverso, presente em cada um de nós. Tal habilidade é a linguagem. Simplesmente, ao fazer barulho com nossas bocas, podemos, de modo confiável, causar novas combinações precisas de ideias para que elas apareçam na cabeça de cada um. Essa habilidade aparece tão naturalmente que nós estamos aptos a esquecer o que é um milagre.
            
Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se destacaria como traço preeminente. Para ter certeza, um ser humano solitário é um sensível solucionador de problemas e engenheiro. Mas o que é realmente notório sobre nossa espécie é melhor verificado na história da Torre de Babel, na qual a humanidade, falando um única língua, chegou tão perto de atingir o céu que Deus se sentiu ameaçado. 

➽ ANÁLISE DO VOCÁBULO "ABILITY"/ə'bɪl.ə.t̬i/:

➽ TRECHO: [...] For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability:

(1) Pois você e eu pertencemos a uma espécie com uma capacidade notável:

(2) Pois você e eu participamos de uma espécie com uma habilidade impressionante:(ERRO)

-  NA PROVA: Os candidatos que usaram a palavra "capacidade", não foram penalizados pela banca. Entretanto, outros alunos que usaram "habilidades", perderam pontos, foram penalizados

- Os seres humanos, têm a "capacidade" (ability) de se comunicarem usando a linguagem. Alguns podem ter grande "habilidade" (skill) no emprego desse instrumento, tornando-se, por exemplo, grandes oradores.

- A diferença entre os dois termos é óbvia e relevante no contexto.

- NO THESAUROS (Merriam-Webster.com): o substantivo "ability", é sinônimo de "CAPACITY"(capacidade) e sinônimo de SKILL (habilidade).

- A diferença DE SENTIDO entre os dois termos é óbvia e relevante no contexto.

- Lembre-se que duas palavras podem ser sinônimas, mas mesmo assim, podem não ser intercambiáveis  em contextos diferentes.

➽ ANÁLISE DO VOCÁBULO "EXQUISITE"/ɪk'skwɪz·ɪt/:

➽ TRECHO: [...] we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision.

(1) (nós) podemos dar forma a eventos no cérebro de cada um de nós com extrema precisão.

-  NA PROVA: Os candidatos usaram as palavras "excelente", "ótima",  e não foram penalizados pela banca.

- NO THESAUROS (Merriam-Webster.com): o adjetivo "exquisite", é sinônimo de:

(1) "INTENSE"/ɪnˈtens/, no sentido de "intenso", "extremo", "extremo em grau, poder ou efeito":

• She felt such exquisite anger!
• Ela sentiu uma raiva tão intensa!

(2) "ELEGANT"/ˈel.ə.ɡənt/, no sentido de "elegante", "requintado":

• Exquisite Chinese embroideries (dictionary.cambridge.org).
• Bordados chineses requintados.

(3) "SUBTLE"/ˈsʌt̬.əl/, no sentido de "sutil", "delicado", "suave":

• She has exquisite taste in art.(dictionary.cambridge.org).
• Ela tem um gosto sutil para arte.

➽ ANÁLISE DO VOCÁBULO "FRINGE"/frɪndʒ/:

➽ TRECHO: [...] I am not referring to telepathy or mind control or the other obsessions of fringe science;

(1) Não me refiro à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da pseudociência;

(2) Não estou me referindo à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da ciência louca;(ERRO)

-  NA PROVA: Os candidatos usaram as palavras "pseudociência", "obsessões marginais à",  e não foram penalizados pela banca.

- No dicionário "dictionary.cambridge.org", a palavra "fringe", quando usado substantivo, é sinônimo de:
(1) "EDGE"/edʒ/, no sentido LITERAL de "a parte externa de uma área", "margem", "periferia":

• The southern fringe of the city
• A periferia sul da cidade.
• The outer fringes of the prairie
• As margens externas da pradaria.

(2) "MINORITY"/maɪ'nɒr.ə.ti/, no sentido de "minoria":

• The radical fringes of the party.
• As minorias radicais do partido.
• He attended several of the fringe meetings at the conference. ("fring" funcionando na versão adjetivada).
• Ele participou de várias reuniões de minorias da conferência.
• She's a fringe candidate who has no real chance of getting elected. 
• Ela é uma candidata de minoria, que não tem chance real de ser eleita.

(3) "DECORATION"/ˌdek.əˈreɪ.ʃən/, no sentido de "franja":

• A fringe around the edge of a tablecloth.
• Uma franja na borda de uma toalha de mesa.

(4) "HAIR"/her/, no sentido de "franja de cabelo":

• A short fringe.
• Uma franja curta.

2 - VERSION:

[value: 15,00 marks]

Translate into English the following text:

Com o fim da escravidão e a consequente desorganização momentânea do sistema de mão de obra, uma série de esforços foi feita no sentido de atrair imigrantes, sobretudo europeus, para o Brasil. A experiência vinha da época do Império, mas seria incrementada na Primeira República. Em razão da concorrência de países como Argentina, Cuba, México e Estados Unidos da América, o governo brasileiro teve de se esmerar para vender a ideia do “paraíso terreal”. Grandemente destinado ao campo — à formação de núcleos coloniais oficiais nos estados do Sul e em especial às fazendas de café na Região Sudeste —, esse contingente de imigrantes acabaria absorvido pela dinâmica das cidades que cresciam e ofereciam empregos e serviços.

Como existiam grandes áreas não ocupadas no Sul do país, instalou-se aí um modelo de imigração baseado em pequenas propriedades policultoras. A terra era vendida a prazo, em lotes de vinte a vinte e cinco hectares, geralmente distribuídos ao longo dos cursos de água. As propriedades eram, porém, muito isoladas, e seus novos habitantes sujeitos a todo tipo de adversidade: ataques de indígenas, maus-tratos por parte da população local, dificuldades de comércio.

Adapted from Lilia M. Schwarcz and Heloisa M. Starling.

Brasil: uma biografia. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2015.

➽ VERSÃO (Português→Inglês):

With the end of slavery and the ensuing momentary disarray of the labor system, a series of initiatives was undertaken to attract immigrants to Brazil, not least from Europe. The experience had started during the Empire, but it would be enhance in the First Republic. Owing to competition from countries such as Argentina, Cuba, Mexico and the US, the Brazilian government had to strive to peddle the country as a “heaven on Earth”. Largely destined to the countryside – to the formation of official colonial settlements in southern states and especially to the coffee farms in the Southeast-, this mass if immigrants would end up being absorbed by the dynamic of the cities that flourished and offered employment opportunities and services.
            
Since there were large unoccupied swaths of land in the country’s South, an immigration model based on small properties that divirsified their crops established in the region. Land was sold on credit, in tracts of twenty to twenty-five hectares, normally distributed along the course of rivers. These properties were, however, too isolated, and their new inhabitants were subject to all kinds of adversities: attacks by indigenous peoples, ill treatment from the local population and trade difficulties.

3 - SUMMARY:

[value: 15 marks]

Write a summary, in your own words, of the following excerpt. Your text should not exceed 200 words.

Economists are sometimes criticized for concentrating too much on efficiency and too little on equity. There may be some ground for complaint here, but it must also be noted that inequality has received attention from economists throughout the history of this discipline. Adam Smith, who is often thought of as “the Father of Modern Economics”, was deeply concerned with the gulf between the rich and the poor. Some of the social scientists and philosophers who are responsible for making inequality such a central subject of public attention were, in terms of substantive involvement, devoted economists, no matter what else they might also have been. In recent years, economics of inequality as a subject has flourished. This is not to deny that the focus on efficiency to the exclusion of other considerations is very evident in some works in economics, but economists as a group cannot be accused of neglecting inequality as a subject.

If there is a reason to grumble, it rests more on the relative importance that is attached, in much of economics, to inequality in a very narrow domain, viz. income inequality. This narrowness has the effect of contributing to the neglect of other ways of seeing inequality and equity, which has far-reaching bearing on the making of economic policy. Policy debates have indeed been distorted by overemphasis on income poverty and income inequality, to the neglect of deprivations that relate to other variables, such as unemployment, ill health, lack of education, and social exclusion. Unfortunately, the identification of economic inequality with income inequality is fairly common in economics, and the two are often seen as effectively synonymous. If you tell someone that you are working on economic inequality, it is quite standardly assumed that you are studying income distribution.

The distinction, however, between income inequality and economic inequality is important. Many of the criticisms of economic egalitarianism as a value or a goal apply much more readily to the narrow concept of income inequality than they do to the broader notions of economic inequality. For example, giving a larger share of income to a person with more needs can be seen as militating against the principle of equalizing incomes, but it does not go against the broader precepts of economic equality.

