What are the issues that will shape the global 
energy market in 2018? What will be the energy 
mix, trade patterns and price trends? Every country 
is different and local factors, including politics, are 
important. But at the global level there are four key 
questions, and each of which answers is highly 
uncertain.
The first question is whether Saudi Arabia is 
stable. The kingdom’s oil exports now mostly go to 
Asia but the volumes involved mean that any volatility 
will destabilise a market where speculation is rife.
The risk is that an open conflict, which Iran and 
Saudi have traditionally avoided despite all their 
differences, would spread and hit oil production and 
trade. It is worth remembering that the Gulf states 
account for a quarter of global production and over
40 per cent of all the oil traded globally. The threat to 
stability is all the greater given that Iran is likely to win 
any such clash and to treat the result as a licence to 
reassert its influence in the region.
The second question is how rapidly production 
of oil from shale rock will grow in the US — 2017 has 
seen an increase of 600,000 barrels a day to over 6m.
The increase in global prices over the past six months 
has made output from almost all America’s producing 
areas commercially viable and drilling activity is rising.
A comparable increase in 2018 would offset most of 
the current OPEC production cuts and either force 
another quota reduction or push prices down.
The third question concerns China. For the 
last three years the country has managed to deliver 
economic growth with only minimal increases in 
energy consumption. Growth was probably lower than 
the claimed numbers — the Chinese do not like to 
admit that they, too, are subject to economic cycles 
and recessions — but even so the achievement 
is considerable. The question is whether the trend 
can be continued. If it can, the result will limit global 
demand growth for oil, gas and coal.
China, which accounts for a quarter of the world’s 
daily energy use, is the swing consumer. If energy 
efficiency gains continue, CO2 emissions will remain 
flat or even fall. The country’s economy is changing 
and moving away from heavy industry fuelled largely 
by coal to a more service-based one, with a more 
varied fuel mix. But the pace of that shift is uncertain 
and some recent data suggests that as economic 
growth has picked up, so has consumption of oil and 
coal. Beijing has high ambitions for a much cleaner 
energy economy, driven not least by the levels of air 
pollution in many of the major cities; 2018 will show 
how much progress they are making.
The fourth question is, if anything, the most 
important. How fast can renewables grow? The last 
few years have seen dramatic reductions in costs 
and strong increase in supply. The industry has had 
a great year, with bids from offshore wind for capacity 
auctions in the UK and elsewhere at record low levels.
Wind is approaching grid parity — the moment 
when it can compete without subsidies. Solar is also 
thriving: according to the International Energy Agency, 
costs have fallen by 70 per cent since 2010 not least 
because of advances in China, which now accounts 
for 60 per cent of total solar cell manufacturing 
capacity. The question is how rapidly all those gains 
can be translated into electric supply.
Renewables, including hydro, accounted for just
5 per cent of global daily energy supply according 
to the IEA’s latest data. That is increasing — solar 
photovoltaic capacity grew by 50 per cent in 2016 
— but to make a real difference the industry needs 
a period of expansion comparable in scale to the 
growth of personal computing and mobile phones in 
the 1990s and 2000s.
The problem is that the industry remains 
fragmented. Most renewable companies are small 
and local, and in many cases undercapitalised; some 
are built to collect subsidies. A radical change will be 
necessary to make the industry global and capable 
of competing on the scale necessary to displace 
coal and natural gas. The coming year will show us 
whether it is ready for that challenge.
In many ways, the energy business is at a 
moment of change and transition. Every reader will 
have their own view on each of the four questions. To 
me, the prospect is of supply continuing to outpace 
demand. If that is right, the surge in oil prices over 
the past two months is a temporary and unsustainable 
phenomenon. It would take another Middle East war 
to change the equation. Unfortunately, that is all too 
possible.

“The Quebec government’s proposed ban” (line 11)
- prohibition.

“policies that since the 1970s have focused on
admitting the most employable people.” (lines 36-38)
- agreeing.

“An array of programmes” (line 42) - schedule.

“about the obligation on newcomers to integrate”
(lines 56-57) - choice.

“Many think it undermines their role” (lines 64-65) emphasizes.

Na questão em questão, vamos analisar a substituição de palavras em seu contexto para verificar a alternativa correta. Vamos considerar cada uma das alternativas:

A) “The Quebec government’s proposed ban” (line 11) - prohibition.

