RFB (Receita Federal do Brasil)
🔐 Texto de apoio
Text I
Trust is what auditors sell. They review the accuracy, adequacy or propriety of other people’s work. Financial statement audits are prepared for the owners of a company and presented publically to provide assurance to the market and the wider public. Public service audits are presented to governing bodies and, in some cases, directly to parliament. It is the independent scepticism of the auditor that allows shareholders and the public to be confident that they are being given a true and fair account of the organisation in question. The auditor’s signature pledges his or her reputational capital so that the audited body’s public statements can be trusted. […] Given the fundamental importance of trust, should auditors not then feel immensely valuable in the context of declining trust? Not so. Among our interviewees, a consensus emerged that the audit profession is under-producing trust at a critical time. One aspect of the problem is the quietness of audit: it is a profession that literally goes about its work behind the scenes. The face and processes of the auditor are rarely seen in the organisations they scrutinise, and relatively rarely in the outside world. Yet, if we listen to the mounting evidence of the importance of social capital, we know that frequent and reliable contacts between groups are important to strengthening and expanding trust. So what can be done? Our research suggests that more frequent dialogue with audit committees and a more ambitious outward facing role for the sector’s leadership would be welcome. But we think more is needed. Audit for the 21st century should be understood and designed as primarily a confidence building process within the audited organisation and across its stakeholders. If the audit is a way of ensuring the client’s accountability, much more needs to be done to make the audit itself exemplary in its openness and inclusiveness. Instead of an audit report being a trust-producing product, the audit process could become a trust-producing practice in which the auditor uses his or her position as a trusted intermediary to broker rigorous learning across all dimensions of the organisation and its stakeholders. The views of investors, staff, suppliers and customers could routinely be considered, as could questions from the general public; online technologies offer numerous opportunities to inform, involve and invite. From being a service that consists almost exclusively of external investigation by a warranted professional, auditing needs to become more co-productive, with the auditor’s role expanding to include that of an expert convenor who is willing to share the tools of enquiry. Audit could move from ‘black box’ to ‘glass box’. But the profession will still struggle to secure trust unless it can stake a stronger claim to supporting improvement. Does it increase the economic, social or environmental value of the organisations it reviews? It is one thing to believe in the accuracy of a financial statement audit, but it is another thing to believe in its utility.
🔗 Texto adaptado de:
🔗 https://auditfutures.net/pdf/AuditFutures-RSA-EnlighteningProfessions.pdf.
QUESTÃO
Based on Text I, mark the statements below as TRUE (T) or FALSE (F).
I. In auditing, taking heed of what other parties have to say needs to be downplayed. II. Auditors are generally unobtrusive when carrying out their jobs. III. Trust is obtained when auditors eschew straightforward statements.
The statements are, respectively,
F – T – F.
F – F – T.
T – F – T.
F – T – T.
T – F – F.
📝 Resolução Comentada – Questão 16
🧠 Palavras-chave
A FGV constrói esta questão combinando três statements que exigem validação direta contra o texto.
O candidato precisa verificar se cada afirmação é sustentada, contradita ou não respaldada pelo texto.
I → stakeholders' views should be considered II → auditors work behind the scenes III → trust comes from true and fair accounts
O texto discute a relação entre auditoria, confiança pública, transparência e participação dos stakeholders.
I. In auditing, taking heed of what other parties have to say needs to be downplayed.
❌ Falso.
O texto afirma exatamente o contrário.
O autor defende que investidores, funcionários, fornecedores, clientes e até o público em geral sejam ouvidos durante o processo.
stakeholders' views → routinely considered
II. Auditors are generally unobtrusive when carrying out their jobs.
✅ Verdadeiro.
O texto afirma que a auditoria ocorre "behind the scenes" e que os auditores raramente são vistos.
audit profession → behind the scenes
III. Trust is obtained when auditors eschew straightforward statements.
❌ Falso.
Nada no texto sugere ocultação ou rejeição de declarações claras.
Pelo contrário, a confiança decorre da transparência, da accountability e da produção de informações confiáveis.
- Statement I = F.
- Statement II = T.
- Statement III = F.
I → F
II → T
III → F
Gabarito Oficial: A
stakeholders' participation → encouraged audit profession → behind the scenes trust → transparency + accountability
O motor da questão não está no vocabulário, mas na validação precisa de proposições.
A FGV frequentemente cria statements que parecem plausíveis à primeira leitura, mas alteram discretamente a direção argumentativa do texto.
No item I, a armadilha está em downplayed. O texto defende ampliar a participação dos stakeholders, não reduzi-la.
No item III, a armadilha está em atribuir à confiança uma origem incompatível com o texto.
text says → openness statement says → eschew straightforward statements opposite directions
A questão exige identificar quando a banca substitui uma ideia central por sua versão invertida.
📚 Corpus Awareness B3GE™:
Em itens T/F da FGV, os erros mais comuns surgem quando a banca troca verbos nucleares da argumentação (encourage, support, increase, improve) por seus opostos implícitos (reduce, downplay, avoid, reject). O candidato que rastreia a direção semântica do argumento encontra a resposta com muito mais segurança.