FC ConcursosFC Concursos

Questão FC57436

U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but can’t rule it out, either WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomen

Semântica e Significado de Vocábulos (Semantics)

CESGRANRIO · 2021

U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but can’t rule it out, either

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena observed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft, but they still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military.
The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced US government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret.
But that is about the only conclusive finding in the classified intelligence report, the officials said. And while a forthcoming unclassified version, expected to be released to Congress by June 25, will present few other firm conclusions, senior officials briefed on the intelligence conceded that the very ambiguity of the findings meant the government could not definitively rule out theories that the phenomena observed by military pilots might be alien spacecraft.
Americans’ long-running fascination with UFOs has intensified in recent weeks in anticipation of the release of the government report. Former President Barack Obama encouraged the interest when he gave an interview last month about the incidents on “The Late Late Show with James Corden” on CBS.
“What is true, and I’m really being serious here,” Mr. Obama said, “is that there is film and records of objects in the skies that we don’t know exactly what they are.’’ The report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge. One possible explanation — that the phenomena could be weather balloons or other research balloons — does not hold up in all cases, the officials said, because of changes in wind speed at the times of some of the interactions.
Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe that at least some of the aerial phenomena could have been experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China.
One senior official said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology. He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology.
He and other officials spoke about the classified findings in the report on the condition of anonymity.
Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/politics/ufos-sighting-alien-spacecraft-pentagon.html>. Retrieved on: July 7, 2021.

In the 2nd paragraph of the text, in the fragment “That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft”, the word who refers to
  1. alien
  2. military
  3. officials
  4. scientists
  5. Navy pilots
Mostrar resposta e comentário

Gabarito

Errado

Comentário do professor

Alternativa correta: A alternativa E está correta porque a palavra "who" refere-se diretamente a "Navy pilots", que são os indivíduos que relataram ter visto os objetos não identificados. A anáfora é um recurso linguístico que utiliza pronomes ou expressões para retomar um termo previamente mencionado, neste caso, "Navy pilots". Portanto, "who" é utilizado para especificar e identificar os pilotos que estão sendo discutidos no contexto, estabelecendo uma conexão clara e direta com o antecedente.


Alternativas incorretas:

A: A alternativa A está incorreta porque "alien" não é o antecedente imediato da palavra "who". O termo "alien" não foi mencionado anteriormente no texto em relação a quem está se referindo, portanto, não pode ser a referência que "who" procura.


B: A alternativa B está incorreta uma vez que "military" é um termo mais geral e não se refere especificamente aos "Navy pilots". A expressão "military" abrange um grupo maior e não é o antecedente direto da palavra "who".


C: A alternativa C está errada porque "officials" é um termo que se refere a pessoas que ocupam cargos no governo ou na administração, mas não é o grupo específico que está sendo discutido na frase. A palavra "who" não pode ser usada para referir-se a "officials" quando o texto fala sobre os pilotos da Marinha.


D: A alternativa D está incorreta pois "scientists" não é o antecedente da palavra "who". Os cientistas não são os que viram os objetos; a menção aos pilotos é o foco da frase, e "who" se refere a eles, não aos cientistas.

Conteúdo do catálogo FC Concursos · Atualizado em

Continue aprendendo