Research has shown that overeating is as harmful as smoking. Therefore, the advertising of certain food products should be banned in the same way as the advertising of cigarettes in some countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Research has shown that overeating is as harmful as smoking. Therefore, the advertising of certain food products should be banned in the same way as the advertising of cigarettes in some countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
As it has been discovered that excessive eating does proportional harms as smoking, arguments have been raised whether food products should be excluded from advertisements the same way as tobacco goods. In my perspective, I oppose this viewpoint, based on the following ground. To commence with, due to there are stark differences between food and cigarettes in their nature, there is no point in applying the same banning measures. Food products, regardless of their types, could provide certain nutrients, or at least sufficient energy, for the human body to function properly. Even junk food like snacks or fast food could sometimes respond well to the needs of eaters who seek instant and convenient solutions to their hunger. The beneficial aspects of foods strikingly contrast those of cigarettes comprised of dangerous and addictive chemicals, namely nicotine, which pose direct threats to people. Such obvious differences illustrate the fact that eating, even overeating, is an unavoidable demand which would not be reduced by any kind of advertisement.
Furthermore, I fervently opine that the ban on food-related advertisements does not prevent overeating. In fact, overeating is rather a habit which mainly depends on the psychological and biological aspects of certain individuals. Eaters can personally decide to excessively eat whenever being in a good mood, so advertising does not affect people's choice about eating habits. In other words, although advertising platform is a tool for producers to spread out their food information to people, it does not mean advertising of certain eatable products would encourage them to eat more than needed. Hence, regulations that prohibit advertising some types of food would fail to prevent surplus eating.
In conclusion, I find the correlation between food products and cigarettes pointless, and it would be futile to implement this policy since no concrete outcomes would be brought forward.
Sample 2:
It is claimed that overeating causes similar damage to human health as smoking, so it is necessary to implement the prohibition of advertisements for both some food products and smoking. In my opinion, the former view is well-founded, yet the latter seems to be rather unreasonable.
It is totally understandable that consuming an unnecessarily large amount of food is a detriment to people’s health conditions, just like smoking is. In fact, excessive food intake increases body fat, potentially resulting in obesity. In recent years, the number of obese people has been constantly growing at an unprecedented rate as a consequence of overeating. Furthermore, consuming unhealthy foods such as fast food or processed food on a regular basis also brings about numerous health-related problems, such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Issues regarding people’s state of health caused by eating too much are for sure comparable with those caused by smoking, for example, lung cancer.
However, I do not think it is an effective solution to forbid advertisements for several particular foodstuffs. It is unfair to manufacturers because advertising is their main measure to approach prospective customers and introduce their new products to the market. Without publicity materials, many food manufacturers would experience crises as their profits declined as a result of this prohibition policy. Furthermore, it is a disadvantage to consumers because they will not be informed about the products they want to buy. It is true that advertising encourages people to purchase things, but it only plays a small part in the amount of food intake, which is mainly determined by consumers themselves.
In conclusion, I agree that the way overeating harms human health is similar to smoking, whereas it seems to me that advertising of food products should not be banned.
Sample 3:
It is apparent that overeating has devastating repercussions on human health. Therefore, some researchers believe that advertising some foods should be prohibited as it is equally harmful to smokers. However, I disagree strongly with this statement. In a subsequent essay, I will elaborate on my views with relevant facts and examples.
To begin with, I do not believe that advertisements are the particular cause of overeating, however it is similarly detrimental to health as smoking. Worldwide fast food is gaining popularity since it is inexpensive, tasty, and simple to prepare. Therefore, consumers are compelled to consume easily available street cuisine. Moreover, the eating habits of today’s generations rely more on fast food rather than on home-cooked meals. In addition, everyone has the fundamental right to select what they eat. Hence, their own choice forces them to consume harmful foods, not advertisements.