Empirically, the relationship between income inequality and inequality in other relevant spaces can be rather distant and contingent because of various economic influences other than income that affect inequalities in individual advantages and substantive freedoms. For example, in the higher mortality rates of African Americans vis-à-vis the much poorer Chinese, or Indians in Kerala, we see the influence of factors that run in the opposite direction to income inequality, and that involve public policy issues with strong economic components: the financing of health care and insurance, provision of public education, arrangements for local security and so on.

Mortality differences can, in fact, serve as an indicator of very deep inequities that divide races, classes and genders. Statistics on mortality rates as well as other deprivations (such as undernourishment or illiteracy) can directly present a picture of inequality and poverty in some crucial dimensions. This information can also be used to relate the extent of relative deprivation of women to the existing inequalities in opportunities (in earning outside income, in being enrolled in schools and so on). Thus both descriptive and policy issues can be addressed through this broader perspective on inequality and poverty in terms of capability deprivation.

Despite the crucial role of incomes in the advantages enjoyed by different persons, the relationship between income (and other resources), on the one hand, and individual achievements and freedoms, on the other, is neither constant nor in any sense automatic and irresistible. Different types of contingencies lead to systematic variations in the “conversion” of incomes into the distinct “functionings” we can achieve, and that affects the lifestyles we can enjoy. I have tried to illustrate the different ways in which there can be systematic variations in the relationship between incomes earned and substantive freedoms (in the form of capability to lead lives that people have reason to value). The respective roles of personal heterogeneities, environmental diversities, variations in social climate, differences in relational perspectives and distributions within the family have to receive the serious attention they deserve for the making of public policy.

The argument is sometimes made that income is a homogeneous magnitude, whereas capabilities are diverse. This sharp contrast is not entirely correct, in the sense that any income evaluation hides internal diversities with some special — and often heroic — assumptions. Also, interpersonal comparisons of real income give us no basis for interpersonal comparisons even of utility. To get from the comparison of the means in the form of income differences to something that can be claimed to be valuable in itself (such as well-being or freedom), we have to take note of circumstantial variations that affect the conversion rates. The presumption that the approach of income comparison is a more “practical” way of getting at interpersonal differences in advantages is hard to sustain.

Furthermore, the need to discuss the valuation of diverse capabilities in terms of public priorities is an asset, forcing us to make clear what the value judgments are in a field where value judgments cannot be — and should not be — avoided. Indeed, public participation in these valuational debates is a crucial part of the exercise of democracy and responsible social choice. In matters of public judgment, there is no real escape from the evaluative need for public discussion. That evasion becomes transparent when we supplement income and commodity data with information of other types (including matters of life and death).

The issue of public discussion and social participation is thus central to the making of policy in a democratic framework. The use of democratic prerogatives — both political liberties and civil rights — is a crucial part of the exercise of economic policy making itself, in addition to other roles it may have. In a freedom-oriented approach, participatory freedoms cannot but be central to public policy analysis.

Adapted from Amartya Sen.

Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. p. 107-10.

➽ RESUMO EM INGLÊS: 

If it is true that some economic studies focus more on efficiency rather than inequality, this does not apply to all economists. Several economists, as did Adam Smith himself, are deeply concerned with equity.
           
However, economists give more importance to income inequality than to other kinds of inequality, such as unemployment and the lack of access to health and education. 
         
The relationship between the two is not always close, since several other economic influences impact on equity. This explain (sic) why African Americans have higher mortality rates than the Chinese.
          
Statistics on deprivations, such as mortality rates, undernourishment and illiteracy, can depict other dimensions of inequality, which can be utile for policy-making. Several other factor (sic) also affect the individual’s capacity of converting income into capabilities, such as environmental, social and family diversities.
          
The claim that comparing income is a more “practical” way of addressing the problem is difficult to sustain. Interpersonal comparison of income does not take into consideration the other aspects of economic inequality. It is necessary, thus, to discuss the issue with public participation to valuate (sic) the diverse capabilities and set public priorities. The participation of the public is central to a democratic policy-making.

4 - COMPOSITION:

[Length: 400 to 450 words]

[value: 50 marks]

"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race."

George Bernard Shaw,

Irish playwright (1856-1950).

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right and always successful, right or wrong."

Stephen Decatur Jr.,

U.S. Commodore (1779-1820).

From the point of view of a diplomat, compare and discuss the views of patriotism expressed in the two quotes above.

