Questões de Concurso

    In order for young people to do better in school, it helps if they actually are in school. Schools basically have two  options when it comes to fighting chronic truancy. There’s the positive approach, in which students are rewarded with iPads, sneakers, gift cards, and other incentives merely for showing up at school. Then there’s the flip side, in which students and parents are penalized for unexcused absences. In the past, parents have been sentenced to jail time for failing to get their children to school. Prosecutors have also suggested jail time as a penalty for missing parent-teacher conferences. Now there’s a school system in the news because its superintendent plans on fining families $ 75 for each day a student skips school.

    In New Britain, Connecticut, a new superintendent of schools named Kelt Cooper wants to end high truancy rates among public school students, and he’s proposing monetary penalties to get the job done. A plan to fine students $ 75 per skipped school day is now being considered by New Britain council members.

    The concept of fining kids for skipping school may come as a shock, but it’s not new. In Ohio, the guardians responsible for a student guilty of habitual truancy can be fined up to $ 500 and/or be required to perform up to 70 hours of community service. Until recently, students in Los Angeles could be hit with a $ 250 penalty for each count of truancy; in early 2012 the law was amended and the expensive fines were removed, though a $ 20 penalty may still be handed out for the third offense.

 

Internet: http://moneyland.time.com (adapted).

Based on the text above, judge the following items.

 

    To screen or not to screen? When it comes to cancer, doctors say early detection is the best defense. But the picture  is a little fuzzier when it comes to prostate cancer, which in many cases progresses slowly and may not require aggressive treatment. In March, a 10-year National Cancer Institute study involving more than 76,000 men seemed to make the case for watchful waiting. About half of the study volunteers were randomly assigned to the screening group, getting either a manual exam or a prostate-specific antigen test each year; the latter test measures blood levels  of a protein associated with prostate cancer. The other study participants received no screening guidance and were left to decide on their own whether they would get a yearly test. At the seven-year mark, 50 men had died from prostate cancer in the screening group, and 44 had died in the usual-care group. In other words, screening and early detection did not lower the death rate from prostate cancer.
    Based on this and other studies, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said there was insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate-cancer screening in men younger than age 75. The task force recommended against prostate-cancer screening in men 75 and older.

 

Internet: www.time.com (adapted).

Based on the text above, judge the following items.

 

    To screen or not to screen? When it comes to cancer, doctors say early detection is the best defense. But the picture  is a little fuzzier when it comes to prostate cancer, which in many cases progresses slowly and may not require aggressive treatment. In March, a 10-year National Cancer Institute study involving more than 76,000 men seemed to make the case for watchful waiting. About half of the study volunteers were randomly assigned to the screening group, getting either a manual exam or a prostate-specific antigen test each year; the latter test measures blood levels  of a protein associated with prostate cancer. The other study participants received no screening guidance and were left to decide on their own whether they would get a yearly test. At the seven-year mark, 50 men had died from prostate cancer in the screening group, and 44 had died in the usual-care group. In other words, screening and early detection did not lower the death rate from prostate cancer.
    Based on this and other studies, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said there was insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate-cancer screening in men younger than age 75. The task force recommended against prostate-cancer screening in men 75 and older.

 

Internet: www.time.com (adapted).

Based on the text above, judge the following items.

 

    To screen or not to screen? When it comes to cancer, doctors say early detection is the best defense. But the picture  is a little fuzzier when it comes to prostate cancer, which in many cases progresses slowly and may not require aggressive treatment. In March, a 10-year National Cancer Institute study involving more than 76,000 men seemed to make the case for watchful waiting. About half of the study volunteers were randomly assigned to the screening group, getting either a manual exam or a prostate-specific antigen test each year; the latter test measures blood levels  of a protein associated with prostate cancer. The other study participants received no screening guidance and were left to decide on their own whether they would get a yearly test. At the seven-year mark, 50 men had died from prostate cancer in the screening group, and 44 had died in the usual-care group. In other words, screening and early detection did not lower the death rate from prostate cancer.
    Based on this and other studies, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said there was insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate-cancer screening in men younger than age 75. The task force recommended against prostate-cancer screening in men 75 and older.

 

Internet: www.time.com (adapted).

Based on the text above, judge the following items.