Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: nghĩa của từ trong bài (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.

Machines already perform a lot of tasks that were usually done by humans, such as building cars, doing complex calculations, and even marking exam papers. But now it seems that ever more intelligent machines are straying into areas where we never envisaged they would go. We have always taken pride in having a unique kind of intelligence that machines could never match, one which allows us to think of new ideas and produce creative and artistic works. But it seems that even here, computers are lining up to compete with us. Machines can easily be trained to do the physical work of producing art. About ten years ago, a painting robot known as e-David was created at a university in Germany. And recently in New York, the painting ‘Portrait of Edmond de Belamy’ has been auctioned for nearly half a million dollars. What made it a bit unusual was that the idea, and the image itself, was produced entirely by a computer. A group of young French artists gave instructions to the computer, aiming simply to show that computers can be creative. Some artists are now working with computers to produce a new kind of art. Computer-generated works of art are certainly interesting, and make us think about the limits of what machines can and cannot do. But not everyone would accept that they qualify as art. Some enthusiasts would argue they do, and the collectors willing to pay high prices for these works would suggest there is definitely a market for computer art. Others, however, would disagree. Many ‘real’ artists would claim that art is an expression of human intelligence and human emotions. More importantly, it is about a desire to communicate with other people. These things, they argue, are part of being human and can never be produced by a machine.

“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.

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 hydro power. 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 21-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.

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 hydro power. 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 21-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-Nay 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 ease 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.