Questão 35 item 1 - (Inglês - 1a Fase - CACD 2024). The last sentence of the second paragraph could be

Questões de prova
1

Enunciado:

Text I

Despite the tricky and life-threatening relationship between Paleolithic humans and the megafauna that comprised so much of their environment, twentieth-century scholars tended to claim cave art as evidence of an unalloyed triumph for our species. It was a “great spiritual symbol,” of a time when “man had just emerged from a purely zoological existence, when instead of being dominated by animals, he began to dominate them.” But the child-like and highly stylized stick figures found in caves do not radiate triumph. By the standards of our own time, they are excessively self-effacing and, compared to the animals portrayed around them, pathetically weak.

While twentieth-century archeologists tended to solemnize prehistoric art as “magico-religious” or “shamanic,” today’s more secular viewers sometimes detect a vein of sheer silliness. India’s Mesolithic rock art portrays few human stick figures; those that are portrayed have been described by modern viewers as “comical,” “animalized” and “grotesque.” As Judith Thurman wrote about the artists, “despite their penchant for naturalism, rarely did they choose to depict human beings, and then did so with a crudeness that smacks of mockery.”

But who are they mocking, other than themselves and, by extension, their distant descendants, ourselves? Of course, our reactions to Paleolithic art may bear no connection to the intentions or feelings of the artists. Yet there are reasons to believe that Paleolithic people had a sense of humor not all that dissimilar from our own.

Judge whether the following items about text I are right (C) or wrong (E).

Texto do item:

The last sentence of the second paragraph could be rewritten, maintaining its original meaning and correctness, as: Accordingly, Judith Thurman has already written that cave artists, notwithstanding their respect for naturalistic portraits, have an aversion to painting human beings with traces of crudeness, which suggests mockery

Participe das discussões abaixo gratuitatmente. Caso não tenha conta no ClippingCACD, basta criar uma conta gratuitamtente. Não é necessário assinar para participar.
Fez a prova? Junte-se ao ranking e confira o gabarito em https://depoisdaprova.com.br .

2

Resposta: ERRADO

A afirmativa propõe uma reescrita da última frase do segundo parágrafo, mas essa reescrita não mantém o significado original do texto. Vamos analisar ambas as frases.

Frase original:
"As Judith Thurman wrote about the artists, ‘despite their penchant for naturalism, rarely did they choose to depict human beings, and then did so with a crudeness that smacks of mockery.’"

Reescrita proposta:
"Accordingly, Judith Thurman has already written that cave artists, notwithstanding their respect for naturalistic portraits, have an aversion to painting human beings with traces of crudeness, which suggests mockery."

Análise:

  1. Tempo verbal e contexto:

    • Original: Usa o pretérito simples ("wrote"), situando a afirmação no passado.
    • Reescrita: Utiliza o present perfect ("has already written"), sugerindo continuidade ou relevância atual, o que altera levemente o contexto temporal.

  2. Significado sobre a representação humana:

    • Original: Os artistas raramente escolhiam representar seres humanos e, quando o faziam, era com uma crueza que sugeria zombaria.
    • Reescrita: Sugere que os artistas tinham aversão a pintar seres humanos com traços de crueza, o que indica que evitavam retratar humanos de forma grotesca.

  3. Inversão de sentido:

    • Na frase original, a crueza na representação dos humanos é um fato—eles os retratavam de forma grosseira, o que parecia zombaria.
    • Na reescrita, implica que os artistas evitavam representar humanos com crueza, o que é o oposto do significado original.

  4. Conclusão sobre a zombaria:

    • Original: A crueza com que representavam os humanos dá a impressão de que estavam zombando.
    • Reescrita: A aversão a pintar humanos com crueza sugere zombaria, o que não faz sentido lógico, pois evitar representar algo de determinada maneira não implicaria zombaria.

Conclusão:

A reescrita altera o sentido original da frase ao sugerir que os artistas evitavam retratar humanos com crueza, enquanto o texto original afirma que, quando os retratavam, o faziam com crueza. Portanto, a reescrita não mantém o significado original nem a correção gramatical plenamente.

Portanto, a afirmativa está ERRADA.

Comentário automático feito pela inteligência artificial do Clipping.ai apenas para referência. Comentários dos nossos professores virão a seguir.