Pular para o conteúdo principal

Questão de Inglês — Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension — CESPE / CEBRASPE 2025

InglêsInterpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
Código
ce223607
Banca
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão
IBAMA
Ano
2025
Nível
Superior
        In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned. However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies (mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their profits.

        These countries scored a victory with the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources that they have been conserving from generation to generation. States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when used by multinational firms.

        The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a share of the profits that may result from their use.

       In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up in the interest of the people of these countries.

         In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card. In answering this question, it is important to more clearly emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.

Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal>  (adapted). 
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.The text argues that the spread of intellectual property rights has clearly benefited the countries of the South, proving that it is not an obstacle to their development.
  1. CCerto
  2. EErrado
Revelar gabarito e comentário

GabaritoE — Errado

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”.

Interpretação de texto — Argumentação sobre propriedade intelectual e países do Sul

Gabarito: ERRADO (E). O texto não afirma que a disseminação dos direitos de propriedade intelectual beneficiou claramente os países do Sul; ao contrário, ele levanta dúvidas sobre se o Sul realmente ganhou com essa mudança, questionando a conclusão simplista.

✅ ERRADO

O texto apresenta a seguinte estrutura argumentativa:

  1. Inicialmente, expõe que a mudança no status dos recursos genéticos (de patrimônio comum para soberania nacional) ocorreu a pedido dos países do Sul e a seu favor, e que o mecanismo ABS seria um exemplo de direitos de propriedade intelectual em benefício desses países.

  2. Em seguida, afirma que essa análise é “fairly accurate and could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an obstacle to the development of the South”. Ou seja, reconhece que esse raciocínio pode ser usado por quem defende a propriedade intelectual.

  3. Por fim, contrapõe essa visão com a pergunta: “However, the issue today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.” — indicando que o benefício não é claro, e destaca a necessidade de examinar a conexão entre conservação e uso.

O enunciado afirma que “The text argues that the spread of intellectual property rights has clearly benefited the countries of the South, proving that it is not an obstacle to their development.” Isso é incorreto porque o texto não afirma categoricamente que houve benefício claro; ele apresenta um argumento que poderia ser usado, mas logo problematiza a questão, deixando em aberto se o Sul realmente ganhou algo.

NÃO CAIA NESSA!

A banca tenta fazer o candidato confundir a apresentação de um argumento contrário (que poderia ser usado contra os críticos da propriedade intelectual) com a tese principal do texto. O texto não defende que a propagação dos direitos de propriedade intelectual beneficiou claramente o Sul; ele levanta dúvidas e questiona o resultado real.

Gabarito: ERRADO (E).

Link permanente: /questoes/ce223607