⬛ TEXTO 1 — Questões (11 a 15)
Adding ethics to public finance
Evolutionary moral psychologists point the way to garnering broader support for fiscal policies
Policy decisions on taxation and public expenditures intrinsically reflect moral choices. How much of your hard-earned money is it fair for the state to collect through taxes? Should the rich pay more? Should the state provide basic public services such as education and health care for free to all citizens? And so on.
Economists and public finance practitioners have traditionally focused on economic efficiency. When considering distributional issues, they have generally steered clear of moral considerations, perhaps fearing these could be seen as subjective.
For the most part, economists have customarily analyzed redistribution in a way that requires users to provide their own preferences with regard to inequality.
There are two — understandable but not fully satisfactory — reasons for this approach. First, economists often wish to be viewed as objective social scientists. Second, most public finance scholars have been educated in a tradition steeped in values of societies that are WEIRD.
Evolutionary moral psychologists have shown that humans decide quickly what seems right or wrong based on instinct and later justify their decision through reasoning.
Moral psychologists have recently shown that many people draw on moral perspectives that go well beyond the golden rule.
Such understanding may help in the design of policies that can muster support from a wide range of groups with differing moral values.
⬛ Adapted from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Addingethics-to-public-finance-Mauro
14. The underlined expression in “regardless of who those people are” (4th paragraph) can be replaced without change in meaning by
(A) alike.
(B) despite.
(C) whereas.
(D) however.
(E) concerning.
Gabarito: (B)
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada
A questão avalia equivalência semântica de uma expressão preposicional, exigindo leitura contextual e domínio de conectores discursivos.
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica das alternativas
(A) ❌
Incorreta. Alike significa “semelhante”, não expressa concessão.
(B) ✅
Correta. Despite mantém a ideia de concessão presente em
regardless of, preservando o sentido original.
(C) ❌
Incorreta. Whereas introduz contraste, não concessão.
(D) ❌
Incorreta. However funciona como advérbio conjuntivo, não substitui
uma locução preposicional.
(E) ❌
Incorreta. Concerning indica assunto ou tema.
⚠️ 3️⃣ Armadilhas clássicas da FGV
A FGV costuma confundir candidatos ao misturar conectores de contraste, concessão e adição. Reconhecer o valor lógico é decisivo.
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✔ Regardless of = apesar de / independentemente de.
✔ Valor lógico: concessão.
✔ Despite é o equivalente direto.
🔎 Gabarito confirmado: (B)