Questão de InglêsInterpretação de texto | Reading comprehension
- Banca:
- CESPE / CEBRASPE
- Órgão:
- Câmara dos Deputados
- Ano:
- 2026
- Cargo:
- Técnico Legislativo - Especialidade: Policial Legislativo Federal
- Nível:
- Superior
- Modalidade:
- Certo ou Errado
- Código:
- CFP-150430-033
The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.
Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.
Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.
Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).
Considering the preceding text, judge the following items.
In the excerpt “threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time” (first paragraph), “which” refers to “threat actors”.
Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.
Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.
Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).
Considering the preceding text, judge the following items.
In the excerpt “threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time” (first paragraph), “which” refers to “threat actors”.