Question based on the following passage:

Schools of thought: can mindfulness lessons boost child mental health?

Children are taking 10 minutes out from the hurly burly school day to reflect on their thoughts and their feelings. Some ground themselves by thinking about their feet on the floor, while others concentrate on their breathing.

This is mindfulness, the lessons quickly growing in popularity as an antidote to the stress of being a young person in the 21st century, be it pressure to perform in exams, social media, or the obsession with body image that is reported to even affect primary age children.

Children are learning about their brains and how to deal with unruly thoughts – to control emotions such as anger and fear. It is no longer head, shoulders, knees and toes, but amygdala, hippocampus and pre-frontal cortex.

The most recent NHS survey of young people’s mental health in 2017 shows one-in-eight 5- to 19-year-olds in England has a diagnosable mental health condition. Hospital admissions for anorexia alone more than doubled in the eight years to 2017/18.

Stress is a known barrier to learning and a growing number of schools are targeting the emotional health of pupils through schemes such as meditation, mindfulness and the provision of mental health first aiders and buddies.

The Mental Health Foundation charity wants emotional wellbeing to be at the heart of the school curriculum, and has chosen body image as the key theme of this year’s Mental Health Awareness Week. Dr Antonis Kousoulis, its assistant director, said its survey last year found 47% of people aged 18-24 had experienced stress over their body image to the extent of being overwhelmed or unable to cope. “Social media has certainly played a part,” he says. “Historically, it was the mirror that was the main driver of perception of our image and how we thought others perceived us. Nowadays, young people are exposed almost on a 24/7 basis to manipulated and heavily edited images, whether that’s in advertising or photos of their friends.”

Over the past five years there has been a proliferation of mindfulness organisations and companies selling lesson plans and staff training to schools. But does it work?

Secondary school teacher Richard Burnett, who founded the Mindfulness in Schools Project 10 years ago, warns against “quick fix” approaches. “We are a charity started by teachers who wanted to teach children how best to manage their thoughts and feelings and deal with the rollercoaster of being a young person,” he says.

It has two training courses for teachers – one aimed at secondary students and another for younger classes. “It’s about training your attention to notice what is going on. If you are aware of that, you can choose how to respond, for example to manage the amygdala, the part of the brain that detects fear and prepares a response,” he says.

Emotional disorders are on the rise, and we should instil something in our children and young people about coping with stress, advises Lee Hudson, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health’s mental health lead. But should it be mindfulness? There is evidence that the process can bring benefits to adults, he says. “[But] the evidence for its effectiveness with children is not yet sufficiently robust and we need more research. However, some schools are rolling it out and children seem to enjoy it – and it unlikely to cause harm.”

(Available in: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/16/mindfulnesslessons- child-mental-health. Accessed on May 17th, 2019. Adapted.)

What does the word “unruly” in paragraph 3 mean?

TEXTO I PARA A QUESTÃO.

CIDADANIA NO BRASIL

Discorda-se da extensão, profundidade e rapidez do fenômeno, não de sua existência. A internacionalização do sistema capitalista, iniciada há séculos mas muito acelerada pelos avanços tecnológicos recentes, e a criação de blocos econômicos e políticos têm causado uma redução do poder dos Estados e uma mudança das identidades nacionais existentes. As várias nações que compunham o antigo império soviético se transformaram em novos Estados-nação. No caso da Europa Ocidental, os vários Estados-nação se fundem em um grande Estado multinacional. A redução do poder do Estado afeta a natureza dos antigos direitos, sobretudo dos direitos políticos e sociais.

Se os direitos políticos significam participação no governo, uma diminuição no poder do governo reduz também a relevância do direito de participar. Por outro lado, a ampliação da competição internacional coloca pressão sobre o custo da mão-de-obra e sobre as finanças estatais, o que acaba afetando o emprego e os gastos do governo, do qual dependem os direitos sociais. Desse modo, as mudanças recentes têm recolocado em pauta o debate sobre o problema da cidadania, mesmo nos países em que ele parecia estar razoavelmente resolvido.

Tudo isso mostra a complexidade do problema. O enfrentamento dessa complexidade pode ajudar a identificar melhor as pedras no caminho da construção democrática. Não ofereço receita da cidadania. Também não escrevo para especialistas. Faço convite a todos os que se preocupam com a democracia para uma viagem pelos caminhos tortuosos que a cidadania tem seguido no Brasil. Seguindo-lhe o percurso, o eventual companheiro ou companheira de jornada poderá desenvolver visão própria do problema. Ao fazê-lo, estará exercendo sua cidadania.

(http://www.do.ufgd.edu.br/mariojunior/arquivos/cidadania_brasil.pdf)

No trecho “Tudo isso mostra a complexidade do problema.”, o elemento textual “isso” possui natureza de coesão

Question based on the following passage:

The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests?

This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you form healthy habits with your digital devices.

Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However, nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more digital wellness products than ever.

As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said, “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition making products better.

Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use, buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)

What is the author’s purpose in mentioning “At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction” in paragraph 1?

Question based on the following passage:

The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests?

This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you form healthy habits with your digital devices.

Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However, nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more digital wellness products than ever.

As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said, “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition making products better.

Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use, buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)

According to the passage, what can be stated about Apple and Google?

What is the main idea of the comic strip?

In the last paragraph, the word “afoot” in the passage "Change is already afoot to disrupt the traditional classroom." has the same meaning as:

According to the educationalist and author Marc Prensky:

From the second paragraph, it is possible to state that

In the text excerpt “Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission statements which include educational aims.” Which words could replace "mores" and "aims" respectively?

According to the author of the text, a system of etiquette and a means of communication serve to: