There is nothing inevitable about choices that are environmentally destructive. In 1800, there were indeed 550 steam engines in Europe but there were over 500,000 water mills. Coal was more expensive than hydro power and many industrialists were not persuaded of its added value. It was the economic recession of 1825–1848 with increasing agitation by textile workers over salaries and conditions which made the use of coal-powered, steam-driven spinning machines a much more attractive proposition. More machines meant fewer workers and fewer workers meant fewer demands, notably for wage rises. Therefore, the substantial increase in CO2 emissions in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, which through economic competition, war and imperial domination would start a worldwide trend, was not the blind outcome of the machinery of ‘progress’ but the cumulative consequence of a set of very specific decisions taken by identifiable socio-economic actors.
Similarly, the notion that ecological awareness is only a very recent phenomenon where “humanity” finally woke up to the environmental consequences of its economic activities does not stand up to scrutiny. In the period from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to the decade when the movement towards fossil fuels use becomes more marked, awareness of the relationships between humans and their environment or the “natural world” was widespread. Environmental risks have been clearly and repeatedly signalled from the time of the industrial revolution onwards. The notion of an unthinking humanity bringing destruction upon itself does not bear up to examination.
🔗 Texto adaptado de: Cronin, M. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge, 2017, p. 11–12.
143. In the second paragraph, the expressions “stand up to scrutiny” (first sentence) and “bear up to examination” (last sentence) have similar meanings and may correctly be used interchangeably in the text.
🔎 Gabarito: CERTO
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada do item
O item pede uma análise semântica: verificar se “stand up to scrutiny” (na primeira frase do 2º parágrafo) e “bear up to examination” (na última frase do 2º parágrafo) expressam ideias equivalentes e podem ser usadas de modo intercambiável.
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica do item
Em inglês, “stand up to” e “bear up to” (ou “bear up under”) são construções que expressam a ideia de suportar, aguentar, resistir a algo — aqui, a algo intelectualmente exigente: scrutiny e examination.
“Scrutiny” remete a exame minucioso, escrutínio rigoroso; “examination” remete a análise, avaliação, verificação. No contexto argumentativo do parágrafo, ambos funcionam como testes críticos: a tese “não resiste” quando submetida a avaliação cuidadosa.
Observe como o autor usa as duas expressões com o mesmo valor lógico:
• “does not stand up to scrutiny” = não se sustenta quando examinada.
• “does not bear up to examination” = não se sustenta quando analisada.
Assim, as expressões têm sentido equivalente no texto: ambas comunicam que determinada narrativa/ideia falha quando testada criticamente. A substituição de uma pela outra preserva o núcleo semântico e a função argumentativa.
⚠️ 3️⃣ Armadilhas clássicas da banca
• Achar que “scrutiny” é “algo totalmente diferente” de “examination” (no contexto, ambos são avaliação crítica).
• Tratar “bear up to” como expressão “errada” por ser menos comum — ela é válida e compatível com “stand up to”.
• Esquecer que o item avalia equivalência de sentido no texto, não preferência estilística pessoal.
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✔ “Stand up to scrutiny” e “bear up to examination” significam “não resistir / não se sustentar sob análise crítica”.
✔ “Scrutiny” e “examination” funcionam como testes avaliativos equivalentes no argumento.
✔ A troca entre as expressões mantém o sentido e a lógica do parágrafo.
Gabarito confirmado: CERTO.