Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: ý chính (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. 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.

Have you ever tried playing the kind of video games that your parents played? Over the last few years, the Museum of Science in Manchester has held an exhibition which invites visitors to do exactly that. It offers them the chance to play games from the last 40 years, in various sessions throughout the day. These video games sessions have now become one of the main attractions of the museum. They are full of people playing a wide range of games every day. However, visitors often choose the ones they are familiar with. For example, parents will choose the games they used to play in their childhood. There’s also an educational purpose to the games. For instance, some old types of computers, dating back 40 years, are also available. They were originally employed in classrooms to teach pupils to write their own computer programs. Now, the museum is holding workshops encouraging children to learn similar skills - and they’re still very popular. The sessions are also seen as social events, as people discover how much fun it is to play video games with other family members. And there’s also an area called Power Up! where a number of visitors can enjoy playing the same game together. However, through the exhibition, the organisers also aim to show that video gaming is an important industry that employs many skilled people. People who enjoy gaming will also understand all the hard work, talent, and imagination that go into creating these amazing games.

“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.”

Action movies are exciting and a lot of fun to watch, but they also involve scenes of great risk and danger. In the language of filmmaking, dangerous actions are called stunts. Who performs these stunts? This work is too dangerous for regular actors. Movie companies usually hire special stunt people to stand in for the actors in scenes that are unsafe. Movie producers don't like to let actors do their own stunt work. If the actors injure themselves, it can delay the production schedule. Using stunt people also saves time. Most stunt people have years of experience, which enables them to perform their stunts with a minimum of risk. It would take too long to train the actors to perform dangerous scenes safely. Some people who love the thrill of dangerous sports such as skydiving or rock climbing think it would be easy to work as a stunt person. But it isn’t enough to be a risk-taker. Stunt performers also have to know what to do if anything goes wrong. In addition to risk-taking and meticulous attention to detail and planning, stunt work requires being in top physical condition. Although there are a few training programmes for stunt performers, most provide only an overview of the profession. Normally, the people who attend these programmes already have experience in dangerous sports, rescue work, or the military. So the best way to prepare for a career in stunt work is to train in an area that involves strong physical conditioning and has an element of physical danger. Modern filmmaking techniques have changed the way some dangerous scenes are filmed. For example, computer-generated images make it possible to show stunts that would be too dangerous or expensive for real stunt people to perform. Computer-generated images are often used today to create big fight scenes, car crashes, and explosions. However, they are not always the best choice. Many audiences want to see real people perform actual stunts. Also, the rising popularity of made-for-TV movies around the world ensures that there is still plenty for stunt people in the film industry.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

Action movies are exciting and a lot of fun to watch, but they also involve scenes of great risk and danger. In the language of filmmaking, dangerous actions are called stunts. Who performs these stunts? This work is too dangerous for regular actors. Movie companies usually hire special stunt people to stand in for the actors in scenes that are unsafe. Movie producers don't like to let actors do their own stunt work. If the actors injure themselves, it can delay the production schedule. Using stunt people also saves time. Most stunt people have years of experience, which enables them to perform their stunts with a minimum of risk. It would take too long to train the actors to perform dangerous scenes safely. Some people who love the thrill of dangerous sports such as skydiving or rock climbing think it would be easy to work as a stunt person. But it isn’t enough to be a risk-taker. Stunt performers also have to know what to do if anything goes wrong. In addition to risk-taking and meticulous attention to detail and planning, stunt work requires being in top physical condition. Although there are a few training programmes for stunt performers, most provide only an overview of the profession. Normally, the people who attend these programmes already have experience in dangerous sports, rescue work, or the military. So the best way to prepare for a career in stunt work is to train in an area that involves strong physical conditioning and has an element of physical danger. Modern filmmaking techniques have changed the way some dangerous scenes are filmed. For example, computer-generated images make it possible to show stunts that would be too dangerous or expensive for real stunt people to perform. Computer-generated images are often used today to create big fight scenes, car crashes, and explosions. However, they are not always the best choice. Many audiences want to see real people perform actual stunts. Also, the rising popularity of made-for-TV movies around the world ensures that there is still plenty for stunt people in the film industry.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

For many years, schoolchildren in the US have been taken on 'field trips’ to cultural institutions and historical sites. Despite these trips involving some expense and disruption to class timetables, educators arrange them in the belief that schools exist not only to teach economically useful skills, but also to produce civilised young people who appreciate the arts and culture. However, there have been increasing signs in recent years that the attitude towards field trips is changing, with a significant decrease in the number of tours organised for school groups. A survey carried out by a group of school administrators found that over half the schools they asked had decided to cancel trips planned for the next academic year. So what are the reasons for this change? The most obvious one is the issue of finance. Because there are increasing demands on their funds, schools are forced to make a difficult choice about how to spend the limited money they have. Field trips are an obvious thing to cut since they are seen by many as a luxury. A large number of school heads also consider days spent away from school a waste of time, believing that the only worthwhile use of students' time is spent preparing for exams in the classroom. But why should anybody worry if schoolchildren go on fewer trips? Those that believe this is a negative development in education would say that cultural field trips contribute to the development of students into well-educated adults who have a healthy interest in history and the arts. Researchers warn that if schools cut field trips, then valuable opportunities to broaden and enrich children's learning experiences are lost.

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.