Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: thông tin chi tiết (Tiếng Anh Lớp 10, 11, 12)

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. [I] Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell “carbon-neutral” flights, filling stations boast about “net-zero” fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. [II] Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. [III] No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for “green” paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. [IV] Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. [I] Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell “carbon-neutral” flights, filling stations boast about “net-zero” fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. [II] Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. [III] No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for “green” paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. [IV] Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

The concept of project farming, where farmers come together to collaborate on large-scale agricultural projects, has gained significant traction, and modern technology keeps this collaboration on track. Advanced technologies such as GPS, sensors, drones, and data analytics are used to optimise agricultural practices. Additionally, the collected real-time data on soil conditions, weather patterns, and plant growth enables farmers to accelerate the decision-making process that maximises productivity while minimising resource wastage. GPS technology allows farmers to precisely map out their fields and create customised planting plans. This ensures that seeds are sown at optimal locations based on soil characteristics and previous yield data. By avoiding areas with poor fertility, farmers can increase their overall crop yield. Camera traps provide advance warnings of insects, so farmers do not have to treat the whole field. This, therefore, helps curb chemical runoff and save money for every party involved in the project. Technology also plays a vital role in optimising irrigation practices for sustainable agriculture. Specialised equipment reports dryness hour by hour, and weather apps forecast rain for the week ahead. Automated valves give each zone exactly the water it needs and pause when clouds are approaching. This cuts pumping costs and protects groundwater while keeping the crop healthy. On dry continents, such savings keep projects economically viable. The digital trail does not stop at the farm gate. Cloud platforms let project farmers, processors, and truck drivers input harvest weights, storage temperatures, and delivery times the moment they change, while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can trust it. Analytic tools combine seasons of records to forecast demand, spot price opportunities, and mark weak points in the workflow. This allows project farmers to anticipate market demand, exploit resource allocation, and plan for potential challenges.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell "carbon-neutral" flights, filling stations boast about "net-zero" fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for "green" paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

We seem to be entering a boom era for greenwashing – the tactic of covering routine pollution in eco-friendly language. Picture running a high-emitting corporation: meaningful decarbonisation would demand painful negotiations, huge capital outlays, and a full redesign of the business model. Hiring an expert agency to splash "carbon-neutral" or "net-zero" across products is far easier, buying time while emissions remain untouched. Consumers meet this sleight of hand everywhere. Airlines sell "carbon-neutral" flights, filling stations boast about "net-zero" fuel, and breakfast bacon is re-labelled as planet-safe. Advertising spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to conceal ongoing environmental damage. Social media influencers and glossy sustainability reports amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional marketing channels. The term greenwashing emerged in the 1980s, an era of oil spills and growing climate science, but the practice has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over global heating and ecosystem collapse has placed companies under sharp scrutiny; many boards therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of restructuring supply chains, energy sources, and product lines. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to police false eco-claims, yet enforcement still lags behind corporate ingenuity. Investors, eager to protect short-term returns, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle. No sector illustrates the issue better than oil and gas. Having realised that denying climate science now backfires, the industry has swapped denial for "green" paint. Press releases trumpet potential renewable ventures while drilling plans expand unabated. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the deep emission cuts claimed by scientists as urgent this decade. Whereas denial disputes the crisis, greenwashing misleads the public into believing problems are solved, thereby eroding consumer advocacy of genuine environmental actions and stalling regulatory reforms. In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society ever closer to ecological breakdown while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on verifiable, measurable carbon reductions – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real action.

When several farmers merge plots into a single "project farm", they use digital tools to make that teamwork far more effective. GPS mapping, drones, and in-field sensors build a live, shared picture of soil types, weather shifts, and plant growth. Because everyone works on the same data, the team can settle seeding dates, determine when to spray, and track machinery in real time. What once depended on guesswork is now driven by verifiable information.

With GPS technology, farmers can accurately map out their fields and create customised planting plans. Seeding machines change their rate on the fly, drones spray pests on targeted zones, and smart spreaders apply fertiliser only where data shows a need. Because inputs go exactly where they help, fields yield more while chemical runoff falls. Trials report considerable savings on seed, fuel, and sprays – benefits the partners split at the season's end.

Water management is just as precise. Specialised equipment tracks moisture every hour, and forecast apps predict rain, wind, or heatwaves. Automated pumps deliver measured water amounts to thirsty zones and stop when a storm is coming, slashing waste and energy bills. The result is steadier yields in dry years, fewer nutrients washed away, and a smaller water footprint for the whole partnership. Smart irrigation also helps limit weed growth, reducing herbicide use.

The journey from field to market is equally digital. Cloud platforms record harvest weights, storage temperatures, and shipment times the moment they change, while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can rely on it. Analytic tools browse the records to indicate weak points in the procedure, forecast prices, and suggest better planting plans for the next season to project partners. This makes project farming both profitable and sustainable.

We are living through a boom in greenwashing – the strategic use of comforting environmental claims to disguise business-as-usual pollution. Picture a chief executive whose company emits millions of tonnes of CO₂. Genuine decarbonisation would require bruising boardroom discussions, huge capital outlays, and a complete redesign of the firm’s model. Far easier is to hire a creative agency to plaster products with labels such as “carbon-neutral” or “ret-zero,” calming critics, investors; and even eco-conscious children while emissions continue unsolved. This tactic meets consumers at every turn. Airline websites promise guilt-free flights, petrol pumps boast zero-impact fuel, and even supermarket bacon is marketed as net-zero. Advertising trickery is ancient, yet today’s greenwashing – the practice of deliberately covering ongoing pollution in eco-friendly language – has flourished only recently. The expression surfaced in the 1980s amid oil spills and growing climate science, but the real explosion has come as public anxiety over global heating and biodiversity loss has intensified. Faced with mounting scrutiny, many boards prefer glossy PR to structural reform. Such corporate sleight of hand has become so pervasive that regulators in Europe and the United States are scrambling to tighten rules on environmental claims, yet enforcement still lags behind marketing creativity. The fossil-fuel sector exemplifies the issue. After decades covertly sowing doubt about climate science, oil and gas giants have grasped that direct denial is reputationally toxic. They have therefore swapped their denial tactics for a “green” paint-sprayer, trumpeting token investments in renewables while expanding drilling. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the emission cuts urgently required to avert climate breakdown. Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing kills the public into believing problems are already solved. Under this collective illusion, pressure on high-emitting firms evaporates and the radical decisions needed to transform energy, transport, and food systems are delayed indefinitely. Greenwashing thus acts as a soothing lullaby, leading society toward ecological ruin with a tune of comforting half-truths. Exposing this deception is essential if clichés are to be replaced by real, measurable emission cuts.

“Have smartphones destroyed a generation?” Jean Twenge - a psychology professor at San Diego State University - asked in her controversial book, Gen. In the book, she argues that those born after 1995 are facing “a mental-health crisis”, and she believes it can be linked to growing up with their noses pressed against a screen. Her newest study provides more support for that connection, showing that teens who spent more than an hour or two a day interacting with their gadgets were less happy on average than those who had more face time with others. Twenge’s conclusions have come up against criticism in the past. Some have accused her work of oversimplifying or overlooking data that may tell a slightly different story. Twenge recognises that her study suggests only a link between screen use and psychological well-being. A possible explanation is that kids are running to their screens to escape from the things in life that are making them unhappy. However, the surveys can’t say whether screen time directly changes teens’ mental health, the research states. Philanthropist Melinda Gates, whose three children were also born after 1995, wrote in The Washington Post, “phones and apps aren’t good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who don’t yet have the emotional tools to overcome life’s problems, they can aggravate the difficulties of growing up.” At the same time, she said, kids are learning on their devices and connecting in novel ways. Other studies have explored the connection between social media and isolation and how “likes” activate the brain’s reward centre. Some analyses have found that moderate use of these technologies is not harmful in itself and can even improve children’s social skills and build emotional strength. There is no doubt that people are spending more time on these devices and that technology is having a major impact on kids and adults alike. “These are really important devices that have changed our lives in so many ways, not just for the worse but for the better,” said Amanda Lenhart, deputy director of the Better Life Lab at New America. But the latest research “is looking straight at technology and wanting it to be the scapegoat.”

