Questões

Instruction: answer questions 31 to 40 based on the following text. The highlights throughout the text are cited in the questions.

He donated blood and saved the lives of 2.4 million babies

01 Most people get a gold watch when they retire. James Harrison deserves so much more than

02 that. Known as the “Man With the Golden Arm,” Harrison has donated blood nearly every week

03 for 60 years, and after all those donations, the 81-year-old Australian man “retired” Friday.

04 According to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, he has helped save the lives of more than

05 2.4 million Australian babies because his blood has unique, disease-fighting antibodies.

06 Harrison’s antibodies have been used to develop an injection called Anti-D, which helps

07 fight against rhesus disease. This disease is a condition where a pregnant woman has rhesus-

08 negative blood (RhD negative) and the baby in her womb has rhesus-positive blood (RhD

09 positive), inherited from its father. If the mother has been sensitized to rhesus-positive blood,

10 usually during a previous pregnancy with a rhesus-positive baby, she may produce antibodies

11 that destroy the baby’s “foreign” blood cells. In the worst cases, it can result in brain damage,

12 or death, for the babies.

13 Harrison’s remarkable gift of giving started when he had major chest surgery when he was

14 just 14. Blood donations saved his life, so he pledged to become a blood donor. A few years

15 later, doctors discovered his blood contained the antibody which could be used to create Anti-D

16 injections, so he switched over to making blood plasma donations to help as many people as

17 possible. Doctors aren’t exactly sure why Harrison has this rare blood type, but they think it

18 might be from the transfusions he received when he was 14, after his surgery. He’s one of no

19 more than 50 people in Australia known to have the antibodies, according to the blood service.

20 “In Australia, up until about 1967, there were literally thousands of babies dying each year,

21 doctors didn’t know why, and it was awful.” Jemma Falkenmire, of the Australian Red Cross

22 Blood Service, told CNN. “Australia was one of the first countries to discover a blood donor with

23 this antibody, so it was quite revolutionary at the time.”

24 The blood service estimates Harrison saved more than two million lives, and for that, he is

25 considered a national hero in Australia. He’s won numerous awards for his generosity, including

26 the Medal of the Order of Australia, one of the country’s most prestigious honors. Now that

27 Harrison has given his last blood donation (in Australia you can’t donate blood past the age of

28 81), Falkenmire and others hope people with similar antibodies in their blood will step up and

29 donate.

(Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/11/health/james-harrison-blood-donor-retires-trnd/index.html – text especially adapted for this test).

TEXT

    Clifford the Big Red Dog looks fabulous on an iPad. He sounds good, too — tap the screen and hear him pant as a blue truck roars into the frame. “Go, truck, go!” cheers the narrator. But does this count as story time? Or is it just screen time for babies? It is a question that parents, pediatricians and researchers are struggling to answer as children’s books, just like all the other ones, migrate to digital media.

     For years, child development experts have advised parents to read to their children early and often, citing studies showing its linguistic, verbal and social benefits. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised doctors to remind parents at every visit that they should read to their children from birth, prescribing books as enthusiastically as vaccines and vegetables.

     On the other hand, the academy strongly recommends no screen time for children under 2, and less than two hours a day for older children. 

     At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device, and app stores are bursting with reading programs and learning games aimed at infants and preschoolers, which bit of guidance should parents heed? 

     The answer, researchers say, is not yet entirely clear. “We know how children learn to read,” said Kyle Snow, the applied research director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. “But we don’t know how that process will be affected by digital technology.” 

     Part of the problem is the newness of the devices. Tablets and e-readers have not been in widespread use long enough for the sorts of extended studies that will reveal their effects on learning.

     Dr. Pamela High, the pediatrician who wrote the June policy for the pediatrics group, said electronic books were intentionally not addressed. “We tried to do a strongly evidence-based policy statement on the issue of reading starting at a very young age,” she said. “And there isn’t any data, really, on e-books.”

    But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development. “There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,” Dr. High said. “You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.”

     In a 2013 study, researchers found that children ages 3 to 5 whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension than children whose parents used traditional books. Part of the reason, they said, was that parents and children using an electronic device spent more time focusing on the device itself than on the story (a conclusion shared by at least two other studies).

     “Parents were literally putting their hands over the kids’ hands and saying, ‘Wait, don’t press the button yet. Finish this up first,’ ” said Dr. Julia Parish-Morris, a developmental psychologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the 2013 study that was conducted at Temple University. Parents who used conventional books were more likely to engage in what education researchers call “dialogic reading,” the sort of back-and-forth discussion of the story and its relation to the child’s life that research has shown are key to a child’s linguistic development.

     Complicating matters is that fewer and fewer children’s e-books can strictly be described as books, say researchers. As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours. “What we’re really after in reading to our children is behavior that sparks a conversation,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple and co-author of the 2013 study. “But if that book has things that disrupt the conversation, like a game plopped right in the middle of the story, then it’s not offering you the same advantages as an old-fashioned book.”

     Of course, e-book publishers and app developers point to interactivity as an educational advantage, not a distraction. Many of those bells and whistles — Clifford’s bark, the sleepy narration of “Goodnight Moon,” the appearance of the word “ham” when a child taps the ham in the Green Eggs and Ham app — help the child pick up language, they say.

     There is some evidence to bear out those claims, at least in relation to other technologies. A study by the University of Wisconsin in 2013 found that 2-year-olds learned words faster with an interactive app as opposed to one that required no action.

     But when it comes to learning language, researchers say, no piece of technology can substitute for a live instructor — even if the child appears to be paying close attention.

     Patricia K. Kuhl, a director of the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington, led a study in 2003 that compared a group of 9-month-old babies who were addressed in Mandarin by a live instructor with a group addressed in Mandarin by an instructor on a DVD. Children in a third group were exposed only to English.

    “The way the kids were staring at the screen, it seemed obvious they would learn better from the DVDs,” she said. But brain scans and language testing revealed that the DVD group “learned absolutely nothing,” Dr. Kuhl said. “Their brain measures looked just like the control group that had just been exposed to English. 

     The only group that learned was the live social interaction group.” In other words, “it’s being talked with, not being talked at,” that teaches children language, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek said. 

     Similarly, perhaps the biggest threat posed by e-books that read themselves to children, or engage them with games, is that they could lull parents into abdicating their educational responsibilities, said Mr. Snow of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. 

    “There’s the possibility for e-books to become the TV babysitters of this generation,” he said. “We don’t want parents to say, ‘There’s no reason for me to sit here and turn pages and tell my child how to read the word, because my iPad can do it.’ ” 

     But parents may find it difficult to avoid resorting to tablets. Even literacy advocates say the guidelines can be hard to follow, and that allowing limited screen time is not high on the list of parental missteps. “You might have an infant and think you’re down with the A.A.P. guidelines, and you don’t want your baby in front of a screen, but then you have a grandparent on Skype,” Mr. Snow said. “Should you really be tearing yourself apart? Maybe it’s not the world’s worst thing.” 

     “The issue is when you’re in the other room and Skyping with the baby cause he likes it,” he said. Even if screen time is here to stay as a part of American childhood, good old-fashioned books seem unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Parents note that there is an emotional component to paper-andink storybooks that, so far, does not seem to extend to their electronic counterparts, however engaging. 

From: www.nytimes.com, OCT. 11, 2014