On the contrary, advertising unquestionably influences the thinking and eating habits of viewers, a warning does not imply that it leads them to choose an unhealthy diet. Instead, it raises awareness and provides important information about a healthy diet. For instance, advertisements can inform consumers about the amount of energy, fat, calories, and vitamins in food products, allowing them to determine whether the item is worth the risk to their health. Moreover, despite television commercials, public campaigns can educate ignorant people about overeating risks.
In conclusion, I believe the government should not place restrictions on advertising programmes since, despite luring customers, advertising also makes them more sensible. Ministries should establish seminars or special programmes to raise public awareness of this problem in order to reduce its prevalence.
Sample 4:
As with smoking, overuse of some types of food products is suggested to have comparable negative health impacts. In many nations, it is thought that advertising for such products is the primary reason, hence the government should outlaw advertising food items just like tobacco products. In my opinion, there are numerous realistic methods to combat overeating.
To begin with, there is no strong evidence that prohibiting advertising efforts for certain types of food reduces obesity rates. Children choose fast food on a daily basis primarily owing to advertising by companies such as Burger King and Subway. Furthermore, social media channels such as Instagram, Facebook, and television are unable to effectively promote their true idea. In long term, youngsters may be susceptible to obesity, which may lead to health issues such as heart-related issues. Secondly, some food firms would hire personalities such pop stars and movie actors to appear in their advertising. Given that prohibiting advertisements for foods may be ineffective in reducing their consumption rates, it may be pointless to prohibit them.
I would argue, however, that there are incomparable approaches to mitigate this issue. First, there are negative impacts of overeating for the health of pupils, thus new teaching initiatives should be implemented in schools to assist children to comprehend. To be more precise, obesity and other health-related issues should be introduced to the curriculum. Moreover, governments should also impose a greater tax on various types of food, so increasing the price of these items. Due to their exorbitant pricing, consumers may be discouraged from ingesting them.
In conclusion, I feel that the issue of overeating can be effectively minimised by prohibiting marketing efforts; nevertheless, there are more viable ways to curb this occurrence.
Sample 5:
Researchers have demonstrated in a number of studies that overeating is as dangerous as smoking a cigar. As there is a ban on cigarette advertising, it is urged that advertising for fast food, which is regarded to be its primary cause, also be prohibited. Everyone has the right to consume less or more food, hence I disagree with the statement. Moreover, certain junk meals contain critical elements that advertising companies wish to emphasise.
To begin with, despite the belief that overeating is as hazardous as smoking a cigar, a prohibition on food advertising that entices consumers to consume more cannot prevent them from eating more. The explanation is that people are addicted to fast food and will consume it at any cost, even if ads for these foods are prohibited. In addition, they consider eating more or less a fundamental right. Consequently, a restriction on fast food ads will only foster resentment towards the government.
Additionally, certain precooked foods include essential nutrients. Therefore, if individuals choose to consume ever-greater quantities of food, they cannot have major health issues. They will be able to satisfy their cravings and hunger. As a result, there is no need for a restriction on these food commercials, whereas cigarettes contain hazardous substances that might be harmful to human health. As a result, the marketing of dangerous substances and the use of those substances are prohibited.
In conclusion, it is no longer necessary to restrict the promotion of fast-food publications. Due to the fact that eating less or more is a matter of personal choice, even if the advertising of certain foods is banned.
Sample 6:
Evidently, due to disastrous effects on health, some researchers argue that the publication of some specific eatables should be put under the ban. I, however, firmly disagree with this ideology. Upcoming segments are going to elaborate my viewpoint and with material facts and examples.
To embark on, overeating is considerably deleterious same as smoking, although I believe adverts are not primarily culpable. Fast food is gaining popularity worldwide since it is affordable, delicious and easy to cook. Hence, people are irresistible to intake readily available foods on the street. Furthermore, what makes today’s generaffordablsb, their own eating habits and surely they are more reliant on fast foods than homemade ones. Moreover, everyone has the fundamental right to choose what they want to eat; as such, their own choice is forcing them to eat unhealthy stuff.