A palavra "ban" se traduz como "proibição" em português, e seu significado envolve a ideia de impedir oficialmente algo. Essa noção é perfeitamente sinônima de "prohibition", que também significa "proibição". Portanto, dentro do contexto mencionado, a substituição mantém o mesmo significado, indicando uma ação proibitiva pelo governo.

B) “policies that since the 1970s have focused on admitting the most employable people.” (lines 36-38) - agreeing.

A palavra "admitting" no contexto é usada com o sentido de permitir a entrada ou aceitação, especialmente em relação à imigração e ao emprego. "Agreeing", que significa "concordar", não tem relação contextual ou significativa com "admitting" no contexto dado.

C) “An array of programmes” (line 42) - schedule.

"Array" refere-se a um conjunto ou uma coleção de itens que, neste caso, são programas. "Schedule" significa "cronograma" ou "agenda", que transmite uma noção de temporalidade e sequência, diferente do que implica um "array" ou conjunto de programas.

D) “about the obligation on newcomers to integrate” (lines 56-57) - choice.

"Obligation" implica uma necessidade ou um dever que deve ser cumprido, o que é substantivamente diferente de "choice", que significa escolha, indicando uma opção entre alternativas, livre de compulsoriedade.

E) “Many think it undermines their role” (lines 64-65) emphasizes.

A palavra "undermines" significa literalmente "minar" ou "enfraquecer", o que é totalmente diferente de "emphasizes", que significa "enfatizar" ou "destacar". Esses termos são antônimos, indicando significados opostos em contexto. 

Gabarito: Letra A

When the government of the French-speaking
province of Quebec introduced a bill in November to
stop public servants from wearing religious symbols,
it gave a community hospital in neighbouring Ontario
a chance to grab some new recruits. Lakeridge Health
ran an advertisement in a Quebec medical-school
newspaper showing a woman wearing a hijab and
stethoscope over the caption: “We don’t care what’s
on your head, we care what’s in it.” Applications
doubled, says Kevin Empey, the hospital’s boss.
The Quebec government’s proposed ban and the
Ontario hospital’s welcome illustrate the poles in the
Canadian debate on multiculturalism. Public hearings
on the law began on January 14th. Supporters say
that the ban is needed to enshrine state secularism;
opponents that it is a cynical appeal to xenophobia
by the minority provincial government of the Parti
Québécois (PQ). Either way, the prediction of JeanFrançois Lisée, a PQ minister, that the Quebec battle
could be the last stand in Canada’s multicultural
experiment does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Immigration itself is not in question. Canadians,
even in Quebec, overwhelmingly back mass
immigration, which adds an average of 250,000
newcomers (roughly 0.8% of the population) each
year. First-generation immigrants make up a bigger
share of Toronto’s and Vancouver’s populations than
in many of the world’s great cosmopolitan cities [. . .].
Unlike many Europeans, Canadians believe that
immigrants create jobs rather than steal them, says
Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist who has surveyed attitudes
in Europe and Canada. This view is partly based on
history. Modern Canada was built by successive
waves of immigrants, first from Europe and more
recently from Asia.
It is also a result of policies that since the 1970s
have focused on admitting the most employable
people. The government constantly tweaks its system
of awarding points to prospective immigrants for
languages, education and skills, in order to match them
with labour-market gaps. Younger applicants currently
have an edge. An array of programmes, many of
them focused on the ability to speak languages, help
immigrants to settle in.
The Quebec dispute is not over numbers of
immigrants, but how to accommodate them. In
the 1970s Canada officially adopted the creed of
“multiculturalism”, a murky concept that celebrates
cultural differences at the same time as pushing
newcomers to integrate. English-speaking Canadians
see multiculturalism as central to their national identity,
ranking below universal health care and the Canadian
flag in a recent survey by Environics, a research firm,
but above ice hockey, the Mounties and the Queen.
The governing Conservatives are blunter than
opposition parties about the obligation on newcomers
to integrate and about cultural practices, such as
genital mutilation, that are unacceptable. But their
support for multiculturalism is not in question. After
the latest federal cabinet reshuffle there was even
a tussle over who was the senior multiculturalism
minister.
By contrast, French-speaking Quebeckers have
long been more tepid about the subject. Many think
it undermines their role as one of modern Canada’s
founding cultures. The government in Quebec prefers
the doctrine of “interculturalism”, which emphasises
assimilation into the dominant culture. This is popular
in rural areas, where immigrants are few and PQ
support is strong, but extremely unpopular in Montreal,
where most of the province’s newcomers live.

“labour reaped most of the benefits” (lines 33-34)gained.

“prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution” (line 35) - restricted.

“to foster the creativity that humans will need” (line60) - control.

“unevenly distributed” (line 66)- homogeneously.

“it is up to governments to spread them” (line 
 68)share.

A questão pede para substituir a palavra em negrito por outra em itálico sem que haja mudança de significado. Vamos analisar cada alternativa:

Alternativa A: “labour reaped most of the benefits” pode ser substituído por gained. A palavra "reaped" (colheu, no sentido figurado) é frequentemente usada para indicar que alguém obteve benefícios ou vantagens de algo, similar a "gained" (ganhou). A substituição mantém o mesmo significado.

Alternativa B: “prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution” por restricted. A palavra "unleashed" (desencadeada) implica a liberação ou início de algo em grande escala, enquanto "restricted" (restringido) significa limitar ou conter. São antônimos, portanto essa substituição altera o significado.

Alternativa C: “to foster the creativity that humans will need” por control. "Foster" (fomentar, promover) indica encorajamento ou promoção, diferente de "control" (controlar), que implica em regulamentação ou restrição. Essa substituição também altera o significado.

Alternativa D: “unevenly distributed” por homogeneously. "Unevenly" (desigualmente) significa que algo é distribuído de forma irregular, enquanto "homogeneously" (homogeneamente) indica uma distribuição uniforme. Esses termos são contrários em significado, alterando completamente o contexto se substituídos.

Alternativa E: “it is up to governments to spread them” por share. "Spread" (espalhar, distribuir) e "share" (compartilhar) podem parecer similares, mas, no contexto, "spread" tem um sentido mais amplo de distribuição geral, enquanto "share" sugere uma partilha mais direta e específica entre indivíduos ou grupos, o que pode levar a nuances diferentes no significado.

Gabarito: Letra A

Innovation, the elixir of progress, has always cost
people their jobs. In the Industrial Revolution artisan
weavers were swept aside by the mechanical loom.
Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has
displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned
20th-century middle-class life. Typists, ticket agents,
bank tellers and many production-line jobs have been
dispensed with, just as the weavers were.
For those, including this newspaper, who believe
that technological progress has made the world a
better place, such churn is a natural part of rising
prosperity. Although innovation kills some jobs, it
creates new and better ones, as a more productive
society becomes richer and its wealthier inhabitants
demand more goods and services. A hundred years
ago one in three American workers was employed
on a farm. Today less than 2% of them produce far
more food. The millions freed from the land were not
consigned to joblessness, but found better-paid work
as the economy grew more sophisticated. Today the
pool of secretaries has shrunk, but there are ever
more computer programmers and web designers.
Optimism remains the right starting-point, but
for workers the dislocating effects of technology may
make themselves evident faster than its benefits.
Technology’s impact will feel like a tornado, hitting
the rich world first, but eventually sweeping through
poorer countries too. No government is prepared for
it.
Why be worried? It is partly just a matter of history
repeating itself. In the early part of the Industrial
Revolution the rewards of increasing productivity went
disproportionately to capital; later on, labour reaped
most of the benefits. The pattern today is similar. The
prosperity unleashed by the Digital Revolution has
gone overwhelmingly to the owners of capital and the
highest-skilled workers.
Many of the jobs most at risk are lower down the
ladder (logistics, haulage), whereas the skills that are
least vulnerable to automation (creativity, managerial
expertise) tend to be higher up, so median wages are
likely to remain stagnant for some time and income
gaps are likely to widen.
Anger about rising inequality is bound to grow,
but politicians will find it hard to address the problem.
Shunning progress would be as futile now as the
Luddites’ protests against mechanised looms were
in the 1810s, because any country that tried to stop
would be left behind by competitors eager to embrace
new technology. The freedom to raise taxes on the
rich to punitive levels will be similarly constrained by
the mobility of capital and highly skilled labour.
The main way in which governments can help
their people through this dislocation is through
education systems. One of the reasons for the
improvement in workers’ fortunes in the latter part of
the Industrial Revolution was because schools were
built to educate them—a dramatic change at the time.
Now those schools themselves need to be changed,
to foster the creativity that humans will need to set
them apart from computers. There should be less
rote-learning and more critical thinking.
Innovation has brought great benefits to humanity.
Nobody in their right mind would want to return to
the world of handloom weavers. But the benefits of
technological progress are unevenly distributed,
especially in the early stages of each new wave, and
it is up to governments to spread them. In the 19th
century it took the threat of revolution to bring about
progressive reforms. Today’s governments would do
well to start making the changes needed before their
people get angry.

