Unifesp - 2ª fase - Línguas
Will we ever... understand why music makes us feel good?
19 April 2013
Philip Ball
No one knows why music has such a potent effect on our emotions. But thanks to some recent studies we have a few intriguing clues. Why do we like music? Like most good questions, this one works on many levels. We have answers on some levels, but not all.
We like music because it makes us feel good. Why does it make us feel good? In 2001, neuroscientists Anne Blood and Robert Zatorre at McGill University in Montreal provided an answer. Using magnetic resonance imaging they showed that people listening to pleasurable music had activated brain regions called the limbic and paralimbic areas, which are connected to euphoric reward responses, like those we experience from sex, good food and addictive drugs. Those rewards come from a gush of a neurotransmitter called dopamine. As DJ Lee Haslam told us, music is the drug.
But why? It’s easy enough to understand why sex and food are rewarded with a dopamine rush: this makes us want more, and so contributes to our survival and propagation. (Some drugs subvert that survival instinct by stimulating dopamine release on false pretences.) But why would a sequence of sounds with no obvious survival value do the same thing?
The truth is no one knows. However, we now have many clues to why music provokes intense emotions. The current favourite theory among scientists who study the cognition of music – how we process it mentally – dates back to 1956, when the philosopher and composer Leonard Meyer suggested that emotion in music is all about what we expect, and whether or not we get it. Meyer drew on earlier psychological theories of emotion, which proposed that it arises when we’re unable to satisfy some desire. That, as you might imagine, creates frustration or anger – but if we then find what we’re looking for, be it love or a cigarette, the payoff is all the sweeter.
This, Meyer argued, is what music does too. It sets up sonic patterns and regularities that tempt us to make unconscious predictions about what’s coming next. If we’re right, the brain gives itself a little reward – as we’d now see it, a surge of dopamine. The constant dance between expectation and outcome thus enlivens the brain with a pleasurable play of emotions.
(www.bbc.com. Adaptado.)
No trecho do último parágrafo – The constant dance between expectation and outcome thus enlivens the brain with a pleasurable play of emotions. –, a palavra thus pode ser corretamente substituída, mantendo-se o sentido, por
| a) |
whereas.
|
| b) |
although.
|
| c) |
notwithstanding.
|
| d) |
moreover.
|
| e) |
thereby.
|
A tradução do trecho “The constant dance between expectation and outcome thus enlivens the brain with a pleasurable play of emotions.” é “A constante dança entre expectativa e resultado deste modo/desta maneira/assim/portanto aviva o cérebro com um agradável jogo de emoções.”
a) Incorreta. Whereas significa enquanto, portanto não poderia substituir o thus.
b) Incorreta. Although significa embora, contudo, então não poderia substituir o thus.
c) Incorreta. Notwithstanding significa no entanto, não obstante, apesar disto, logo não poderia substituir a conjunção em questão.
d) Incorreta. Moreover significa além do mais, além disso e não poderia substituir a conjunção thus.
e) Correta. Thereby significa assim, deste modo, sendo portanto uma conjunção conclusiva assim como o thus.
Climate change: warm words and cool waters
There is a serious debate about why observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions
September 1, 2013
Editorial The Guardian
Last week’s report that the current “pause” in global warming could be linked to cyclic cooling in the Pacific will be interpreted by climate sceptics as evidence that global warming isn’t happening, and by politicians as a reason to forget about climate change and carry on with business as usual. Both responses would be dangerously wrong.
There is no serious argument within climate science about the link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Between 1970 and 1998 the planet warmed at an average of 0.17C per decade, and from 1998 to 2012 at 0.04C per decade. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, however, continued to rise and are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Twelve of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000; the last two years have been marked by catastrophic floods in Australia and record-breaking temperatures in the US; and the loss of north polar ice has accelerated at such a rate that climate modellers expect the Arctic Ocean to be routinely ice-free in September after 2040.
There is, however, a serious debate about why the observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions and where the heat that should have registered on the global thermometer has hidden itself. One guess – supported by some sustained but still incomplete research – is that the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea. This is hardly good news: atmosphere and ocean play on each other, and any stored heat is 44 to be returned to the atmosphere sooner or later, in unpredictable ways. The real lesson from the latest finding is that there is a lot yet to be understood about how the planet works, and precisely how ocean and atmosphere distribute 45 from the equator to the poles.
