It’s 6 a.m., and the Clarks awake to fresh coffee served to them by Millie, one of the family’s personal robots. As they get ready for work, Millie makes the bed, and their robotic dog Mickey gently reminds Mr. Clark to [5] take his medicine.
This scenario is not a page from a lost “Jetsons” script. It’s likely to be a normal day in the life of a family in as few as 20 years from now, according to robotics experts at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Already, the global [10] market for personal robots is growing 400 percent a year, says Professor Henrik Christensen, director of the newly formed Robotics and Intelligent Machines Center in the Georgia Tech College of Computing. “Personal robots are becoming more popular as people want to do more and [15] more with their lives,” Christensen says. “Technology is making it possible...We live stressful lives now, and we can use technology to take away the boring tasks of everyday life.”
Robots are not novel technology in industry, the [20] military and even space exploration. However, a new generation of intelligent machines called personal robots — ones that work with and directly for humans, especially in the home, workplace and school — have begun to emerge only recently. A confluence of smart materials, [25] low-cost, high-speed computing power, better batteries and knowledge of how humans interact with machines is creating an explosion in the market for personal robots, researchers say. “To have a personal robot that does things you need, you have to have onboard processing, [30] perception, motion and power,” says roboticist Tucker Balch, an associate professor in the College of Computing. “Until two or three years ago, you couldn’t put all of that on one small, light platform. Motors and computers take a lot of energy, and the batteries we had couldn’t do the [35] job. Now, demand for better cell phone and laptop batteries is driving improvements,” Balch adds. “Therefore, we have all the technologies which can support a consumer robot that is not too expensive.” Balch predicts that truly useful, multi-function personal robots will cost between $1,000 [40] and $1,500. Single-purpose robots, such as the Roomba vacuum cleaner already on the market, cost between $150 and $300.
While some personal robots are already available, important research is under way to address the remaining [45] technical and societal challenges. Georgia Tech researchers in computer science, engineering, psychology and the liberal arts are collaborating under the umbrella of the new Robotics and Intelligent Machines Center that Christensen directs. That cooperation is vital to creating [50] the best-designed personal robots. “If you just have computer scientists designing them, you’re not going to build a robot that’s as good as one that could be built by computer scientists and mechanical engineers working together,” Christensen says. “We are leveraging Georgia [55] Tech’s world-class expertise in all of these domains and want to make something that no one else in the United States is doing today.”
🔗 Texto adaptado de:
Research Horizons Magazine - June 8, 2007 (slightly adapted). http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/personal_robotics.htm
From the sentence “That cooperation is vital to creating the best-designed personal robots.” (lines 49-50) it is possible to infer that the
expertise of Georgia Tech’s computer science researchers alone will help develop the best personal robots in the United States.
joint effort of computer scientists and mechanical engineers is not likely to improve robot design.
alliance between computer scientists, designers and psychologists can be harmful to the future of robotics.
collaboration of researchers from different areas of knowledge will be extremely beneficial to the future of robotics.
collaboration between Georgia Tech researchers and the Robotics and Intelligent Machines Center is inefficient.
Cesgranrio • Petrobras • Nível Superior
Questão 17 • Gabarito: (D)
From the sentence “That cooperation is vital to creating the best-designed personal robots.” (lines 49-50) it is possible to infer that the
(A) expertise of Georgia Tech’s computer science researchers alone will help develop the best personal robots in the United States.
(B) joint effort of computer scientists and mechanical engineers is not likely to improve robot design.
(C) alliance between computer scientists, designers and psychologists can be harmful to the future of robotics.
(D) collaboration of researchers from different areas of knowledge will be extremely beneficial to the future of robotics.
(E) collaboration between Georgia Tech researchers and the Robotics and Intelligent Machines Center is inefficient.
Para isolar a relação lógica exata e ratificar o gabarito oficial, mapeia-se o alvo discursivo:
01. Comando (Command): Deduzir e extrair uma inferência válida, legítima e textualmente autorizada a partir da premissa oracional destacada no enunciado.
02. Gatilho (Trigger): O direcionador analítico focado em leitura de significados implícitos expresso pelo operador verbal de amarração "it is possible to infer that".