“I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970,” says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives “off-grid” – unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. “There are times when the grid blacks out,” he says. “I really like the security of having my own electricity company.” Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. “It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels,” says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. “And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves.” Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydropower. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21st century lifestyle: “I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it,” says Perez. “There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity.” Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

One day, a middle-aged man asked a taxi to take him to see Chelsea play Arsenal at football. He told the driver 'Stamford Bridge', the name of Chelsea's stadium, but he was delivered instead to the village of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. Of course, he missed the match. What had happened? With the Sat-Nav system in place, the driver in this story felt he did not need to know where he was going. He confidently outsourced the job of knowing this information to the Sat-Nav. Using an Internet search engine takes a broadband user less than a second. And with smartphones at hand, people will be online almost all of the time. The same could be true of university education. Today, the average student seems not to value general knowledge. If asked a factual question, they will usually click on a search engine without a second thought. Actually knowing the fact and committing it to memory does not seem to be an issue, it's the case with which we can look it up. However, general knowledge has never been something that you acquire formally. Instead, we pick it up from all sorts of sources as we go along, often absorbing facts without realising. The question remains, then: is the Internet threatening general knowledge? When I put that to Moira Jones, expert in designing IQ tests, she referred me to the story of the Egyptian god Thoth. It goes like this: Thoth offers writing as a gift to the king of Egypt, declaring it an 'elixir of memory and wisdom.' But the king is horrified, and tells him: 'This invention will induce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it, because they will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written.' Who wants to be a millionaire finalist David Swift, responding to the same question, recognises that there was a problem of young people saying: 'I don't need to know that', but he is far more excited about the educational potential of the Internet. 'There is so much more information out there, giving people opportunities to boost their general knowledge.' After all, the Internet might just help us to forget more and more. But meanwhile, the continuing popularity of quizzes and game-shows shows us that general knowledge is strong enough to remain.

The United Nations recently outlined the extent of the global water crisis, saying that 2.7 billion people would face severe water shortages by 2025 if consumption continues at current rates. Today, an estimated 1.2 billion people drink unclean water, and about 2.5 billion lack proper toilets or waste disposal systems. More than five million people die each year from diseases related to unclean water. Humans are pumping water out of the ground faster than it can be replenished. In this difficult situation, a water conservationist, Neil MacLeod in South Africa, has found innovative ways to improve his local water situation. Neil MacLeod took over as head of Durban Metro Water Services in 1992. The situation he found was a catastrophe. Durban had one million people living in the city and another 1.5 million people who lived in poverty just outside it. The entire city was rife with broken water pipes, leaky toilets, and faulty plumbing whereby 42 percent of the region's water was simply being wasted. MacLeod's crews began repairing and replacing water pipes. They put water meters on residences, replaced eight-litter toilets with four-litter models, and changed wasteful showers and water taps. To ensure that the poor would receive a basic supply of water, MacLeod installed tanks in homes and apartments to provide 190 liters of water a day free to each household. Water consumption in Durban is now less than it was in 1996, even as 800,000 more people have received service. Through sensible water use, Durban's conservation measures paid for themselves within a year. No new reservoirs will be needed in the coming decades, despite the expected addition of about 300,000 inhabitants. MacLeod has also turned to water recycling. At the water recycling plant, wastewater is turned into clean water in just 12 hours. Most people are unable to discern a difference between the usual city drinking water and the treated wastewater, although it is actually intended for industrial purposes. Some people still hope that new technology, such as the desalination of seawater, will solve the world's water problems. “But the fact is, water conservation is where the big gains are to be made,” says Sandra Postel of the Global Water Policy Project. The dedication and resourcefulness of people like Neil MacLeod offer inspiration for implementing timely and lasting solutions to the world's water concern.