(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)
As informações apresentadas no segundo parágrafo apoiam a ideia, presente no texto, de que
| a) |
a) o aquecimento global não está em desaceleração, apesar do esfriamento do oceano Pacífico. |
| b) |
b) o ciclo de resfriamento do clima já começou, exemplificado pelas enchentes na Austrália. |
| c) |
c) a pausa no aquecimento global também pode desencadear mudanças climáticas. |
| d) |
d) o derretimento das calotas polares esfriou os oceanos, que, por sua vez, interromperam o aquecimento global. |
| e) |
e) os políticos já podem relaxar as medidas que visam evitar o aquecimento global. |
No primeiro parágrafo temos a informação de que em um relatório da semana passada que afirma que a atual “pausa” no aquecimento global poderia estar ligada a um resfriamento cíclico no Pacífico e que este mesmo relatório poderia ser interpretado pelos céticos climáticos como evidência que o aquecimento global não está acontecendo e pelos políticos como uma razão para esquecer sobre as mudanças climáticas e continuar com os negócios como sempre. Mas no final deste mesmo parágrafo temos a frase: As duas respostas seriam perigosamente erradas.
a) Correta. Como podemos ver no final do primeiro parágrafo, acreditar que o resfriamento no Pacífico poderia desacelerar o aquecimento está incorreto. Além disso, no segundo parágrafo é mencionado que 12 dos 14 anos mais quentes aconteceram depois do ano 2000, ou seja , o aquecimento global continua, apesar do esfriamento do Pacífico.
b) Incorreta. Pois a causa das enchentes na Austrália não foi o resfriamento do clima, pelo contrário, foi o aumento do dióxido de carbono e o aquecimento ocorrido nos últimos anos.
c) Incorreta. Pois nada é mencionado sobre a pausa no aquecimento global poder desencadear as mudanças climáticas.
d) Incorreta. No final do segundo parágrafo é mencionado o derretimento das calotas polares devido ao aquecimento dos últimos anos, mas nada é mencionado em relação ao resfriamento dos oceanos nem da interrupção do aquecimento global por conta das calotas polares.
e) Incorreta. Pois como vimos no primeiro parágrafo os políticos não podem relaxar em relação a medida que visam evitar o aquecimento global
Climate change: warm words and cool waters
There is a serious debate about why observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions
September 1, 2013
Editorial The Guardian
Last week’s report that the current “pause” in global warming could be linked to cyclic cooling in the Pacific will be interpreted by climate sceptics as evidence that global warming isn’t happening, and by politicians as a reason to forget about climate change and carry on with business as usual. Both responses would be dangerously wrong.
There is no serious argument within climate science about the link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Between 1970 and 1998 the planet warmed at an average of 0.17C per decade, and from 1998 to 2012 at 0.04C per decade. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, however, continued to rise and are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Twelve of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000; the last two years have been marked by catastrophic floods in Australia and record-breaking temperatures in the US; and the loss of north polar ice has accelerated at such a rate that climate modellers expect the Arctic Ocean to be routinely ice-free in September after 2040.
There is, however, a serious debate about why the observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions and where the heat that should have registered on the global thermometer has hidden itself. One guess – supported by some sustained but still incomplete research – is that the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea. This is hardly good news: atmosphere and ocean play on each other, and any stored heat is 44 to be returned to the atmosphere sooner or later, in unpredictable ways. The real lesson from the latest finding is that there is a lot yet to be understood about how the planet works, and precisely how ocean and atmosphere distribute 45 from the equator to the poles.
(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)
No trecho do terceiro parágrafo – the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea. –, a expressão that is introduz uma
| a) |
exemplificação.
|
| b) |
generalização.
|
| c) |
explicação.
|
| d) |
causa.
|
| e) |
discordância.
|
Para resolvermos esta questão vamos traduzir a seguinte frase:
“... the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea.”
“… as profundezas dos oceanos estão aquecendo: ou seja, o calor extra que deveria ser mensurável na atmosfera tem sido absorvido pelo mar”.
a) Incorreta. A expressão that is não está introduzindo um exemplo e sim uma explicação ao aquecimento dos oceanos.
b) Incorreta. That is não está sendo usado para generalizar e sim para explicar.
c) Correta. That is significa ou seja, e está sendo usado para explicar o aquecimento das profundezas dos oceanos.
d) Incorreta. That is que significa ou seja, não daria para ser usado ao introduzir uma causa.
e) Incorreta. Não podemos usar a expressão that is ,que significa ou seja, para introduzir uma discordância.
Assinale as alternativas que complementam, correta e respectivamente, as lacunas numeradas no texto.
Climate change: warm words and cool waters
There is a serious debate about why observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions
September 1, 2013
Editorial The Guardian
Last week’s report that the current “pause” in global warming could be linked to cyclic cooling in the Pacific will be interpreted by climate sceptics as evidence that global warming isn’t happening, and by politicians as a reason to forget about climate change and carry on with business as usual. Both responses would be dangerously wrong.
There is no serious argument within climate science about the link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Between 1970 and 1998 the planet warmed at an average of 0.17C per decade, and from 1998 to 2012 at 0.04C per decade. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, however, continued to rise and are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Twelve of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000; the last two years have been marked by catastrophic floods in Australia and record-breaking temperatures in the US; and the loss of north polar ice has accelerated at such a rate that climate modellers expect the Arctic Ocean to be routinely ice-free in September after 2040.
