Prova FGV-SP 2019 - Direito - 1ª fase - com Resolução

Prova FGV-SP 2019 - Direito - 1ª fase - com Resolução


Theresa May And The Revenge Of The Remainers
[defensores da permanência da UE]
Anne Applebaum

Theresa May had a plan: Steal the policies of Britain’s “far right” — the U.K. Independence Party — and then steal their voters, too. Since she took office about a year ago, the formerly moderate British prime minister attacked foreigners, jeered [zombou] at the European Union and held Donald Trump’s hand. In April, she called an early general election, confident that UKIP* voters would now endorse her “Hard Brexit” and her watered-down English Tory populism.

Never mind that the moderate centrism of her predecessor, David Cameron, won a Conservative Party majority only two years ago. Never mind that she herself has offered few details about Brexit and what it will mean: May called this a “Brexit election,” declared herself the “strong and stable” candidate, promised tough negotiations with Europe and clearly expected to win a larger majority.

Yes, May had a plan — but it was a plan designed for her base. She ignored the 48 percent of the country that did not vote for Brexit, calling them “citizens of nowhere.” She ignored the anxiety that Brexit has created and the economic consequences that are now just beginning to bite. She ignored younger people, who preferred to stay in the E.U. last year and now prefer the Labour Party to the Tories by a huge margin, 63 percent to 27 percent.

May also assumed that the centrists and moderates who had voted Conservative in 2015 and to “Remain” in Europe in 2016 would have to vote for her because they would have nowhere else to go. They couldn’t possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, the quasi-Marxist, left-wing Labour Party leader who campaigned on high taxesforthe rich, heavy spending, and deep skepticism toward Britain’s traditional defense and foreign policies. They couldn’t possibly prefer a Labour Party that is itself divided over Brexit. But as the campaign went on, as May grew stiffer and more prone to error, as her “strong and stable” tagline [mote, slogan] wore thin, a lot of people in the floating center looked at Corbyn and thought, “Is he really that much worse?”

And the result? Remainers’revenge. In Canterbury, a long-standing Brexiteer member of Parliament lost to a Labour candidate, apparently thanks to a surge in student voting. In Kensington, an overwhelmingly Conservative seat — but also overwhelmingly anti-Brexit — the vote was so close thatrecounting wassuspended at 8 a.m. on Friday so that election officials could go home and rest. Across the country, people voted Labour despite not liking Corbyn. People told pollstersthat they were worried about the future of the National Health Service, that they didn’t like May’s flip-flops on elderly care, that they were unnerved by instability unleashed by the Tories.

Play to your base, insult your opponents: It’s a tactic beloved of many, including President Trump. But here’s a lesson for the opponents of populists all over the West: “Play to your base” doesn’t work when you have high turnout — and in this election it was higher than predicted. It doesn’t work when you face angry, alienated voters. And it didn’t work in Britain at all.

The outcome is a disaster, but it’s hard not to enjoy the many ironies. The Tories campaigned against a “coalition of chaos” — but now it is they who lead exactly that. May campaigned to get a larger majority, but now Britain has a hung Parliament, meaning that no party has enough seats to form a government. May tried to portray herself as a singularleader, but now she can stay in power only with the help of one of the small Northern Irish parties. If she remains prime minister — if her famously regicidal party doesn’t defenestrate herimmediately — her majority will be neither strong nor stable, particularly because her party is torn by divisions over Brexit, too.

It’s funny — but it’s also tragic, for May could have played all of this differently. When she took over last year, she could have recognized Brexit for the constitutional and political crisis that it has turned out to be. She could have called for national unity to deal with this divisive issue. She could have appealed across party lines, or asked people what outcome they preferred, or sought compromise. Instead she stuck to her formula — “Hard Brexit,” toughsounding language, “it’s all about immigration.” She kept her base — and lost everyone else.
Adapted from The Washington Post, June 9, 2017.

*UKIP: United Kingdom Independence Party, a Euroskeptic and rightwing populist political party that is a strong supporter of Brexit.

In this article from The Washington Post,AnneApplebaum analyzes the United Kingdom’s recent general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative (Tory) Party suffered a great disappointment.

Presenting her thoughts against the backdrop of the Brexit controversy, the author looks at Britain’s parties and politicians, the behavior of Britain’s voters, and the election results. Read the text and answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.

