A) avoid the danger.
B) predict the future.
C) trust history.
D) survive on drugs.
E) be unlucky.
Thematic Discussion on Nuclear Weapons
The United States remains committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and to seeking to create conditions toward that end. And history makes clear that important progress can be made when security conditions allow. The easing of Cold War rivalries allowed the United States and Russia to make significant steps toward the shared dream of eventual nuclear disarmament after decades in which such movement was impossible. Disarmament success is predicated on patience, attention to detail, effective verification, and patient attention to the challenges of effecting the changes in the security environment that are necessary for progress. This last element is critical, considering the crucial role that nuclear deterrence plays in preserving and protecting international peace and security, and the potentially catastrophic consequences were deterrence’s restraining effect to be removed while it still remains necessary.
The “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” violates all these tenets. Its obligations are longstanding worded, imprecise, vaguely worded and sometimes internally contradictory, while offering only an empty shell for verification. Worse, it is fundamentally at odds with today’s security challenges. It is not simply an unproductive instrument; it is likely to be a counterproductive one, with the potential to cause lasting harm to the nonproliferation regime and to the cause of disarmament alike.
The ban treaty is based on the premise that addressing crucial international security issues is not necessary for disarmament. Ban treaty proponents would have us believe that we can do away with nuclear deterrence despite - to cite just one example - the danger posed by North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, which stand in flagrant violation of international law.
Furthermore, the Treaty does not contain a credible verification mechanism, demurring on the issue almost entirely. It does run counter to decades of progress in nonproliferation verification by endorsing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as its standard for safeguarding nuclear material.
Finally, the ban treaty has the potential to do real damage to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in other ways. It exacerbates political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into overly-simplified camps of “nuclear weapons supporters” and “nuclear weapons banners,” rather than recognizing shared interests – especially on the challenges involved in creating the conditions that would make possible further disarmament progress. Reinforcing this false dichotomy and worsening the world’s polarization on disarmament will make further progress within the institutions that have been vehicles for success, such as the NPT review process, significantly more difficult.
Inspired by the NPT Preamble’s acknowledgement of the need to ease international tension and strengthen trust between States in order to facilitate disarmament, the United States stands ready to work with others on effective measures to create improved conditions for nuclear disarmament. This work is focused on overcoming technical challenges to make substantive progress when the security conditions improve. We also continue our longstanding work to support and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime against the many challenges it faces today, for who could deny that there can be no way to envision today’s nuclear weapons possessors ever putting down such tools without rock-solid assurances that no one else will take them up?
There are no shortcuts to nuclear disarmament. Unrealistic attempts to skip to the finish line have the potential to undermine the institutions and standards we have worked so hard to build. Our collective experience demonstrates that inclusiveness and the search for consensus can lead to progress, while polarization is a recipe for failure. We urge all states to work with us in searching for common solutions to collective problems, pursuing a more secure world.
A) na expressão the world’s polarization, os termos world’s apresentam a contração entre world e is.
B) na expressão we can do away, o termo can pode ser substituído por “should” sem alterar o sentido.
C) os termos disarmament e agreement são constituídos por prefixação em sua composição vocabular.
D) it exacerbates political tensions, na voz passiva, apresenta-se como political tensions are exacerbated.
E) o termo also, em We also continue our, pode ser substituído por yet sem alteração de sentido na frase.
In January, two astronomers reported new evidence of a massive, shadowy Planet Nine tracing the outer limits of the solar system. It has a mass 10 times that of the Earth, and its orbit takes it 20 times farther from the sun, on average, than Neptune. The catch? Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown of Caltech haven’t seen it — they inferred its existence from the behavior of smaller objects nearby that appear to be subject to its gravitational pull. Now the search is on. Brown predicts astronomers will find it by 2018.
PAUL, Raeburn, Disponível em: <https://www.newsweek.com/
2016/12/23/top-science-health-stories-2016-531805.html>.
Acesso em: 1 nov. 2018.
According to the text, the only statement that is not true about Planet Nine is that it
A) is a hypothetical planet.
B) is far away in our solar system.
C) repels objects that orbit nearby.
D) has an estimated mass of ten Earths.
E) is expected to be spotted this year.
A) In that period, Germany as a whole reached a level of wealth and culture that it has never again equaled.
B) Soon after that moment in history, life in Germany became worse.
C) At that moment in history, the civilizing influence of the crusades and the Holy Roman Emperor began to evaporate.
D) The people of Germany were unprepared for the drastic changes that would soon come.
E) It was at that moment that religious faith began to collapse in Germany.
A) find the best drugs to fight them.
B) react to their effects as quickly as possible.
C) avoid contact with contaminated animals.
D) take measures to vaccinate all the population.
E) identify emerging viruses before they start causing problems.