➽ REDAÇÃO EM INGLÊS: 

George Bernard Shaw argues that, in order to achieve peace in the world, patriotism must be extinct. Stephen Decatur Jr., in turn, wishes that his own nation prevails as the best and most successful one, no matter under what circumstances. Both of them adopt extreme views on the matter of patriotism. From the point of view of a diplomat, neither one or* the other should be considered entirely right.
           
When Stephen Decatur Jr. wrote that he wished his country to be "always in the right and always successful, right or wrong", he was not aware of the dangers that extreme patriotism poses to peace. Only in the second half of the 19th century did Imperialism rise, following the consequences of the Industrial Revolution. And only in the 20th century did the world witness the horrors of two heavily industrialised* wars. Even nowadays, when most of the world is relatively in peace, extreme patriotism is responsible for increasing tension between countries and among people. When a diplomat looks at a crisis such as the Crimean one in 2013, he or she cannot pay scant heed to the role of 78 patriotism as an igniting factor. The same is true regarding the refugee crisis in Europe – a continent where growing xenophobia only makes it more difficult for leaders to come up with a solution. Diplomacy can help, as it did when Germany and Turkey reached an agreement regarding the refugee crisis earlier in 2016, but it cannot work miracles.
          
Unlike Decatur Jr., George Bernard Shaw did live through the rise and fall of the Empires. Arguably, his stance on peace based on the extinction of patriotism might have been motivated precisely by his testimony* of the two world wars. Idealist views were strengthened particularly after World War II, largely based on Kant’s philosophy of a cosmopolitan world. It is true that, as humans, we all share the same existential conundrums. However, it is also true that we value our local cultures and identities. The closest we have ever been to putting Kant’s perspectives into use was the creation of the United Nations – and still, power is not equally distributed and there is a very Realist approach to how its Security Council was formed, with the winners of the war holding permanent seats. A diplomat should always try to reach peaceful solutions, but must also take the reality of the world into account, in order not to be naïve.
        
Neither Decatur Jr.’s nor Shaw’s views are enough to understand the world in which we live today. When faced with extremisms, a diplomat should always try to find balance* and build consensus, embracing patriotism without bigotry, and always engaging in dialog. 

CACD – DISCURSIVA 2015 – DIPLOMATA – LÍNGUA INGLESA –WRITING EXAMINATION

www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br

❑ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:

• CEBRASPE-2015-DIPLOMATA-PROVA ESCRITA.

www.cebraspe.org.br

www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/instituto-rio-branco

❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA ESCRITA (WRITING EXAMINATION):

• (1) TRANSLATION  | 20 pontos |

• (2)  VERSION  | 15 pontos |

• (3)  SUMMARY | 15 pontos |

• (4) COMPOSITION | 50 pontos|

1 - TRANSLATION:

[value: 20 marks]

Translate into Portuguese the following excerpt adapted from Sir Christopher Meyer's article How to step down as an ambassador — with style.

It was once the custom for British ambassadors to write a valedictory despatch at the end of their posting. In contrast to the utilitarian style of daily diplomatic reporting, ambassadors were expected to spread their wings with candid comment on the country they were leaving, larded, where the wit was willing, with humorously pungent observations on the character of the locals. The best were distributed throughout the diplomatic service for the enlightenment and amusement of its ranks.

These were usually pretty sensitive and might be construed as a slight abroad were their contents divulged beyond the Ministry’s portals. Some missives were deemed so delicate that their circulation was restricted for fear of leaks. Bidding farewell Sir Ivor Roberts dared ask: "Can it be that in wading through the plethora of business plans, capability reviews, skills audits… we have forgotten what diplomacy is all about?"

Whether written with quill, typewriter or tablet, a key requirement has ever been the ability to render incisive judgment, with style and wit.

Christopher Meyer. How to step down as an ambassador - with style.The telegraph, August 7th 2015.

➽ TRADUÇÃO:            

Já foi o costume de os embaixadores britânicos escreverem um despacho de despedida ao final de seu exercício em um posto diplomático. Em contraste ao estilo utilitário das reportagens diplomáticas diárias, esperava-se que os embaixadores "abrissem suas asas" com comentários francos sobre o país que estavam deixando, recheados, onde a argúcia era devida, com observações humoristicamente pungentes sobre as características dos locais. Os melhores eram distribuídos por todo o serviço diplomático, para o esclarecimento e o divertimento de seus funcionários.
           