03. Operação (Operation): Inferência baseada no cálculo de necessidade e suficiência lógica, transformando a qualidade de ser vital em um indicador de alto benefício.
04. Evidência (Evidence): O fragmento das linhas 49-50 que amarra o sucesso de engenharia e design ("best-designed") à engrenagem da atuação conjunta ("cooperation").
05. Discriminação (Discrimination): Pulverizar distratores amparados em atuação isolada (A), negação de avanços conjuntos (B), cargas semânticas nocivas (C) ou rótulos arbitrários de ineficiência (E).
06. Validação (Validation): Confirmar que a locução "extremely beneficial" reconstrói simetricamente e de forma limpa a intensidade e a polaridade positiva do adjetivo original "vital".
07. Decisão (Decision): Escolher de forma assertiva, veloz e retilínea a alternativa D no cartão de respostas sob chancela metodológica do protocolo de segurança B3GE™.
Distrator 03 — Reducionismo Restritivo (Isolamento Arbitrário de Competência Técnica).
A Engine desvalida a proposição devido à inserção do modificador excludente "alone" (sozinha). Ao asseverar que a perícia técnica dos cientistas da computação, isoladamente, resolveria o desenvolvimento, a alternativa entra em rota de colisão com a própria essência de cooperação multidisciplinar defendida pelo autor.
Distrator 06 — Contradição Direta (Negação de Eficácia do Esforço Conjunto).
O item opera uma inversão lógica frontal ao alegar que o esforço conjunto de cientistas e engenheiros mecânicos possui baixas chances de aprimorar o design das máquinas ("is not likely to improve"). Essa premissa anula o postulado do enunciado, que coloca a cooperação como a mola mestra da inovação.
Distrator 11 — Distorção de Sentido (Inversão Qualitativa de Aliança Acadêmica).
A alternativa altera de maneira radical o vetor de valor do texto ao classificar a união de cientistas, designers e psicólogos como algo prejudicial ("harmful") para o amanhã da robótica. A distorção sabota o sentido de benefício mútuo explícito no fragmento original.
Competência avaliada: 33. Inference (Dedução Consequencial e Equivalência Lógica).
A resposta indestrutível, soberana e blindada. O concorrente com treinamento de alto rendimento decodifica o nexo de necessidade implícito: se a parceria entre múltiplos atores da ciência é rotulada como vital (vital), a conclusão irrefutável e autorizada é a de que ela se traduz em algo imensamente vantajoso (extremely beneficial) para o ecossistema.
Distrator 06 — Contradição Direta (Atribuição Arbitrária de Ineficiência Operacional).
A banca tenta capturar o candidato inserindo entidades mencionadas no texto (Georgia Tech researchers) sob uma qualificação puramente pejorativa e falsa de ineficiência ("inefficient"). Por subverter a tese de sucesso e relevância cooperativa do laboratório, o item deve ser sumariamente descartado.
O Teste de Equivalência de Intensidade Adjetival (🔮): Aprenda a rastrear o alinhamento de carga semântica entre o enunciado e a opção correta. Quando o autor classifica uma ação como vital, crucial ou indispensable, o gabarito oficial rotineiramente reescreverá essa intensidade positiva por meio de estruturas equivalentes como extremely beneficial, highly advantageous ou paramount for success.
A Triagem de Termos Pejorativos Fabricados pela Banca: Monitore a introdução de adjetivos de carga destrutiva ou depreciativa (como harmful, inefficient, useless, detrimental) em itens que discutem parcerias de pesquisa. Salvo raras exceções de críticas explícitas, relatórios acadêmicos e corporativos de concursos públicos tratam a inovação integrada sob viés otimista, tornando os ataques da banca erros fáceis de expurgar.
thematic: Reading & Interpretation
theme: 33. Inference (Implicit Meaning • Context Clues)
Peça Operativa Principal: Logical Inference Mapping / Adjectival Intensity Alignment / Restrictive Modifier Filter
SILO 3 — Contextual
contentTopic: 01. Artificial Intelligence & Robotics
subtheme: Inferência sobre a importância da colaboração interdisciplinar no desenvolvimento de robôs pessoais.