FGV-SP 2019: (This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

In April 2017, citizens of the United Kingdom voted in an early general election that had been called by Prime Minister Theresa May. According to the information in the article, what did May hope to achieve by holding an election so soon after she had become Prime Minister? What logic did she use in her campaign? What mistakes did she make, and what could she have done to encourage a more favorable outcome [resultado]? What lesson can be drawn from this election?

In your opinion, is Theresa May a good leader or a mediocre one? How would you describe her character and ability as well as her approach to Brexit? Does being a woman put her at a disadvantage in British politics? In supporting your point of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, and practical considerations, but please try to be as objective as possible.


FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Allowing a person or entity that has freely entered a partnership or association to leave that partnership or association can be controversial. For example, although it is often a simple matter to quit a job, “quitting” the Armed Forces in time of war, even if you are a volunteer, is a crime. And one need only remember that some decades ago divorce was illegal in Brazil.

The United States came into being when 13 separate English colonies decided to leave the British Empire and form a federal union. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and

By 1860, however, the Southern states, believing that what they considered the tyranny of the Northern states and the Federal Government was threatening their way of life, a way of life supported by the institution of legalized slavery (which the South wanted not only to preserve but also to extend into new territories in the West), decided they had the right to secede and to form their own country, the Confederate States ofAmerica. PresidentAbraham Lincoln declared they did not have such a right, and a bloody civil war ensued, at first to preserve the union but eventually to abolish slavery forever in the United States. At the war’s end, the South was all but destroyed.

You should keep in mind that the Southerners wanted to preserve their independence and the inviolability of their culture – to “take back control,” so to speak. Moreover, at the beginning of the war, owning slaves, while controversial, was certainly not illegal, at least not in the South. You should keep in mind as well that had the Confederate States of America succeeded, it would have been the first country in history founded upon the idea of eternal slave labor and that, even before the war, Lincoln had said publicly, “If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

In your opinion, therefore, did the South, which had voluntarily become part of the United States, have the right to secede? What about the rights of those human beings the South kept in bondage [escravidão]? If the South had not permitted slavery, would it then have had the right to leave the United States – or would the existence or nonexistence of slavery have been irrelevant in this question?

Furthermore, is it possible that Brexit – which is also causing serious personal, economic, and diplomatic problems for Britain and Europe, but has not led to war – could be right, but the South’s attempted secession wrong? How are the two situations similar or different? In short, when may a geopolitical entity be justified in separating itself from a union with other geopolitical entities? What should be the guiding principle: law, morality, common sense?

In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.


FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

“Iset out on this ground, which Isuppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongsin usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it… Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in the occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1789)

“Each generation…has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1816)

“From the earliest times the old have rubbed it into the young that they are wiser than they, and before the young had discovered what nonsense this was they were old too, and it profited them to carry on the imposture.”
– W. Somerset Maugham (1930)

“I want my country back.” “I don’t recognize the U.K. anymore.” “We’re losing our identity.” “Immigrants come over here to take our jobs or to live the easy life on public assistance. Britain should be for the British, not for a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, and possibly dangerous foreigners.”
– What many Brexit supporters said before the referendum.

With the above ideas in mind, consider the following question: If the people of a country vote on an irrevocable decision,should all votes be equal?After all, British young people, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the E.U., are the ones who will have to spend the majority of their adult lives dealing with the after-effects of the decision to leave, a decision made in large part by their elders, who, while presumably wiser than they, will (statistically speaking) not need to suffer for so long if that decision turns out to have been a bad one.

So, just as there is an age limit for voting, should some questions be restricted to a certain group? In a representative democracy, the principle of one person, one vote is sacrosanct. That being so, in your opinion, it is fair or is it the tyranny of a self-interested majority to implement decisions that will negatively affect one generation in perpetuity? Is there any way around this or must we accept that democracy is imperfect and that sometimes people, like it or not, will suffer because of political decisions?

The following may help you formulate an answer:

According to The Economist, because of Brexit the U.K. can expect its economy to shrink by 2.4%, even more if immigration is restricted.

Only 40% of British young people aged 18 to 24 bothered to vote in the referendum that, to the surprise of many, approved Brexit.

Last and perhaps most important, should the U.K. declare Brexit null and void, and petition to be reinstated in the E.U.?

In answering, you may take into account legal, ethical, and practical considerations, but please strive to be as clearsighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.




o poço dos desejos

FGV-SP 2019: a) Que semelhança há entre recorrer a um “poço dos desejos” e se servir de uma rede social tal como apontado na tirinha? Explique.

b) Reescreva, sem alterar seu sentido, a frase “Poder criticar o mundo sem fazer esforço algum para mudá-lo”, substituindo a preposição “sem” pela locução “sem que” e “algum” por outro pronome adequado ao contexto.