Esses comentários eram, geralmente, bastante sensíveis e podiam ser compreendidos como uma crítica depreciativa no exterior, caso seus conteúdos fossem divulgados além do âmbito do Ministério. Algumas missivas eram consideradas tão delicadas que sua circulação foi restringida, por medo de vazamentos. Despedindo-se, Sir Ivor Roberts ousou questionar: “Será possível que, ao atravessarmos a miríade de planos de negócios, revisões de capacidades, auditorias de habilidades... nós esquecemos o que é a essência da diplomacia?”.
           
Seja escrito em pena, máquina de escrever ou “tablet”, um requisito-chave sempre foi a habilidade de produzir um juízo incisivo, com estilo e perspicácia.

2 - VERSION:

[value: 15,00 marks]

Translate into English the following excerpt adapted from Sérgio Buarque de Holanda’s Raízes do Brasil.

A empreitada de implantação da cultura europeia em extenso território, dotado de condições naturais, se não adversas, francamente antagônicas à sua cultura 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 refratário e hostil, somos ainda hoje uns desterrados em nossa terra. Podemos enriquecer nossa humanidade de aspectos novos e imprevistos, aperfeiçoar o tipo de civilização que representamos, mas todo o fruto de nosso trabalho ou de nossa preguiça parece participar de um sistema de evolução próprio de outro clima e outra paisagem.

É significativo termos recebido a herança proveniente de uma nação ibérica. Espanha e Portugal eram territórios-ponte pelos quais a Europa se comunicava com os outros mundos. Constituíam uma zona fronteiriça, de transição, menos carregada desse europeísmo que, não obstante, retinha como um patrimônio imprescindível.

Sérgio Buarque de Holanda.

Raízes do Brasil. 3.ª ed. Rio de Janeiro:

José Olympio, 1956, p. 15-16.

➽ VERSÃO (Português→Inglês):   

The dominant and most consequential fact in the origins of Brazilian society is the effort of implanting [-1,0] the [-0,5] European culture upon a large territory, doted [-1,0] with natural conditions that were, if not adverse, frankly antagonistic toward Europe's millenar [-0,5] culture. By bringing from distant countries our forms of socialization, our institutions, our ideas, and by insisting on maintaining all that in an environment that is often unfavorable and hostile, we remain, still, a people disconnected from our surroundings. Although we may enrich our humanity with new and unforeseen aspects and perfect the kind of civilization that we represent, all the product of either our work or our laziness seems to be a part of a system of evolution that belongs to another climate and another landscape.
         

It is significant that we received the heritage of an Iberic nation. Spain and Portugal were both passageways through which Europe communicated with the other worlds. They constituted an area of borders and of transition, less filled with this European influence which, nonetheless, they retained as an indispensable asset.

Versão 2(Wallace Medeiros de Melo Alves)(Alcançou 11 pontos)::           
The undertaking of the establishment of the [-1,0] European culture in a large territory, endowed with natural conditions, which if not adverse, it is widely antagonist [-1,0] of [-1,0] its centuriesold culture, is, at the roots of Brazilian society, the richest and most dominant factor in its consequences. By bringing our ways of life, institutions and ideas from distant countries, as well as managing to conciliate all this in an environment that is hostile and opponent at times, we are still foreigners in our own land. We can enrich our humanity through new and unexpected aspects, improve the type of civilization we represent, but all the outcome from our work or laziness seems to take part in a system of evolution related to a different climate and landscape.
         
It is meaningful that we have received the heritage from an Iberian nation. Spain and Portugal were territories that served as a bridge, through which Europe communicated with other worlds. They were a transitional border zone, less [-1,0]
endowed with this European identity, although they kept it as a valuable asset.

Versão 3(Hudson Caldeira Brant Sandy):           
In the origins of Brazilian society, the attempt to implant [-1,0] European culture in a vast territory with natural conditions that are - if not contrary [-1,0] - openly antagonistic towards Europe's millenar [-0,5] culture has been the dominant
fact, and the one richest in consequences. Having brought our models of community life, our institutions and our ideas from distant countries, and struggling to keep them all in an environment that rebuffs and is hostile to them, we are, even nowadays [-1,0], outcasts in our own land. We may enrich our humanity with new and unforseen aspects, we may paerfect the kind of civilization that we represent, but the fact remains that the entire product of our work or sloth seems to be a part of a specific evolution system, one from a different climate and a different landscape.
            
It is meaningful that the heritage we received stems from an Iberian nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge territories through which Europe could communicate with other worlds. They were a frontier zone, one of transition, less burdened with this Europeism [-1] that it kept, regardless, as an indispensible patrimony.

Versão 4(NOTA ZERO):           
The work of implementing the European culture in a vast territory, rich in natural conditions, if not adverse, frankly opposed to its millenar culture is, in the origins of the Brazilian society, the dominant fact and the richer one in consequences. Bringing from far away countries our ways of living, our institutions, our ideas, and carrying for keeping all that in an environment often closed and hostile, we are nowadays still some expatriates in our own land. We may enrichen our humanity with new and unexpected aspects, improve the kind of civilization that we represent, but all the outcomes of our work or of our lazyness seem to participate in an evolution system characteristic of another climate and another landscape.
        
It is significant that we had received the heritage from an Iberic nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge-territories through which Europe used to communicate with the other worlds. They used to constitute a bordering zone of transition, less charged of that europeism which, however, it retained as an essential property.

3 - SUMMARY:

[value: 15 marks]

Write a summary, in your own words, of the following excerpt adapted from Gaia Vince’s Humans have caused untold damage to the planet. Your text should not exceed 200 words.

The times in which we live are epoch-making. Literally. Such is the scale of the changes humans have wrought of late that our world has been altered beyond anything experienced hitherto. Our planet is now crossing a geological boundary, and we are the change-makers.

Millions of years from now, a stripe in the accumulated layers of rock on Earth’s surface will reveal our human fingerprint, just as we can discern evidence of dinosaurs in rocks of the Jurassic, the explosion of life that marks the Cambrian or the glacial retreat scars of the Holocene. Our imprint will be revealed by species going extinct by the score, sharp changes in the oceans’ chemistry, depletion of forests and encroachment of deserts, shrinking of glaciers and the sinking of islands. Geologists of the far future will detect in fossil records a diminishing array of wild animals offset by an upsurge of domesticates, the baleful effects of detritus such as aluminium drink cans and plastic carrier bags, and the noxious smudge of mining projects laying waste the oil sands of north-western Canada, revolving 30 billion tonnes of earth each year — twice the amount of sediment discharged from all the rivers in the world.

In acknowledgement that humanity has become a geophysical force on a par with the earth-shattering asteroids and planet-cloaking volcanoes that defined past eras, geologists are dubbing this new epoch the Anthropocene. Earth now ranks as a human planet. We determine whether a forest stands or is razed, whether species survive or become extinct, how and whither a river flows, the temperature of the atmosphere, even. We have become the most manifold big animal on Earth, followed by those we breed to feed and serve us. Nearly half the planet’s land surface is now used to grow our food, and we control three-quarters of the world’s fresh water. Prodigious times, indeed. In the tropics, coral reefs dwindle, ice melts apace at the poles while the oceans are emptying of fish at our doing. Entire islands are submerging under rising seas, just as naked new land emerges in the Arctic.

It has become the business of science journalists to take special note of reports on how the biosphere is changing, and research is hardly in short supply. Study after study plot changes in butterfly migrations, glacier melt rates, ocean nitrogen levels, wildfire frequency... all linked by a common theme: the impact of humans. Scientists have described the multifarious ways humans are affecting the natural world. Climate scientists tracking global warming have forewarned of deadly droughts, heatwaves and gathering sea-level rise. Conservation biologists have envisaged biodiversity collapse to the point of mass extinction; marine biologists deplore “of plastic garbage” roaming the seas; space scientists debate the destiny of all the junk up there menacing our satellites; ecologists denounce deforestation of the last intact rainforests; agro-economists raise the alarm about deserts engulfing vast tracts of fertile soil. Every new study hammers home the extent to which our world is changing. Humanity is shaking it up. And people across the globe can hardly be in any doubt about the environmental crises we set in motion. All this is deeply troubling, if not overwhelming.

Dire predictions abound as to our future on Earth. At the same time, nonetheless, we should not disparage our triumphs, our inventions and discoveries — how scientists find novel ways to improve plants, stave off disease, transport electricity and forge new materials. We can be an incredible force of and for nature. Humans have the power to heat the planet further or to cool it down, to eliminate species and to engineer new ones, to re-sculpt the terrestrial surface and to fashion its biology. No part of this planet is untouched by human hand — we have transcended natural cycles, altering physical, chemical and biological processes. We can craft new life in a test tube, resurrect extinct species or grow replacement body parts. We have invented robots to be our drudges, computers to expand our brains, and a new ecosystem of communication networks. We have redrawn our own evolutionary pathway with medical advances that save those who would otherwise die in infancy. We are supernatural: we can fly without wings and dive without gills; we can survive killer diseases and be resuscitated after death.

