As necessidades de oxigênio, bem como a produção de dióxido de carbono, aumentam proporcionalmente com a massa corporal e a atividade do animal. O oxigênio necessário à vida dos seres vivos é proveniente

Analise o gráfico abaixo. Ele representa as posições x em função do tempo t de uma partícula que está em movimento, em relação a um referencial inercial, sobre uma trajetória retilínea. A aceleração medida para ela permanece constante durante todo o trecho do movimento.

Considerando o intervalo de tempo entre 0 e T2 qual das afirmações abaixo está correta? 

What’s in a name? The trouble with lingo

Remember the campaign in New York for garbage collectors to be called sanitation engineers?

Near the top of the strike’s agenda was the matter of getting the respect due to the people doing

such essential work. Unfortunately, the new euphemistic title clarified nothing about the work

and by now is either simply not heard for what it means, or is used in moments of gentle disdain.

[5]  A clearer term may have both generated the respect desired and withstood the test of time.

Clarity and sincerity matter. Terms which mislead, confuse or cause offence can become

a distraction from the real content of public debate. In the search for consensus, since public

understanding is harder to change than terminology, changing the terminology might be a better

place to start. No additional prejudice or emotion should be brought to a debate by the terminology

[10]  used in it. Here are two examples.

Genetic Engineering and Genetic Modification

Despite the insistence of biotech scientists that genes of completely different species are no

longer being mixed, the message isn’t being heard. They insist that they are now involved only

in developments which simply hasten the natural processes of selective and cross breeding or

[15]  cross pollination. As farmers and horticulturists have been doing exactly this, unquestioned, for

years, they cannot understand public resistance.

The problem may well be the terminology. In this context, the words “scientific” or “genetic” have

been irreparably sullied. If “genetic engineering” has, in the public’s view, become synonymous

with the indiscriminate mixing of genes, and if the softer label “genetically modified” hasn’t been

[20]  able to shake off a perception of sinister overtones, these terms might as well be dropped − or

left attached only to experiments in Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory.

Ideally, a new agricultural term would leave out the word “genetic” altogether: it seems to

frighten the public. Assuming it described science’s benign genetic activities accurately, the term

“productivity breeding” is not a trivial call for a euphemism; besides, it would probably encounter

[25]  less public opposition.

So, let’s have new terms for selective cross breeding by scientists who simply speed up the same

process that is carried out in nature.

Clean coal*

If this new term was intended to be clear, it hasn’t worked.

[30]  In “Politics and the English Language” (1946), George Orwell wrote that because so much political

speech involves defending the indefensible, it has to consist largely of euphemism. He insisted

that, in politics, these euphemisms are “swindles” and “perversions” left deliberately vague in

order to mislead. Deliberate or not, “clean coal” is one of these. Aside from being a contradiction

in terms, the name is misleading, creating the impression of the existence of a new type of coal. In

[35]  fact, it is ordinary coal which has been treated to “eliminate” most of its destructive by-products,

which are then buried. The whole process produces emissions. This, though, isn’t clear when it

is simply labelled “clean coal”. The term just doesn’t seem sincere. It’s a red rag to any green.

It’s not asking too much to expect the term describing these procedures to be more accurate. A

clearer term would be less provocative.

[40]  So, what’s in a name? A lot. There’s the possibility of confusion, prejudice, perversions and

swindles. For the sake of fair debate, let’s mean what we say and say what we mean.

SEEARGH MACAULAY www.londongrip.com 

According to the text, the use of the expression “clean coal” might infuriate ecologists.

This idea is explicit in: