UERJ 2012 – Questão 18

Linguagens / Inglês / Text Comprehension / Analyse the characteristics of a text: type of discourse; genre; structure; objectives
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. 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
So, what’s in a name?1 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.
*Coal: carvão
SEEARGH MACAULAY
www.londongrip.com
A euphemism is a mild, indirect or vague expression used instead of one considered offensive, harsh or blunt. It may be used to hide unpleasant or disturbing ideas. According to the definition above, the expression “genetic engineering” can be considered a euphemism because:
a) it describes benign genetic activities
b) it is synonymous with “genetically modified”
c) it obscures the indiscriminate mixing of genes
d) it refers to monstrous experiments with genes

Veja outras questões semelhantes:

Base dudow 2000 – Questão 68
Who were the protagonists of this story? a) The protagonists were the gas station´s owner and a young man. b) The protagonists were the gas station´s owner and an older man. c) The protagonists were a man and a young one. d) They were two young man. e) They were two men who worked at gas station.
UERJ 2018 – Questão 31
No triângulo equilátero ABC, H corresponde ao ponto médio do lado . Desse modo, a área do triângulo ABH é igual à metade da área de ABC. Sendo W o perímetro do triângulo ABH e Y o perímetro do triângulo ABC, uma relação correta entre W e Y é: a) 0 < W < b) W = c) < W < Y d) W = Y
Base dudow 2000 – Questão 9
Complete a frase com as respostas corretas: My dad always............................ me how to get good grades. So, I ………………. so hard to make my father happy! a) Tells – am trying b) Is telling – trying c) Tell – am trying d) Telling – am trying e) Is telling – tries.
Base dudow 2000 – Questão 71
Segundo o autor, onde há a maior incidência de tubarões? a) Na Flórida b) Na Carolina do Sul c) Na Carolina do Norte d) Em todo o EUA e) No golfo do México
Base dudow 2000 – Questão 52
Yet no último parágrafo, quer dizer: a) apesar disso b) ainda c) já d) consequentemente e) até o momento