Questão nº 34
Questão de Língua Inglesa · CEBRASPE CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS 26 PLF 2026 (nº 34)
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.
As mentioned at the end of the text, the message about the airport-style screening advertised in a parliamentary website could have a dual effect on people, even if they are not told its exact implications.
Resposta comentada
O conceito-chave aqui é ambiguidade proposital na comunicação de segurança: uma mesma mensagem pode ter efeitos diferentes em públicos diferentes — tranquilizar o cidadão comum e, ao mesmo tempo, dissuadir o criminoso — sem precisar dar detalhes técnicos. O texto diz que o anúncio de “revista estilo aeroporto” reassegura o público e intimida alguns atacantes, ou seja, um duplo efeito (dual effect) sobre pessoas distintas.
- Correta: Certo. O texto afirma explicitamente que a mensagem tem dois efeitos: “The public should be reassured” (público tranquilizado) e “some threat actors might be deterred” (atacantes dissuadidos), mesmo sem explicar o que a revista envolve — exatamente o que o item afirma.
Fica de olho: a banca pode trocar “dual effect” por “same effect on everyone” (efeito idêntico em todos) ou dizer que a mensagem explica o procedimento em detalhes — ambos seriam errados, pois o texto enfatiza a falta de precisão (“without explaining precisely what that entails”) e a diferença de reação entre grupos.
Fonte: CEBRASPE CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS 26 PLF 2026 Técnico Legislativo – Especialidade: Policial Legislativo Federal. Reproduzida para fins de estudo.