Làm thử Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT · Tiếng Anh · Đề 045

Question 14. a. This mindset helps individuals adapt to a rapidly changing job market.
b. Moreover, it fosters personal growth and satisfaction.
c. In conclusion, embracing lifelong learning is essential for professional and personal success.
d. Lifelong learning is the continuous pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons.
e. For instance, learning a new digital skill can open up new career opportunities.

Question 17. a. However, it can also lead to the spread of misinformation and create unrealistic social comparisons.
b. The rise of social media has fundamentally changed how we communicate and consume information.
c. Ultimately, its impact depends on how consciously and critically we engage with it.
d. On one hand, it connects people across the globe and provides a platform for self-expression.
e. This constant exposure can negatively affect mental health.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The term 'fast fashion' has become pervasive in conversations about modern consumer culture. It refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing to meet the latest trends. For many consumers, especially young people, the appeal is obvious: you can own the latest styles seen on social media without spending much money. The constant arrival of new collections in stores creates a sense of urgency and excitement, encouraging frequent purchases.

However, this business model has a dark side. The environmental cost is staggering. The industry consumes vast amounts of water and energy, and the use of synthetic fabrics like polyester releases microplastics into our oceans. Furthermore, the pressure to produce clothes quickly and cheaply leads to a throwaway culture. Many of these garments are worn only a few times before being discarded, ending up in landfills where they can take centuries to decompose.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.

The global crisis of plastic pollution has spurred a wave of 'plastic-free' campaigns, capturing public attention and encouraging action. These movements, amplified by mass media, aim to reduce plastic consumption by promoting alternatives and raising awareness about the environmental damage caused by plastic waste, particularly in marine ecosystems. From 'Plastic-Free July' to local community clean-ups, the message is one of urgent change.

Commonly, these campaigns advocate for tangible, individual actions. Supermarkets have been pressured to reduce plastic packaging, and legislative bans on single-use items like plastic bags and straws have been implemented in various cities and countries. The promotion of reusable water bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags has become a hallmark of this movement. Proponents argue that these efforts empower individuals and create a ripple effect, fostering a broader culture of environmental consciousness.

However, a growing number of critics argue that this focus is misplaced. [I] They contend that these campaigns often place the onus of solving a massive industrial problem primarily on individual consumers. [II] While shaming someone for using a plastic straw might feel righteous, it does little to tackle the root causes of plastic production. [III] The narrative of individual responsibility can distract from the need for systemic change, effectively letting large corporations and governments off the hook. [IV] These entities are, after all, the ones who design, produce, and regulate the systems that create plastic waste in the first place.

The debate highlights a tension between individual behaviour change and systemic reform. While encouraging personal responsibility is not inherently wrong, it is insufficient to address a problem of this magnitude without parallel, large-scale structural changes. For example, a consumer can refuse a plastic bag, but this choice is meaningful only if affordable, accessible alternatives exist and if policies are in place to hold producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This requires robust government regulation and a fundamental shift in corporate business models away from a disposable economy.