🟨 TEXT 2.
The Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Automotive Industry
Looking at the environmental, economical, and political impact of electric vehicles.
By Patrick Peterson of GoodCar
Electric vehicles (EVs) have had a remarkable glow-up in a relatively short period.
It wasn't so long ago that public opinion labeled them as overpriced, inefficient options with poor mileage to boot.
However, rising climate concerns and the volatility of gas prices have pushed more people to refresh their understanding of the technology.
While misinformation is rampant, people's faith in EVs has risen enough that over 40 percent of Americans would seriously consider making the switch.
Growing interest pressures manufacturers to reorganize their supply chains with a stronger emphasis on EVs.
This sounds simple, but there are significant differences in EV development compared to gas-powered cars.
The longstanding dominance of gas-powered vehicles makes most people believe it was the only option up until now. But that's wrong.
The idea of electric vehicles has been experimented with since the early 1800s.
Robert Anderson is credited for inventing the first electric vehicle.
The Scottish inventor used primary cells (single-use batteries) to power a motor he fixed to a carriage. This idea for a "horseless carriage" was a pivotal moment in history that gave future inventors a foundation to work on. Jump to today, and EVs have skyrocketed in popularity.
They've proven to be a more sustainable option and have a lower overall cost than gas-powered cars. Opponents of adopting EVs argue that battery-powered vehicles aren't entirely emission-free. And they're right.
Carbon emissions are created during the manufacturing process and when charging the battery.
This is because fossil fuels are required to mine the minerals used in batteries and to generate the power used to recharge them.
However, these emissions are substantially lower than those released by cars using an internal combustion engine.
A study performed by MIT found that electric-powered cars created about 25 percent fewer carbon emissions per mile than a gasoline alternative. This study even assumed the cars were in less eco-friendly states.
When Washington was used as the backdrop, the study reported that an EV would create 61 percent fewer emissions.
This is due to Washington drawing a lot of its energy from hydropower.
Norway, Europe's biggest EV market, takes a similar approach.
Over half of Americans are willing to pay more for sustainably responsible products.
A comparable number of citizens say the same thing about gasoline.
This support for greener brands shows the automotive industry how the future will look.
Manufacturers' supply and production procedures must start adapting now to prepare for the future. There are even various government incentives to make the process easier.
🔗 Adapted from: Unsustainable Magazine —
https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/impact-of-electric-vehicles/ [Accessed on 9th July 2025].
🟨 QUESTÃO 35.
According to the text, mark the correct option about the role of geography in the environmental impact of EVs:
🄰 Geography is irrelevant because EVs are globally standardized.
🄱 Environmental impact is minimized in regions with cleaner energy sources.
🄲 All regions produce the same emissions regardless of power source.
🄳 EVs are only viable in urban environments.
🄴 Energy policies in coastal regions are less effective.
Gabarito: 🄱
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada
O texto mostra que o impacto ambiental dos EVs depende da matriz energética local. Em regiões onde a eletricidade vem de fontes mais limpas (como hidrelétrica), as emissões associadas ao carregamento tendem a ser bem menores. Por isso, a geografia energética (de onde vem a eletricidade) muda o resultado.
🔎 Trechos-chave:
• “When Washington was used as the backdrop… 61 percent fewer emissions.”
• “This is due to Washington drawing a lot of its energy from hydropower.”
• “Norway… takes a similar approach.”
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica das alternativas
(A) ❌ Incorreta.
O texto prova que o lugar importa (Washington e Noruega são exemplos).
🚩 Pegadinha: absolutismo (“irrelevant”) para apagar o efeito da matriz energética.
(B) ✅ Correta.
Em regiões com energia mais limpa (ex.: hidropower), as emissões caem bastante.
🚩 Pegadinha evitada: entender que “geografia” aqui é, na prática, fonte de energia regional.
(C) ❌ Incorreta.
O texto mostra diferenças grandes (25% menos em geral; 61% menos em Washington).
🚩 Pegadinha: generalização falsa (“all regions”) contrariando dados percentuais do texto.
(D) ❌ Incorreta.
Não há no texto limitação “apenas urbana”; é extrapolação sem base textual.
🚩 Pegadinha: adicionar restrição geográfica não mencionada.
(E) ❌ Incorreta.
“Coastal regions” não aparece e não há comparação de eficácia por litoral.
🚩 Pegadinha: detalhe inventado para parecer técnico/político.
⚠️ 3️⃣ Armadilhas clássicas do IME
• Alternativas com termos absolutos (“irrelevant”, “all”)
• Extrapolações fora do texto (urbano vs. rural; litoral vs. interior)
• Ignorar exemplos concretos (Washington/Noruega) que sustentam a ideia central
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✔ Emissões dos EVs variam conforme a fonte de energia usada para recarga.
✔ Regiões com energia limpa (hidrelétrica) reduzem muito o impacto.
✔ Exemplos do texto: Washington e Noruega.
🔎 Gabarito confirmado: (B)