For over 300 years since its appearance in Britain in 1621, newspapers were written and read by only a tiny minority. In 1896, a new newspaper was produced in large numbers and at such low prices that ordinary people could buy it on every street corner, and it was an instant success. The Daily Mail, which is still running today, was the mother of the modern tabloid, and the beginning of a whole new subculture in the British press. Today more than twice as many tabloids are sold than the so-called “quality press” titles such as The Times or The Guardian. Originally, the word tabloid referred to the size and format. But today, for most people, the word tabloid has nothing to do with shape and size. What makes a tabloid a tabloid is content, and above all, style. Tabloids follow a special formula: they report the news, but only certain kinds. Tabloids dedicate most of their pages to stories about celebrities. This involves photographing them in embarrassing situations, gossiping about their private lives and generally making them look a bit silly. However, the tabloids are not simply an irritation for celebrities; they are also a vehicle for self-promotion. Though they have millions of devoted readers, tabloids are also widely criticised in Britain. They are accused of being sensationalist, in bad taste, and of having no ethical standards in their reporting and “researching” methods. They may tap celebrities’ phones or even break into their houses just to get a story. When criticised, the tabloids state that the public has a right to know about everything, but celebrities have no rights to privacy at all. So why does Britain, which has access to the best press agencies and the highest journalistic standards, consume tabloids like chocolate? Maybe the reason is that we have enough news on the television, the radio and in the quality newspapers. Tabloids are not actually about news at all; tabloids are just about gossip. And when it comes to gossip, what matters is not what is true or what is kind, but what is entertaining and what is funny. The more in bad taste a story is, the funnier it seems. And bad taste is what the British tabloids have made into an art.

For over 300 years since its appearance in Britain in 1621, newspapers were written and read by only a tiny minority. In 1896, a new newspaper was produced in large numbers and at such low prices that ordinary people could buy it on every street corner, and it was an instant success. The Daily Mail, which is still running today, was the mother of the modern tabloid, and the beginning of a whole new subculture in the British press. Today more than twice as many tabloids are sold than the so-called “quality press” titles such as The Times or The Guardian. Originally, the word tabloid referred to the size and format. But today, for most people, the word tabloid has nothing to do with shape and size. What makes a tabloid a tabloid is content, and above all, style. Tabloids follow a special formula: they report the news, but only certain kinds. Tabloids dedicate most of their pages to stories about celebrities. This involves photographing them in embarrassing situations, gossiping about their private lives and generally making them look a bit silly. However, the tabloids are not simply an irritation for celebrities; they are also a vehicle for self-promotion. Though they have millions of devoted readers, tabloids are also widely criticised in Britain. They are accused of being sensationalist, in bad taste, and of having no ethical standards in their reporting and “researching” methods. They may tap celebrities’ phones or even break into their houses just to get a story. When criticised, the tabloids state that the public has a right to know about everything, but celebrities have no rights to privacy at all. So why does Britain, which has access to the best press agencies and the highest journalistic standards, consume tabloids like chocolate? Maybe the reason is that we have enough news on the television, the radio and in the quality newspapers. Tabloids are not actually about news at all; tabloids are just about gossip. And when it comes to gossip, what matters is not what is true or what is kind, but what is entertaining and what is funny. The more in bad taste a story is, the funnier it seems. And bad taste is what the British tabloids have made into an art.

The first impressions are rather menacing. Visitors must sign in and show identification before being allowed into the building. Such tight security gives one the feeling of entering a prison or some other dangerous place. But what a deceptive first impression! Manhattan Comprehensive Night High School may be the friendliest, most caring institution in all of New York City. A school of last resort for many of its students, it is their best chance to turn their lives around, and make friends in the process. Manhattan Comp, as it is called, is the first full-time night high school in America. High school is compulsory until the age of sixteen in America, but many students drop out, either before or after they reach sixteen, and before receiving their high school diplomas. Until now, night education programmes for dropouts only provided the basics and then awarded an equivalency certificate. But now, Manhattan Comp offers the total high school experience, complete with a “lunch” break, physical education and clubs. The students receive an academic diploma, which they say is more helpful in getting a job than an equivalency certificate. More than sixty percent of Manhattan Comp's students go on to college. Most of the school's 450 students have either been expelled from or dropped out of other high schools. Some have been in two or three schools before this one. What seems to make this school work for these hard-to-place students is the staff and, most importantly, the principal. All students call him Howard. As he walks through the building, he greets students by name, asks about their families or jobs and jokes with them about the lack of variety in the school cafeteria. Most students at Manhattan Comp are between eighteen and twenty-two years old. You must be at least seventeen to enrol. The classes run from 5 to 11 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays, with all-day enrichment programmes on Sundays which explore topics like playwriting art and video production. School terms are ten weeks long, which gives students the opportunity to take time off for family matters or jobs. Most students already have some academic credits from previous schools, so instead of the normal four years in high school, they spend between six months and two years at Manhattan Comp.