There is, however, a serious debate about why the observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions and where the heat that should have registered on the global thermometer has hidden itself. One guess – supported by some sustained but still incomplete research – is that the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea. This is hardly good news: atmosphere and ocean play on each other, and any stored heat is 44 to be returned to the atmosphere sooner or later, in unpredictable ways. The real lesson from the latest finding is that there is a lot yet to be understood about how the planet works, and precisely how ocean and atmosphere distribute 45 from the equator to the poles.
(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)
Assinale a alternativa que complementa, correta e respectivamente, as lacunas numeradas no texto.
| a) |
likelihood
|
| b) |
unlikable
|
| c) |
liking
|
| d) |
likely
|
| e) |
unlikeliest
|
Para completarmos a lacuna deste trecho do último parágrafo vamos traduzi-lo:
“This is hardly good and ocean play on each other, and any stored heat is _______ to be returned to the atmosphere sooner or later, in unpredictable ways. “
“Esta quase não é uma boa notícia: a atmosfera e o oceano atuam um em relação ao outro e qualquer calor armazenado é provável que seja retornado à atmosfera mais cedo ou mais tarde, e de maneiras imprevisíveis.”
Podemos ver que com a tradução do trecho a palavra provável = likely é a mais adequada.
a) Incorreta. Likelihhod significa probabilidade e não daria sentido no trecho a ser completado.
b) Incorreta. Unlikable significa desagradável, portanto não poderia completar a lacuna do trecho selecionado.
c) Incorreta. Liking está incorreto primeiro porque like é um verbo que não admite o gerúndio, segundo que mesmo que houvesse uma tradução seria gostando e também não se encaixaria no trecho selecionado.
d) Correta. Como podemos ver na explicação acima, o termo.
likely = provável é o mais adequado para completar o trecho em questão.
e) Incorreta. Unlikeliest significa o mais improvável, portanto não poderia preencher a lacuna.
Assinale as alternativas que complementam, correta e respectivamente, as lacunas numeradas no texto.
Climate change: warm words and cool waters
There is a serious debate about why observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions
September 1, 2013
Editorial The Guardian
Last week’s report that the current “pause” in global warming could be linked to cyclic cooling in the Pacific will be interpreted by climate sceptics as evidence that global warming isn’t happening, and by politicians as a reason to forget about climate change and carry on with business as usual. Both responses would be dangerously wrong.
There is no serious argument within climate science about the link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Between 1970 and 1998 the planet warmed at an average of 0.17C per decade, and from 1998 to 2012 at 0.04C per decade. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, however, continued to rise and are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Twelve of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000; the last two years have been marked by catastrophic floods in Australia and record-breaking temperatures in the US; and the loss of north polar ice has accelerated at such a rate that climate modellers expect the Arctic Ocean to be routinely ice-free in September after 2040.
There is, however, a serious debate about why the observed temperatures have not kept pace with computer-modelled predictions and where the heat that should have registered on the global thermometer has hidden itself. One guess – supported by some sustained but still incomplete research – is that the deep oceans are warming: that is, the extra heat that should be measurable in the atmosphere has been absorbed by the sea. This is hardly good news: atmosphere and ocean play on each other, and any stored heat is 44 to be returned to the atmosphere sooner or later, in unpredictable ways. The real lesson from the latest finding is that there is a lot yet to be understood about how the planet works, and precisely how ocean and atmosphere distribute 45 from the equator to the poles.
(www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)
Assinale a alternativa que complementa, correta e respectivamente, as lacunas numeradas no texto.
| a) |
a) warm |
| b) |
b) warmed |
| c) |
c) warmth |
| d) |
d) warmer |
| e) |
e) warmful
|
Da mesma maneira que resolvemos a questão 44 iremos traduzir o trecho a ser completado:
“ The real lesson from the latest finding is that there is a lot yet to be understood about how the planet works, and precisely how ocean and atmosphere distribute ______ from the equator to the poles.”
“ A verdadeira lição desta última descoberta é que ainda há muito a ser compreendido sobre como o planeta funciona, e mais precisamente como o oceano e a atmosfera distribuem calor do equador para os pólos.”
a) Incorreta. Warm é um adjetivo que significa morno ou quente, portanto não poderia preencher a lacuna.
b) Incorreta. Warmed significa aquecido logo não poderia completar o trecho em questão.
c) Correta. Warmth é um substantivo que significa calor, portanto preencheria perfeitamente a lacuna do trecho acima.
d) Incorreta. Warmer significa mais quente logo não poderia preencher a lacuna acima.
e) Incorreta. Warmful é uma palavra que não existe, mas mesmo que fosse a palavra warmful que significa caloroso não poderia completar o trecho selecionado.