Pular para o conteúdo principal

Questão de Inglês — Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension — CESPE / CEBRASPE 2023

InglêsInterpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
Código
ce152339
Banca
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão
CGDF
Ano
2023
Nível
Superior
Cargo
Auditor De Controle Interno Do Distrito Federal – Especialidade Planejamento E Orçamento

Text CB1A2-I  


   Although an oft-cited poll showed that 85% of Americans approve of organ donation, less than half had made a decision about donating, and fewer still (28%) had granted permission by signing a donor card, a pattern also observed in Germany, Spain, and Sweden. Given the shortage of donors, the gap between approval and action is a matter of life and death. 

    What drives the decision to become a potential donor? Within the European Union, donation rates vary by nearly an order of magnitude across countries and these differences are stable from year to year. Even when controlling for variables such as transplant infrastructure, economic and educational status, and religion, large differences in donation rates persist. Why?

   Most public policy choices have a no-action default, that is, a condition is imposed when an individual fails to make a decision. In the case of organ donation, European countries have one of two default policies. In presumed-consent states, people are organ donors unless they register not to be, and in explicitconsent countries, nobody is an organ donor without registering to be one.

   We examined the rate of agreement to become a donor across European countries with explicit and presumed consent laws. If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, defaults appear to make a large difference: the four opt-in countries (Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany) had lower rates than the six opt-out countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Sweden). The two distributions have no overlap, and nearly 60 percentage points separate the two groups

    Our data suggest changes in defaults could increase donations in the United States of additional thousands of donors a year. Because each donor can donate for about three transplants, the consequences are substantial in lives saved. Our results stand in contrast with the suggestion that defaults do not matter. Policy-makers performing analysis in this and other domains should consider that defaults make a difference.


Eric J. Johnson; Daniel Goldstein. Do Defaults Save Lives?

Internet: <www.dangoldstein.com> (adapted). 

Considering the results of the research presented in text CB1A2-I, choose the correct option.
  1. AExplicit-consent countries presented higher agreement rates than the presumed-consent ones.
  2. BThe results show that preferences concerning organ donation are strong.
  3. CThe results point to the irrelevance of default policies regarding organ donation.
  4. DThe research points to successful results if the United States modify their default policies.
Revelar gabarito e comentário

GabaritoD — The research points to successful results if the United States modify their default policies.

Comentário gerado por IA. É um apoio ao estudo, ancorado em fontes, mas pode conter imprecisões — confira sempre na fonte oficial (lei, súmula, edital e gabarito da banca). Encontrou um erro? Use “Reportar”.

Organ donation default policies

Gabarito: letra D. A pesquisa mostra que políticas de consentimento presumido (opt-out) geram taxas de doação muito mais altas que as de consentimento explícito (opt-in), e que a mudança de política nos EUA poderia aumentar significativamente o número de doadores (texto: "Our data suggest changes in defaults could increase donations in the United States of additional thousands of donors a year").

A questão testa a compreensão direta dos resultados apresentados no texto. Vamos analisar cada alternativa:

  1. 1Opt-in (consentimento explícito)
  2. 2Taxas de doação baixas
  3. 3Opt-out (consentimento presumido)
  4. 4Taxas de doação altas (+60 p.p.)
  5. 5Preferências não são fortes
  6. 6Defaults fazem grande diferença
  7. 7Mudança nos EUA aumentaria doações
LEVEL · soulevel.com.br

Alternativa A — ❌ Incorreta

Afirma que os países de consentimento explícito (opt-in) apresentaram taxas de concordância mais altas. O texto inverte esse resultado: os países opt-in (Dinamarca, Holanda, Reino Unido, Alemanha) tiveram taxas menores, enquanto os opt-out (Áustria, Bélgica, França, Hungria, Polônia, Portugal, Suécia) tiveram taxas muito mais altas ("nearly 60 percentage points separate the two groups").

Alternativa B — ❌ Incorreta

Diz que os resultados mostram que as preferências sobre doação de órgãos são fortes. O texto afirma exatamente o oposto: "If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, defaults appear to make a large difference". Portanto, as preferências não são fortes.

Alternativa C — ❌ Incorreta

Afirma que os resultados apontam para a irrelevância das políticas padrão (defaults). O texto conclui que defaults fazem grande diferença: "defaults appear to make a large difference" e "Our results stand in contrast with the suggestion that defaults do not matter".

Alternativa D — ✅ Correta ⟵ GABARITO

O texto afirma que a mudança de política nos EUA (adotar consentimento presumido) poderia aumentar o número de doadores: "Our data suggest changes in defaults could increase donations in the United States of additional thousands of donors a year. Because each donor can donate for about three transplants, the consequences are substantial in lives saved." Portanto, a pesquisa aponta para resultados bem-sucedidos com a modificação das políticas padrão.

Gabarito: letra D

Link permanente: /questoes/ce152339