Analise as frases abaixo e assinale:

S: caso a declaração contenha um equívoco do ponto de vista da lógica verbal;

N: em caso contrário.

( ) Pretendendo acabar com as baratas que havia em sua casa, comprou remédio para insetos.

( ) De acordo com o calendário de datas festivas do Brasil, em novembro há um feriado.

( ) Sua vida mudou radicalmente; pode-se dizer que deu um giro de 360°.

A sequência correta das letras, de cima para baixo, é

. Num famoso talk-show, o entrevistado faz a seguinte afirmação: "Toda pessoa gorda não tem boa memória". Ao que o entrevistador contrapôs: "Eu tenho boa memória. Logo, não sou gordo".

Supondo que a afirmação do entrevistado seja verdadeira, a conclusão do entrevistador é

. Para selecionar um recruta dentre 225 voluntários, o sargento de determinado batalhão os dispõe em um quadrado de 15 linhas por 15 colunas e, a princípio, manda sair o mais alto de cada linha e denomina de A o mais baixo, dentre esses 15. Em seguida, faz com que todos retomem suas posições no quadrado e, agora, manda sair o mais baixo de cada coluna e denomina de B o mais alto, dentre esses 15.

Analise as seguintes situações:

I - A ser mais alto do que B;

II - B ser mais alto do que A;

III - A e B serem a mesma pessoa.

É(São) possível(is) APENAS a(s) situação(ões)

. Um quadrado é cortado em 49 quadrados menores. Todos esses quadrados têm as medidas de seus lados, em centímetros, expressas por números inteiros positivos. Há exatamente 48 quadrados com área igual a . O número de resultados possíveis para expressar, em , a medida da área do quadrado original é exatamente igual a

. O Banco X praticou diversas infrações à legislação bancária. As infrações não foram regularizadas após determinação do Banco Central. Nesse caso, será decretada intervenção na instituição financeira,

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The wordplay in the title refers to the fact that the

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

In terms of meaning, it is correct to affirm that

"I agree wholeheartedly with these transparency initiatives. I would also urge the IMF to keep going further forward particularly in regards to archives, as well as releasing country reports as part of a regular pattern of their activities, and to move to a system of releasing mandatory reports. In order for us not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, we must be able to discern patterns from real world data. Secrecy is to be shunned since it promotes an imbalance in power and always leads to abuses.

" Rahim, on December 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/ #comment-579

The comment above is in tune with Moghadam's ideas, because Rahim states that

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The only argument that CANNOT be considered supportive of publishing the IMF documents is that the

Freedom of IMFormation

By Reza Moghadam
Posted on September 17, 2009 by iMFdirect

With the global financial crisis, the world is increasingly looking to the International Monetary Fund- not just for financing but as the global institution charged with overseeing members' economies and policies (what we call surveillance). It's easy to forget that only 10 years ago the Fund was a secretive institution. That's no longer the case. Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business.

The IMF today is a very open institution. The vast majority of our reports are published. The public can search the IMF's archives. And we are making lots of effort to reach out to external stakeholders.

The benefits of this increased transparency, both for the Fund's surveillance and lending activities, are indisputable. Transparency allows us to engage with the public and to build a broader understanding and support of what we do. It benefits the quality of our advice by subjecting our analysis to outside scrutiny. And more generally, it makes us more accountable for our advice and financial decisions. In all, it makes us a more effective and legitimate institution.

Frankly, the Fund cannot be a genuine leader on economic policy issues unless it is seen as transparent. We certainly would not have been able to achieve the major reforms of our lending frameworks and the increase in our financial resources had we not been seen as an open and transparent institution. Rightly, the public expects to know what we are up to.

At the same time, certain aspects of transparency remain controversial. Some believe that publication undermines candor in the reports, the frankness of discussions between staff and country authorities, and the Fund's role as trusted advisor.

Communicating and engaging with the world at large is now a normal and essential part of the Fund's business. We are gearing up to review the Fund's transparency policy, as part of our efforts to increase our effectiveness.

The IMF has come a long way over the last 10 years, and publication rates of reports are high. Raising them further is not the main issue, nor one that can easily be resolved without changes much of our membership would consider revolutionary (such as making publication mandatory). Rather, further efforts should focus on making progress on a broad front, on issues that may catch fewer headlines, but are nevertheless crucial:

• Reducing long publication lags. How can we simplify the cumbersome procedure for obtaining consent?
• Maintaining the integrity of reports. The IMF's analysis and advice must be, and be seen to be, convincing, candid, and independent. To this end, there is a long-standing and fundamental principle that Fund reports are not "negotiated" documents.
• Making the Fund's archives more accessible. The current setup for searching the archives-in particular the need to travel to Washington to gain full access to them-is outdated. We should also consider whether we can make some archived material available more quickly to the public.

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/17/freedom-of-imformation/

The expression in boldtype and the item in parenthesis are semantically equivalent in