O modal verb "have to" expressa a ideia de obrigatoriedade. No trecho "You have to climb out the same way you climbed in...", notamos a afirmação de que você tem de sair da mesma maneira que entrou. Trata-se, portanto, de algo que se deve realizar.Tendo isso em vista, "have to" não poderia ser substituído por may, can, would ou might, visto que são modal verbs usados para expressar algo que se pode fazer, ou seja, uma possibilidade.Portanto, o único modal verb capaz de substituir "have to" é must, pois, expressando a ideia de dever, obrigatoriedade, não modificaria o sentido da frase. Alternativa correta: Letra (C)

<center>Did you get done what you wanted to get done today?</center> 
 By Peter Bregman. September 13, 2011 / Psychology Today 

 Some people are naturally pre-disposed to being
 highly productive. They start their days with a clear
 and reasonable intention of what they plan to do, and
 then they work diligently throughout the day, sticking
5 to their plans, focused on accomplishing their most
 important priorities, until the day ends and they’ve
 achieved precisely what they had expected. Each day
 moves them one day closer to what they intend to
 accomplish over the year.
10 I am, unfortunately, not one of those people.
 Left to my own devices, I rarely end my day with
 the satisfaction of a plan well executed. My natural
 inclination is to start my morning with a long and overly
 ambitious list of what I hope to accomplish and push
15 myself with sheer will to accomplish it. I’m prone to
 be so busy — answering emails, multitasking, taking
 phone calls, taking care of errands — that, without
 intervention, I would get very little of importance done.
 And then, exhausted by my busyness,
20 but unsatisfied by how little of importance I’d
 accomplished, I would distract myself further by doing
 things that made me feel better in the moment, if not
 accomplished — like browsing the internet or eating
 something sweet.
25 Our instincts most often drive us toward instant
 gratification. And the world around us conspires to
 lure us off task. Given total freedom, most of us would
 spend far too much time browsing websites and
 eating sweets. And being totally responsive to our
30 environments would just have us running around like
 crazy catering to other people’s agendas.
 For me, the allure of accomplishing lots of little
 details would often override my focus on the big
 things I value. Each morning I would try to change my
35 natural tendency by exerting self-control. I would talk
 to myself about how, starting this morning, I would be
 more focused, psych myself up to have a productive
 day, and commit to myself that I wouldn’t do any
 errands until the important work was done.
40 It almost never worked. Certainly not reliably.
 And so, without understanding it at the time, I
 was teaching myself to fail. People talk about failure
 — I talk about failure — as critical to learning. But
 what if we don’t learn? What if we do the same
45 things, repeatedly, hoping for different results but not
 changing our behavior?
 Then we are training ourselves to fail repeatedly.
 Because the more we continue to make the
 same mistakes, the more we ingrain the ineffective
50 behaviors into our lives. Our failures become our
 rituals, our rituals become our habits, and our habits
 become our identity. We no longer experience an
 unproductive day; we become unproductive people.
 You can’t get out of this pattern by telling yourself
55 you’re a productive person. You’re smarter than that;
 you won’t believe yourself and the data won’t support
 the illusion.
 You have to climb out the same way you climbed
 in: with new rituals.
60 For me, the best way to discover the most
 effective rituals to help me achieve my most important
 priorities was through trial and error. Every evening
 I looked at what worked and repeated it the next. I
 looked at what didn’t and stopped it.
65 What I found is that rather than trying to develop
 super-human discipline and focus, I needed to rely
 a process to make it more likely that I would be
 focused and productive and less likely that I would be
 scattered and ineffective.
70 Rituals like these: Spending five minutes in the
 morning to place my most important work onto my
 calendar, stopping every hour to ask myself whether
 I’m sticking to my plan, and spending five minutes in
 the evening to learn from my successes and failures.
75 Answering my emails in chunks at predetermined
 times during the day instead of whenever they come
 in. And never letting anything stay on my to do list
 for more than three days (after which I either do it
 immediately, schedule it in my calendar, or delete
80 it).
 It doesn’t take long for these rituals to become
 habits and for the habits to become your identity. And
 then, you become a productive person.
 The trick then is to stay productive. Once your
85 identity changes, you are at risk of letting go of your
 rituals. You don’t need them anymore, you think to
 yourself, because you are now a productive person.
 You no longer suffer from the problem the rituals
 saved you from.
90 But that’s a mistake. Rituals don’t change us.
 They simply modify our behavior as long as we
 practice them. Once we stop, we lose their benefit.
 In other words, being productive — forever more —
 requires that you maintain the rituals that keep you
95 productive — forever more.
 I would love to say that I am now one of those
 people who is naturally pre-disposed to being highly
 productive. But I’m not. There’s nothing natural about
 productivity for me.

