Banco público de questões
Questões para Concursos
Pesquise questões reais por disciplina, assunto, tópico, banca, órgão, cargo, ano e modalidade.
Questões por banca
29 bancas disponíveis.
Clique para visualizar todas.
Questões por banca
29 bancas disponíveis. Clique para visualizar todas.
Acesse diretamente as bancas disponíveis na QuestLab. As quantidades abaixo consideram as questões ativas do banco.
CEBRASPE
51.363 questões
FGV
25.316 questões
FCC
24.632 questões
AOCP
23.456 questões
IBFC
11.190 questões
VUNESP
10.983 questões
Instituto Quadrix
9.793 questões
FUNDATEC
9.088 questões
IBADE
7.820 questões
CESGRANRIO
6.013 questões
OBJETIVA
4.740 questões
CONSULPLAN
4.174 questões
FEPESE
3.585 questões
IADES
3.439 questões
IESES
2.627 questões
SELECON
2.377 questões
IDECAN
1.907 questões
MS CONCURSOS
1.485 questões
Instituto Legalle
1.281 questões
FAFIPA
1.161 questões
FUMARC
842 questões
ACAFE
551 questões
INSTITUTO AOCP
430 questões
NUCEPE
378 questões
FUNIVERSA
348 questões
FAURGS
203 questões
FIOCRUZ
48 questões
MACKENZIE
48 questões
CETRO
17 questões
112 questões encontradas
Alguns recursos tecnológicos necessários para serem usados com os softwares de CAA são empregados com diversas finalidades, tais como as descritas na sequência, e tratam-se de: • Ligados a um PlugMouse permitem comandar programas de computador que possuam função de varredura. • Conectados a um brinquedo adaptado, proporcionarão mobilização ou desligamento, produzindo excelente resposta de crianças pequenas às luzes, sons e movimentos, importantes na introdução de estratégias de percepção de causa/efeito, incentivando a comunicação. • Conectados a um cabo-moeda, proporcionarão os mesmos benefícios abordados, porém sem a necessidade de adaptação do brinquedo.
A tecnologia assistiva é o termo usado para identificar todo o arsenal de recursos e serviços que contribuem para proporcionar ou ampliar habilidades funcionais de pessoas com deficiência e, consequentemente, promover vida independente e inclusão. Assim, a tecnologia assistiva inclui ampla gama de equipamentos, estratégias e práticas concebidas e aplicadas para minorar os problemas encontrados pelos indivíduos com deficiências, caracterizando-se, desse modo, fundamentalmente, por seu caráter:
Marcus foi nomeado para ser professor de matemática na rede pública do Paraná. Em comemoração por essa conquista, decidiu que irá iniciar uma coleção de carros, começando com a compra de 5 unidades, todas distintas entre si, que serão escolhidas com as seguintes características: • Cores : branco, preto, prata, azul ou vermelho; • Categorias : sedã ou SUV; • Modelos : 2023, 2024 ou 2025. De acordo com esses critérios, o total de maneiras distintas que Marcus poderá começar sua coleção de carros é um número:
Intonation describes how the voice rises and falls in speech, it is about how we say things, rather than what we say. The three main patterns of intonation in English are: falling intonation, rising intonation and fall-rise intonation. About falling intonation, it is true we use it:
Language allows us to communicate a seemingly infinite array of ideas, emotions, and experiences. At the heart of this linguistic complexity lies polysemy, a semantic phenomenon through which meanings of words extend or shift so that a single word has two or more related meanings. The word catering to the previous characterization is:
Read the text carefully. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Sydney are marvels of machine learning. Roughly speaking, they take huge amounts of data, search for patterns in it and become increasingly proficient at generating statistically probable outputs – such as seemingly humanlike language and thought. These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial general intelligence – that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity besides every other distinctively human faculty. Whereas that day may come, one should be allowed its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments. The human mind is a surprisingly efficient system that operates with small amounts of information. Of course, any human-style explanation is not necessarily correct; we are fallible. Hence this is part of what it means to think: to be right, it must be possible to be wrong. (Available: The New York Times- March 8, 2023. Opinion-Guest essay. Adapted.) The highlighted linking words respectively introduce:
Texto associado
Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)
Texts vary in style and structure when it comes to their objectives. The intended message and genre conventions in the previous text classify it as a:
Texto associado
Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)
In paragraph 3, what exactly does the author consider “revolutionary” about the movie “Scream” ?
Texto associado
Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)