Questão nº 33
Questão de Língua Inglesa · CEBRASPE CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS 26 PLF 2026 (nº 33)
The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.
Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.
Considering the preceding text, judge the following items.
In the second paragraph, both “Given that”, in “Given that risk is a product of threat”, and “to the effect that”, in “can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures” can be respectively replaced with Because and because without this changing the original meaning of the text.
Resposta comentada
O conceito-chave aqui é que conectivos não são sinônimos automáticos: mesmo que duas palavras tenham sentido parecido, a função sintática e o contexto determinam se a troca é válida. No caso, "Given that" introduz uma causa lógica (já que, dado que), enquanto "to the effect that" introduz uma explicação/especificação de conteúdo (no sentido de que, informando que) — não uma causa.
- Correta: Errado. A troca de "to the effect that" por "because" quebra o sentido, pois o trecho não expressa causa, mas sim o conteúdo da mensagem que se quer transmitir aos atacantes.
No item, o detalhe torcido está em: "and 'to the effect that' ... can be respectively replaced with 'because'" — a palavra "because" (porque) indica causa, mas o original "to the effect that" indica finalidade/teor da comunicação (o que a mensagem diz), não o motivo pelo qual ela é dita. Já "Given that" pode sim virar "Because" sem prejuízo.
Como ficaria certo: "Given that" pode ser substituído por "Because", mas "to the effect that" só poderia ser trocado por algo como "stating that" ou "meaning that", jamais por "because".
Fonte: CEBRASPE CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS 26 PLF 2026 Técnico Legislativo – Especialidade: Policial Legislativo Federal. Reproduzida para fins de estudo.