O phrasal verb "pitch in" significa "contribuir", enquanto "come up" possui o sentido de "surgir", "aparecer".Desse modo, podemos afirmar que tais verbos significam, respectivamente, "contributing to" (contribuir para) e "arise" (surgir), conforme a Letra (A).As outras alternativas apresentam significados diferentes das palavras em questão: "putting up with" (tolerar); "drop off" (deixar; "fighting off" (combater); "disappear" (desaparecer); "getting rid of" (livrar-se de); "be forgotten" (ser esquecido); "moving away from" (afastar-se de); "be eliminated" (ser eliminado). Alternativa correta: Letra (A)

By HEATHER HUHMAN. June 17, 2011. US News
 Everyone makes mistakes — but some of those
 mistakes are more avoidable than others. When it
 comes to your job, even just one mistake could result
 in major consequences for your career.
5 Impress your employer by avoiding the 
 following mistakes: 
 Mistake #1: Being unavailable
 It’s inevitable that, at some point, your supervisor
 or co-workers will approach you and ask for your
10 help on an outside project or assignment. Although 
 it might be tempting to ignore those emails or say
 no to additional work, don’t. You might think that no
 one will notice if you don’t help with extra work, but
 they will. And, although it’s not technically in your job
15 description, more companies today must do more with
 less — meaning each employee needs to be flexible
 and multi-skilled. Make yourself indispensible by
 pitching in on other assignments when possible. (Of
 course, don’t overextend yourself to the point where
20 you can’t get your normal work done.)
 Mistake #2: Failing to dress to impress
 Some of the best job advice I’ve heard is to always
 dress at least one step above your current position. It
 helps others picture you working above your current
25 position and makes you look extremely professional.
 You’re not just an intern/entry-level professional, you
 have the potential to be so much more — so act like it.
 Mistake #3: Denying your mistakes
 No one is perfect. And while doing projects to the
30 best of your ability is something you should strive to
 do, it doesn’t mean you’ll never make a mistake or do
 something incorrectly. If you make a mistake, own up
 to it and correct it. Remember to not lose sight of the
 overall goal by focusing too much on the little details.
35 You could potentially miss deadlines and quality of
 your work — not to mention drive your co-workers
 (and boss) crazy.
 Mistake #4: Waiting for feedback
 Many workplaces still don’t give employees
40 feedback more than a few times per year. If you wait
 around for feedback for several months, you’re doing
 yourself (and your organization) a disservice. Instead
 of waiting for your supervisor to come to you, ask to
 set up a quick meeting to discuss your progress thus
45 far and any improvements you could make. Bring
 up specific projects you’ve completed and ask for
 feedback on things you were unsure about. This way,
 you know where you stand in your position and at
 the company — before a formal performance review
50 comes across your desk.
 Mistake #5: Not interacting with peers
 Even if you’re doing spectacular work, you could
 be overlooked if you sit at your desk each day and avoid
 interactions with co-workers and upper management.
55 When you need a break, head over to the break room
 or cafeteria and interact with other workers in your
 office. Not only will this help reduce stress on the
 job, but you’ll have the potential to make some great
 professional relationships, too.
60 Mistake #6: Not asking questions
 Some people think asking questions is a sign of
 weakness. Yet, when you’re unsure how to complete
 a task, it can be hard to do it the right way the first
 time without clarification. When assigned a new
65 project, ask any questions that might come up right
 then and there. Furthermore, you might also want
 to inquire about how your success will be measured
 and how often you should update your boss on the 
 progress. Your supervisor would much rather that
70 you ask questions now in order to avoid potential
 problems later.
 Mistake #7: Ignoring the corporate culture
 When you first start on a new job, it’s important
 to take note of cultural differences from previous
75 workplaces. What does everyone wear on a daily
 basis? How much socialization goes on during the
 workday? Do employees tend to come in early or stay
 late? What is the typical mode of communication for
 the office? Assimilating to the culture is a great way
80 to fit in quickly at the organization and get along with
 other employees.

Questões de CESGRANRIO - Inglês - Elementos gramaticais