Đề chính thức Đề thi tốt nghiệp THPT môn Tiếng Anh năm 2025 - Mã đề 116

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 "net-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. [I] 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. [II] 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. [III] Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing lulls 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. [IV] 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.

(Adapted from https://www.greenpeace.org.uk)

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. 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.

(Adapted from https://www.consumersearch.com)

All holidays involve some element of risk, whether in the form of illness, bad weather, being unable to get what we want if we delay booking, or (30) __________. We ask ourselves what risks we would run if we went there, if there is a high likelihood of their occurrence, if the risks are avoidable and how significant the consequences would be.

Some tourists, of course, relish a degree of risk, as this gives an edge of excitement to the holiday, (31) __________. Others, however, are risk averse and will studiously avoid risk wherever possible. Clearly, the significance of the risk will be a key factor. (32) __________. The risk averse will book early, choose to return to the same resort and hotel they have visited, knowing its reliability, or book a package tour rather than travel independently.

(33) __________. There is evidence that much of the continuing reluctance shown by some tourists to seek information and make bookings through Internet providers can be attributed to, in part, the lack of face-to-face contact with a trusted - and, hopefully, expert - travel agent and, in part, (34) __________ in favour of the information provider.

(Adapted from The business of tourism)