SENADO FEDERAL
🔐 Texto de apoio
Text I
The data harvested from our personal devices, along with our trail of electronic transactions and data from other sources, now provides the foundation for some of the world’s largest companies. […] For the past two decades, the commercial use of personal data has grown in wild-west fashion. But now, because of consumer mistrust, government actions, and competition for customers, those days are quickly coming to an end.
For most of its existence, the data economy was structured around a “digital curtain” designed to obscure the industry’s practices from lawmakers and the public. Data was considered company property and a proprietary secret, even though the data originated from customers’ private behavior. That curtain has since been lifted and a convergence of consumer, government, and market forces are now giving users more control over the data they generate. Instead of serving as a resource that can be freely harvested, countries in every region of the world have begun to treat personal data as an asset owned by individuals and held in trust by firms.
This will be a far better organizing principle for the data economy. Giving individuals more control has the potential to curtail the sector’s worst excesses while generating a new wave of customer-driven innovation, as customers begin to express what sort of personalization and opportunity they want their data to enable. And while Adtech firms in particular will be hardest hit, any firm with substantial troves of customer data will have to make sweeping changes to its practices, particularly large firms such as financial institutions, healthcare firms, utilities, and major manufacturers and retailers.
Leading firms are already adapting to the new reality as it unfolds. The key to this transition — based upon our research on data and trust, and our experience working on this issue with a wide variety of firms— is for companies to reorganize their data operations around the new fundamental rules of consent, insight, and flow.
[…]
Federal lawmakers are moving to curtail the power of big tech. Meanwhile, in 2021 state legislatures proposed or passed at least 27 online privacy bills regulating data markets and protecting personal digital rights. Lawmakers from California to China are implementing legislation that mirrors Europe’s GDPR, while the EU itself has turned its attention to regulating the use of AI. Where once companies were always ahead of regulators, now they struggle to keep up with compliance requirements across multiple jurisdictions.
🔗 Texto adaptado de:
🔗 https://hbr.org/2022/02/the-new-rules-of-data-privacy. February 25, 2022 – Retrieved September 6, 2022.
QUESTÃO
In “Federal lawmakers are moving to curtail the power of big tech” (5th paragraph), it is implied that, in relation to the power of big tech, federal lawmakers aim at
spreading it out.
cutting it down.
taking it away.
crossing it off.
tangling it up.
📝 Resolução Comentada – Questão 21
🧠 Palavras-chave
Federal lawmakers are moving to curtail the power of big tech
O verbo central da questão é curtail.
No contexto do texto, legisladores estão aumentando a regulação sobre grandes empresas de tecnologia.
A ideia não é eliminar essas empresas nem retirar completamente sua influência.
A ideia é reduzir, limitar ou restringir parte desse poder.
(A) ❌ spreading it out
Significa espalhar ou distribuir.
(B) ✅ cutting it down
Correta.
Curtail significa reduzir, restringir, limitar ou diminuir.
A expressão cutting it down reproduz exatamente essa ideia.
(C) ❌ taking it away
Sugere remover completamente o poder.
O texto não autoriza essa interpretação.
(D) ❌ crossing it off
Significa riscar ou eliminar de uma lista.
(E) ❌ tangling it up
Significa complicar ou emaranhar.
- curtail = reduzir.
- curtail ≠ eliminar.
- O texto discute regulação do poder das big techs.
- A alternativa correta preserva a ideia de redução.
Chunk family:
- curtail the power
- curtail influence
- limit authority
- reduce control
- restrict market power
Gabarito Oficial: B
curtail ↓ reduce limit restrict ≠ eliminate abolish remove completely
O motor da questão não está no vocabulário isolado. Está na calibração da intensidade semântica.
O texto descreve um movimento regulatório contra o poder das big techs.
Reguladores pretendem limitar parte desse poder por meio de fiscalização, exigências legais e mecanismos de controle.
A principal armadilha aparece na alternativa (C).
Muitos candidatos interpretam a ação dos legisladores como uma tentativa de retirar completamente o poder das empresas.
Porém o texto fala em redução, não em eliminação.
Entre limitar e extinguir existe uma enorme diferença regulatória, econômica e jurídica.
📚 Corpus Awareness B3GE™:
Em questões FGV de vocabulário avançado, o erro mais comum não é lexical. O candidato normalmente compreende o tema, mas escolhe uma alternativa semanticamente mais forte ou mais fraca do que aquela efetivamente autorizada pelo texto.