Thematic Discussion on Nuclear Weapons
The United States remains committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and to seeking to create conditions toward that end. And history makes clear that important progress can be made when security conditions allow. The easing of Cold War rivalries allowed the United States and Russia to make significant steps toward the shared dream of eventual nuclear disarmament after decades in which such movement was impossible. Disarmament success is predicated on patience, attention to detail, effective verification, and patient attention to the challenges of effecting the changes in the security environment that are necessary for progress. This last element is critical, considering the crucial role that nuclear deterrence plays in preserving and protecting international peace and security, and the potentially catastrophic consequences were deterrence’s restraining effect to be removed while it still remains necessary.
The “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” violates all these tenets. Its obligations are longstanding worded, imprecise, vaguely worded and sometimes internally contradictory, while offering only an empty shell for verification. Worse, it is fundamentally at odds with today’s security challenges. It is not simply an unproductive instrument; it is likely to be a counterproductive one, with the potential to cause lasting harm to the nonproliferation regime and to the cause of disarmament alike.
The ban treaty is based on the premise that addressing crucial international security issues is not necessary for disarmament. Ban treaty proponents would have us believe that we can do away with nuclear deterrence despite - to cite just one example - the danger posed by North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, which stand in flagrant violation of international law.
Furthermore, the Treaty does not contain a credible verification mechanism, demurring on the issue almost entirely. It does run counter to decades of progress in nonproliferation verification by endorsing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as its standard for safeguarding nuclear material.
Finally, the ban treaty has the potential to do real damage to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in other ways. It exacerbates political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into overly-simplified camps of “nuclear weapons supporters” and “nuclear weapons banners,” rather than recognizing shared interests – especially on the challenges involved in creating the conditions that would make possible further disarmament progress. Reinforcing this false dichotomy and worsening the world’s polarization on disarmament will make further progress within the institutions that have been vehicles for success, such as the NPT review process, significantly more difficult.
Inspired by the NPT Preamble’s acknowledgement of the need to ease international tension and strengthen trust between States in order to facilitate disarmament, the United States stands ready to work with others on effective measures to create improved conditions for nuclear disarmament. This work is focused on overcoming technical challenges to make substantive progress when the security conditions improve. We also continue our longstanding work to support and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime against the many challenges it faces today, for who could deny that there can be no way to envision today’s nuclear weapons possessors ever putting down such tools without rock-solid assurances that no one else will take them up?
There are no shortcuts to nuclear disarmament. Unrealistic attempts to skip to the finish line have the potential to undermine the institutions and standards we have worked so hard to build. Our collective experience demonstrates that inclusiveness and the search for consensus can lead to progress, while polarization is a recipe for failure. We urge all states to work with us in searching for common solutions to collective problems, pursuing a more secure world.
A) toward the shared dream, na língua portuguesa, pode ser traduzido por “em direção ao sonho parcial”.
B) to support and strengthen pode ser compreendido, na língua portuguesa, como “dar suporte e fortalecer”.
C) are vaguely worded pode ser compreendido, em português, como “são palavras vagamente descritivas”.
D) Preamble’s acknowledgement pode ser traduzido, em português, como “preâmbulo de conhecimento”.
E) an empty shell, em português, pode ser traduzido como “um assunto temático não compreendido”.
A) The possessive adjective “their” (l. 2) refers to “Fitness trackers” (l. 1)
B) The expression “so far” (l. 3) is synonymous with up till now.
C) The verb form “asked” (l. 7) is in the past tense.
D) The conjunction phrase “either [...] or” (l. 7-9) expresses condition.
E) The modal “may” (l. 15) expresses necessity.
A) Making sure your daughters marry early and your sons marry late can be very lucrative.
B) Whatever money or goods a woman earns from her brideprice always goes to her father.
C) The younger a girl is, the more valuable she is on the marriage market.
D) Women older than 20 have a hard time finding husbands and thus earn very little money from their brideprice.
E) Cattle and single women are equally valuable as commodities in impoverished farming communities.
Avoiding Aggressive Driving
The amount of aggressive driving is increasing on our roads. Some of the signs of an aggressive driver include a person who changes lanes abruptly to pass a slower driver, a driver who tailgates in an attempt to get another driver to speed up, and a driver who curses at other drivers. They put themselves and others at risk on the roads. A variety of studies have revealed certain traits common in aggressive drivers. If a person is ever pursued by an aggressive driver, he or she should ask someone in the car to call 911 or drive to a nearby police station. […] Finally, people who engage in aggressive driving behaviors take the chance of injuring or killing themselves and other drivers.
ROBERTSON, M. Disponível em: www.lelandwest.com. Acesso em: 14 set. 2013 (adaptado).
A violência no trânsito é um dos grandes problemas da sociedade contemporânea. O número de motoristas agressivos tem crescido cada vez mais nas estradas. Segundo o texto, um dos sinais comuns de agressividade é
A) perseguir outros motoristas que ligam para a polícia.
B) colocar a própria vida e a de outros motoristas em risco.
C) mudar abruptamente de faixa para ultrapassar um motorista mais lento.
D) aumentar a velocidade do carro para insultar o motorista que está com velocidade mais lenta.
A) prevent them.
B) predict new outbreaks.
C) be prepared for the next one.
D) mitigate their harmful effects.
E) stop them before they take place.
{TITLE}