Nosso manifesto
Produzimos os eventos que a gente gostaria de ir. Geramos o conteúdo que a gente gostaria de consumir. Construímos os lugares que a gente gostaria de frequentar. Criamos os produtos que a gente gostaria de comprar. Investimos nos negócios que a gente gostaria de participar. Aproximamos as pessoas com quem a gente gostaria de conviver. Conectamos as marcas que a gente gostaria de trabalhar. Simples assim.
Meca Journal, No. 12, julho.2017

FGV-SP 2019:
a) Para obter ênfase na mensagem, o redator desse texto emprega, de modo reiterado, um determinado recurso expressivo. Identifique-o e justifique.

b) Na frase “Aproximamos as pessoas com quem a gente gostaria de conviver”, o redator do texto seguiu as regras da norma-padrão da língua portuguesa escrita ao usar a preposição “com” exigida pelo verbo “conviver”. Em outras frases, no entanto, faltou a preposição exigida pelos respectivos verbos. Reescreva duas destas frases, inserindo, nelas, a preposição adequada.


Texto para as questões 3 e 4
Clarice Lispector – Para mim a arte é uma busca, você concorda?

Lygia Fagundes Telles – Sim, a arte é uma busca e a marca constante dessa busca é a insatisfação. Na hora em que o artista botar a coroa de louros na cabeça e disser, estou satisfeito, nessa hora mesmo ele morreu como artista. Ou já estava morto antes. É preciso pesquisar, se aventurar por novos caminhos, desconfiar da facilidade com que as palavras se oferecem. Aos jovens que desprezam o estilo, que não trabalham em cima do texto porque acham que logo no primeiro rascunho já está ótimo, tudo bem – a esses recomendo a lição maior que está inteira resumida nestes versos de Carlos Drummond de Andrade:

“Chega mais perto e contempla as palavras
Cada uma
tem mil faces secretas sob a face neutra
e te pergunta, sem interesse pela resposta
pobre ou terrível que lhe deres:
Trouxeste a chave?”

Você, Clarice, que é dona de um dos mais belos estilos da nossa língua, você sabe perfeitamente que apoderar-se dessa chave não é assim simples. Nem fácil, há tantas chaves falsas. E essa é uma fechadura toda cheia de segredos. De ambiguidades.
Clarice Lispector, Entrevistas.

FGV-SP 2019: a) No trecho “a marca constante dessa busca é a insatisfação”, a que tipo de insatisfação se refere a entrevistada?

b) Se os versos de Drummond citados na entrevista se iniciassem pela forma verbal “Chegue” (e não “Chega”), para que se restabeleça a concordância de verbos e pronomes, as lacunas abaixo deverão ser assim preenchidas: “Chegue mais perto e _______________ as palavras Cada uma tem mil faces secretas sob a face neutra e _________________ , sem interesse pela resposta pobre ou terrível que _____________________________________________ a chave?”


FGV-SP 2019: Responda ao que se pede.

a) Ao dizer “tudo bem”, a entrevistada concorda com o modo de proceder dos “jovens que desprezam o estilo?” Justifique sua resposta.

b) Se o trecho sublinhado na frase “nessa hora mesmo ele morreu como artista” fosse substituído por “mesmo nessa hora”, haveria mudança de sentido? Justifique sua resposta.


FGV-SP 2019: Leia o título e o subtítulo de uma resenha sobre o livro cuja capa está reproduzida na imagem.

Quando o mundo subiu no telhado*
Livro de Kurt Vonnegut é a prova literária de como o humor se faz presente mesmo diante do apocalíptico fim da condição humana.
Galileu, 01.2018.

*Frase inspirada em uma anedota bastante popular no Brasil que costuma ser usada para amenizar, de forma jocosa, uma notícia ruim. “cama de gato”: (por extensão de sentido) trama, armadilha.

a) Qual a relação de sentido entre o título e o subtítulo da resenha e os elementos que compõem a capa do livro citado?

b) Sem alterar o sentido, reescreva o trecho do subtítulo “mesmo diante do apocalíptico fim da condição humana”, substituindo a palavra “mesmo” por “ainda que” e “apocalíptico” por um sinônimo. Depois de “ainda que”, introduza um verbo que seja adequado ao contexto.