The realisation that we wield such planetary power requires a major shift in perception, one that topples the scientific, cultural and religious philosophies that define our place in the world, in time and in relation to all other known life. Man was once framed at the centre of the Universe. Then came Copernicus in the 16th century, who put Earth in its place as just another planet revolving around the Sun. By the 19th century, Darwin had reduced man to just another species — a wee twig on the grand tree of life. The paradigm has swung round again, though: man is no longer just another species. We are the first to knowingly reshape the Earth’s biology and chemistry. We have become vital to the destiny of life on Earth. The Anthropocene throws up unprecedented challenges, as we have already begun to tilt global processes out of kilter. In some cases, minuscule further changes could spell disaster; in others, a fair degree of leeway remains before we face the consequences.

The self-awareness implicit in recognising our power requires us to question our new-found role. Are we just another part of nature, doing what nature does: reproducing to the limits of environmental capacity, subsequently to suffer a sudden demise? Or shall we prove the first species capable of curbing its natural urges, and modulating its impact on the environment, such that habitability on Earth can be maintained? Should we treat the rest of the biosphere as an exploitable resource to be plundered at will for our pleasures and needs, or does our new global power imbue us with a sense of responsibility over the rest of the natural world? The Anthropocene — and our very future — will be defined by how we reconcile these opposing, interwoven drives in the years to come.

Gaia Vince.

Humans have caused untold damage to the planet.The Guardian. September 25th 2015. In: <www.theguardian.com>.

➽ RESUMO EM INGLÊS:

As a result of humankind's unprecedented capacity to alter the Earth's geophysical characteristics, geologists have named the current era as the Anthropocene. Humans have now significant control and can deeply affect nature.

           
Millions of years in the future, fossils will present a record of humanity's impact on the planet: a long list of extinct animal species, deforestation, desertification, and raising sea levels.

           
Scientists and journalists have been researching and reporting these anthropogenic changes on climate, soils, and biodiversity. Hence, few people deny that humanity has caused these environmental crises taht are changing the world.

           
However, modern technological and scientific advancements can also be used to protect the environment. Therefore, humankind's impact on the Earth does not necessarily have to be a negative one.

          
Though the Scientific Revolution has put and end to the old anthropocentric conceptions, contemporary developments of humankind's capacity to alter the world mean that a new selfperception about humanity's place and powers must be formed.

           
Hence, humanity must make a decision about what it will do with its new perceived power: continue to make unrelentless use of nature's resources or act with greater responsibilities. The future depends on this choice.

Modelo 2         

Human action has prompted deep changes on Earth, and has inaugurated a new geological era: the Anthropocene. In the future, the human fingerprint will be measured in terms of extinction of species, the composition of oceans, deforestation, desertification, the disappearance of islands and ice caps, garbage and climate change. Humanity has managed to control the resources from Earth, but it has also become a force comparable to asteroids and volcanoes. Science journalism foreshadows a dismal reality in the fields of biodiversity, sea-level, outer space and agriculture – all as a consequence of human action.

            
Conversely, the progress of science cannot be disregarded, as we are now capable of controlling nature. Mankind needs to change its perception regarding the planet. Our position as the center of the Universe, toppled [1] by Copernicus and Darwin in the past, is once again real. Humanity is sure that the changes we are experiencing are a direct result of human action. As mankind becomes aware of its position as a great geological force, it needs to answer the prospects unveiled by scientists. We need to decide whether we will live according to the limits imposed by nature or we will adjust nature to our survival demands.

Modelo 3

Human beings are changing the planet in a decisive way, and scientists are calling the current geological age the “Anthropocene”.

            
When the scientists of the future study the present period, just like we have found fossils of dinosaurs, they will find an array of elements that will show them how we changed our planet for the worse.

            
Human beings have become a force as strong as volcanoes and asteroids in our ability to definitely change the planet. We are affecting the climate, the oceans, the biodiversity and even the outer space.

            
However, the same power we use to destroy we can also use to construct. The improvements in medicine, biogenetics and technology in general prove human beings can work in favor of nature, not only against it.

           
In order to use our force in this positive way, however, we need to change our perspective. We have to assume our place in the world and acknowledge that, in the Anthropocene, we are not “a species”, we are “the species” that controls the destiny of the planet. With great power comes great responsibility, and this is why we must act carefully when we deal with our environment.

Modelo 4

Human activities have caused unprecedented changes in the world, which has led the planet to cross a geological boundary that menaces the survival of all species, including humanity. In the future, the human impact upon the environment will be measured by its fingerprint concerning the adverse consequences brought to the planet. Humankind’s geophysical force is comparable to that of the asteroids and volcanoes that dramatically changed life in Earth. This context paves the way for a new era of the Anthropocene, in which humanity plays a critical role in determining the course of natural events, such as species’ extinction and global temperature. Indeed, along with the prodigious use of the environmental resources, there is also the depletion of them.

           
It has been of increasing concern to journalists, climate scientists and conservation biologists to keep track of the human-induced changes in the global environmental system. Even new study further corroborates such transformations and leaves no doubt that the environmental crisis are already set in motion.

          
Despite these predictions, humanity should place a great value on its capacity to innovate, adapt to the nature and enhance its living standards. Humans’ force for nature has transcended deterministic natural cycles. What is necessary is to reshape the anthropocentric perception, in which humanity defines the destiny of life on Earth. In this sense, humankind needs to perform a new-found role, considering the dilemmas between responsibility and unsustainable development, between to perish and reduce its impact upon the planet. Addressing these concerns is at the center of the Anthropocene debate.

4 - COMPOSITION:

[Length: 400 to 450 words]

[value: 50 marks]

History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fish monge’s slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him. Acton, whose culinary tastes were austere, wanted them served plain. In his letter of instructions to contributors to the first Cambridge Modern History, he announced the requirement “that our Waterloo must be one that satisfies French and English, German and Dutch alike”.

E. H. Carr. What is history? 2nd Harmondsworth:

Penguin, 1987, p. 9 (adapted). 

When history is mobilised for specific political projects and sectarian conflicts; when political and community sentiments of the present begin to define how the past has to be represented; when history is fabricated to constitute a communal sensibility, and a politics of hatred and violence, we [historians] need to sit up and protest. If we do not, then the long night will never end. History will reappear again and again, not just as nightmare but as relived experience, re-nacted in endless cycles of retribution and revenge, in gory spectacles of blood and death.

Neeladri Bhattacharya, quoted in Willaim Dalrymple.

Trapped in the ruins. The Guardian. March 20th 2004.

Compare and discuss the views of history expressed in the two quotes above, illustrating your discussion with appropriate examples.

➽ REDAÇÃO EM INGLÊS:         

There is a common saying according to which history is a means of learning from the mistakes committed in the past in order to avoid them in the future. That definition might cause some problems, because it largely depends on the evaluation each one makes of the [1] facts, which could lead to cinicism [2]. However, it has the advantage of remembering [3] historians that their mission is a moral one. Moreover, the definition highlights something of the utmost importance: historical knowledge must make the present better.

       
History-making depends not only on the people who decide, but also on the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is also true for reporting the facts, which means that the opinions and values of historians play a great role in their work. When Edward Carr wrote that the historian collects the facts, “takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him”, he was referring to that. Denying it would mean refusing [4] that men and women are not factsreporting machines. Their feelings and preferences inevitably interfere.

            
Recognizing the role played by personal values does not mean nobody should try to distinguish true facts from false ones. People must be vigilant, for history can be used for undesirable political projects and sectarian conflicts. That is the opinion of Neeladri Bhattacharya, according to whom historians must firmly reject those attempts. In fact, that use of history is very frequent. The prime minister of Israel has recently declared that an Islamic leader, the mufti of Jerusalem, was responsible for influencing Hitler, when the latter decided to annihilate the Jewish people. Fortunately, many historians and political leaders have followed Bhattacharya’s advice, condemning Netanyahu’s declaration.

           
Behind the reaction to the Israeli leader’s words, there is a very important belief: historical knowledge should not be used for stirring confrontation. On the contrary, it must foster cooperation. It means historians and political leaders should work together, seeking peace and progress for all. In South America, the people of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have learnt it very well. Insted [5] of insisting on a version of the War of the Triple Alliance that highlighted good and evil players, historians have explained that conflict as the result of the creation of each state in the nineteenth century. That probably helped, when the four countries formed Mercosur in 1991.

           
The way something is defined reflects how people intend to use it. Consequently, describing history and the work of historians might be really beneficial to society. When facts are reported, people’s style and values cannot be eliminated. Nevertheless, history should not be a means for stimulating hatred and revenge.