INSTRUCTION: Answer questionaccording to text.

TEXT

As the familiar story goes, not long ago there was an
orphan who on his 11th birthday discovered he had
a gift that set him apart from his preteen peers. Over
the years he endured the usual adolescent challenges
[5] – maturation, relationships, social conflicts, general
teenage neuroses. He also faced the less common
challenge of battling a murderous, psychopathic
wizard set on establishing a eugenic police state.
I’m referring to the young wizard Harry Potter, the
[10] protagonist in author JK Rowling’s wildly popular
fantasy book series; his nemesis is Lord Voldemort,
the story’s malevolent antagonist. And new research
suggests that Rowling’s world of house-elves, half-

giants and three-headed dogs has the potential to
[15] make us nicer people.

For decades it’s been known that an effective means of
improving negative attitudes and prejudices between
differing groups of people is through intergroup contact
– particularly through contact between “in-groups,”
[20] or a social group to which someone identifies, and
“out-groups,” or a group they don’t identify with or
perceive as threatening. Even reading short stories
about friendship between in- and out-group characters
is enough to improve attitudes toward stigmatized
[25] groups in children. A new study ___________ in the Journal
of Applied Social Psychology ___________ that reading
the Harry Potter books in particular ________________ similar
effects, likely in part because Potter is continually in
contact with stigmatized groups. The “muggles” get no
[30] respect in the wizarding world as they lack any magical
ability. The “half-bloods,” or “mud-bloods” – wizards
and witches descended from only one magical parent
– don’t fare much better, while the Lord Voldemort
character believes that power should only be held by
[35] “pure-blood” wizards. He’s Hitler in a cloak.

THE MAN IN THE CONVERTIBLE

[1] One morning, well after I was diagnosed with cancer, I got an email from Robbee Kosak, Carnegie

Mellon’s vice president for advancement. She told me a story.

She said she had been driving home from work the night before, and she found herself behind a man

in a convertible. It was a warm, gorgeous, early-spring evening, and the man had his top down and all his

[5] windows lowered. His arm was hanging over the driver’s side door, and his fingers were tapping along to the

music on his radio. His head was bobbing along, too, as the wind blew through his hair.

Robbee changed lanes and pulled a little closer. From the side, she could see that the man had a

slight smile on his face, the kind of absentminded smile a person might have when he’s all alone, happy in

his own thoughts. Robbee found herself thinking: “Wow, this is the epitome of a person appreciating this day

[10] and this moment.”

The convertible eventually turned the corner, and that’s when Robbee got a look at the man’s full face.

“Oh my God,” she said to herself. “It’s Randy Pausch!”

She was so struck by the sight of me. She knew that my cancer diagnosis was grim. And yet, as she

wrote in her email, she was moved by how contented I seemed. In this private moment, I was obviously in

[15] high spirits. Robbee wrote in her email: “You can never know how much that glimpse of you made my day,

reminding me of what life is all about.”

I read Robbee’s email several times. I came to look at it as a feedback loop of sorts.

It has not always been easy to stay positive through my cancer treatment. When you have a dire

medical issue, it’s tough to know how you’re really faring emotionally. I had wondered whether a part of me

[20] was acting when I was with other people. Maybe at times I forced myself to appear strong and upbeat. Many

cancer patients feel obliged to put up a brave front. Was I doing that, too?

But Robbee had come upon me in an unguarded moment. I’d like to think she saw me as I am. She

certainly saw me as I was that evening.

Her mail was just a paragraph, but it meant a great deal to me. She had given me a window into

[25] myself. I was still fully engaged. I still knew life was good. I was doing OK.

The Future of Women’s and Children’s Health and
the Sustainable Development Goals

Next year, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) will be replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals(SDG) -- a set of even more ambitious targets for global development. In a bold attempt to create the healthiest generation of young women and children in the world, the new SDGs will require the near elimination of preventable maternal and child deaths by 2030.
What we have learned from the MDGs is that making the world healthier for women and children has a transformative effect on economic and social development. One recent study in the Lancet, Global Health 2035, found that reductions in premature death accounted for 11% of recent economic growth in low and middle income countries.
But despite this compelling evidence, public and private sector financing for women's and children’s health has not been adequate to achieve the MDGs and without additional investment the ambitious new SDG goals will not be reached.
The major sources of public-sector financing for global health in the MDG-era included the US President’s AIDS and malaria initiatives (PEPFAR and PMI), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) and the GlobalAlliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). The private pharmaceutical, energy, mining, and consumer goods sectors all rallied around these massive global efforts and as a result there has been strong progress in reversing the spread of AIDS and malaria and impressive reductions in vaccine-preventable child deaths, particularly from measles and tetanus.
We have not seen the same levels of investment in some of the most critical areas affecting women’s and children’s health. 2.5 billion people do not have access to a toilet. And pneumonia, the disease that causes more child deaths than AIDS, TB, and malaria combined -- still lacks public and private sector financial support with the majority of children who die from pneumonia each year failing to receive the recommended antibiotic treatment or oxygen therapy.
Adaptado de: <http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/future-women-sand-
children-s-health-and-sustainable-development-goals/41836 >
Acessado em 18 de outubro de 2014.

Read the following text to answer question.

Why Ebola is so dangerous

July 31, 2014

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is the world’s deadliest to date. According to the UN, 729 people have died as health officials in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone struggle to control the virus.

- What is Ebola?

Ebola is a viral illness of which the initial symptoms can include a sudden fever, intense weakness, muscle pain and a sore throat, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). And that is just the beginning: subsequent stages are vomiting, diarrhea and – in some cases – both internal and external bleeding.

The disease infects humans through close contact with infected animals, including chimpanzees, fruit bats and forest antelope. It then spreads between humans by direct contact with infected blood, bodily fluids or organs, or indirectly through contact with contaminated environments. Even funerals of Ebola victims can be a risk, if mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased.

The incubation period can last from two days to three weeks, and diagnosis is difficult. The human disease has so far been mostly limited to Africa, although one strain has cropped up in the Philippines.

Healthcare workers are at risk if they treat patients without taking the right precautions to avoid infection. People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus – in some cases, up to seven weeks after they recover.

- What can be done if I catch it?

You must keep yourself isolated and seek professional help. Patients have a better chance of survival if they receive early treatment. There are no vaccines, though some are being tested, along with new drug therapies.

Patients frequently become dehydrated. They should drink solutions containing electrolytes or receive intravenous fluids.

MSF (Doctors without Borders) says this outbreak comes from the deadliest and most aggressive strain of the virus, which kills more than 90% of patients. Other strains are less virulent and have a survival rate of up to 75%. However, it is not known which factors allow some people to recover while most succumb.