On the contrary, without any doubt, advertisement influences the mentality as well as the eating habits of viewers; alert doesn’t mean it provokes them to adopt an unhealthy diet. Rather it makes people aware and provides useful information regarding a balanced diet. For example, via ads, one can ensure the level of energy, fat, calories and vitamins present in food items, and then they can decide if it is worthy to their precious health or not. In addition to this, despite TV advertisements, public campaigns can make illiterate consumers aware of overheating issues.
To conclude, I believe the government must not impose restrictions on advertising programmes since; despite attracting, it also makes today’s consumers more rational. Ministries should initiate seminars or special programmes that could spread awareness among folks to flatten the curve of this menace.
Sample 7:
Research shows that overeating leads to harmful effects on people s health, so some people contend that governments should prohibit businesses from advertising for certain food products. I disagree with this contention, as I believe that individuals need to be responsible for their own decisions as to whether to eat healthy foods or not.
It is true that some food products can be harmful, especially if not consumed in moderation. And there is no doubt that overeating is currently a major problem in regard to health concerns.
But it is my feeling that the government should not be dictating what people can eat and what they cannot eat, even if that is by dictating which foods can be advertised and which cannot. There is a fine line in determining which food products are harmful and the degree to which they are harmful. Most foods, if consumed in moderation as recommended, are not harmful.
Ultimately, people need to be responsible for their own health, their own eating habits, and their own weight in banning advertising on certain food products, the government would be discouraging people from taking responsibility for their own eating habits and decisions. The government and society would be better served to simply educate people regarding the negative health consequences of overeating, possibly through some free advertisements on various media.
As long as food is healthy if consumed in moderation, the government should not dictate Which foods can be advertised and which foods cannot be advertised It will be better for the government to encourage good eating habits through education.
Sample 8:
In recent studies, the adverse impacts of overeating have been highlighted, leading to a growing consensus that the marketing of certain foods should be curtailed, paralleling the restrictions placed on cigarette advertisements in some nations. I firmly believe that such a measure is necessary to combat the rising tide of diet-related health issues and will discuss the effectiveness of advertising bans and the role of public health education in mitigating overeating.
Firstly, advertising significantly influences consumer behavior, particularly regarding unhealthy food choices. For instance, high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods are often marketed with persuasive techniques that appeal to emotions and desires, overshadowing the health consequences of overconsumption. A ban on such advertisements, similar to the prohibition of cigarette advertising, could substantially reduce these foods' visibility, thereby decreasing their consumption. Countries like Norway and Finland, which have implemented strict advertising regulations, have seen a notable decline in the consumption of junk food, indicating the potential effectiveness of such policies.
Secondly, while banning advertisements can serve as a powerful deterrent, it must be complemented by comprehensive public health initiatives. Education plays a pivotal role in informing individuals about the nutritional value of foods and the dangers of overeating. For example, incorporating mandatory nutritional education in schools and public campaigns can empower individuals to make informed dietary choices. Such knowledge not only promotes healthier eating habits but also instills a critical perspective towards food advertising, thereby reducing the influence of marketing on dietary choices.
In conclusion, the negative repercussions of overeating necessitate a twofold approach: restricting harmful food advertisements and enhancing public health education. By addressing the root causes of overeating and altering the way food is perceived and consumed, we can forge a healthier society that prioritizes well-being over profit. This balanced strategy underscores the importance of both regulatory measures and informed personal choices in the battle against diet-related health issues.
Sample 9:
A growing corpus of evidence illuminating the harmful consequences of overindulgence in food has ignited discussions on whether advertising for certain unhealthy products should face the same fate as tobacco adverts, with many advocating for their prohibition. I assert that enacting such bans is crucial for addressing the burgeoning public health dilemma of poor nutritional choices, advocating for a dual-pronged strategy that not only curtails misleading food advertisements but also amplifies efforts in bolstering nutritional education across society.
Foremost, the omnipresence of advertisements for high-calorie, low-nutrient foods significantly exacerbate the epidemic of overeating by manipulating consumer preferences under the guise of choice. A case in point is the seductive portrayal of fast food in commercials, which often glamorizes unhealthy eating habits, making them appear irresistibly appealing to the unsuspecting viewer. Emulating the precedent set by the prohibition of cigarette advertising, curtailing these advertisements could dramatically diminish their consumption and influence vulnerable demographics. This assertion is substantiated by evidence from jurisdictions like the UK, where restrictions on junk food advertising during children's TV programming have been linked to a discernible decline in unhealthy food consumption among children, signaling a positive shift in dietary habits.
Moreover, an advertising ban should be concomitant with a vigorous campaign to elevate public nutritional awareness, ensuring a holistic approach towards combating dietary missteps. Enlightening the populace about the adverse health impacts of overeating and the benefits of a balanced diet can fundamentally shift dietary paradigms, fostering a more health-conscious society. For instance, initiatives such as the “5 A Day” campaign in England have been instrumental in promoting fruit and vegetable consumption, showcasing the transformative potential of educational endeavours in fostering healthier eating habits. By integrating such campaigns with interactive platforms and social media, the message can reach a wider audience, further amplifying its impact and ensuring that the benefits of healthy eating are understood and embraced across the spectrum of society.
In synthesis, the path to ameliorating the public health implications of overeating is twofold, encompassing both the prohibition of misleading food advertisements and the amplification of nutritional education. Such measures, collectively, can recalibrate societal attitudes towards food, propelling us towards a healthier future. By aligning regulatory and educational strategies, we can dismantle the foundations of the overeating epidemic, ensuring a legacy of health for future generations.
Sample 10:
A number of studies find that excessive amount of eating often leads to numerous detrimental effects on people’s health. While I disagree with the view that advertising of specific foods should be banned in the same way as some countries banned promoting cigarettes, I believe it is very necessary to limit the number of those kinds of advertisements.
It is clear that many foods in general do not pose a health risk; rather, how they are consumed by individuals can do so. Consider overeating as an example. Even the healthiest foods ingested in excess can have negative effects such as nausea, upset stomachs, or chronic conditions like obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, etc. Therefore, rather than outright outlawing food marketing as other nations have done to discourage smoking, it would be more beneficial if the significance and fundamentals of healthy eating habits could be widely disseminated.
However, given the enormous influence of advertising, restrictions on the commercial promotion of some food items may be necessary. Making a list of dangerous products and cutting back on the advertising for those foods will eventually help people live healthier lives. In reality, because individuals are influenced by the things they are exposed to, if governments restrict the advertising of food items that are unhealthy, these products will eventually lose their appeal and influence on the minds of the majority of people. Therefore, restricting the advertisement of some particular foods may be a good way to reduce their widespread usage.
In conclusion, regardless of the food quality, eating beyond the healthy limit is always harmful. Also, though this essay does not support the drastic banning of certain products’ promotions, it admits that it is quite necessary to curb the health compromised food item’s advertisements and create awareness among the consumers simultaneously.
Hot: 1000+ Đề thi cuối kì 2 file word cấu trúc mới 2026 Toán, Văn, Anh... lớp 1-12 (chỉ từ 60k). Tải ngay
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Some argue that offering free bus and rail passes to all who need them is the best solution to traffic congestion. While this might be effective for many, I believe the government should also explore other strategies to address this problem.
On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why allowing individuals to use public transportation without paying a price is advantageous in various respects. Initially, using buses and trains would assist in improving traffic flow. To be specific, more individuals would utilise public transportation instead of driving their cars to get to work or education as long as the government provides free bus and train passes for citizens in their nations. Additionally, avoiding peak hour traffic bottlenecks may be accomplished by taking free public transportation. In this circumstance, it might result in a reduction in commute times.
However, for a variety of reasons, I vehemently disagree with this assertion. First of all, governments must spend a considerable sum of money to ensure free public happiness. Since the government’s resources are finite, when they focus their investments on this area, other crucial variables would be disregarded and undervalued. Nevertheless, there are solutions to resolve this dispute, notwithstanding what was just said. A suggestion is that the government might first provide incentives for remote jobs. People need not to physically be present at offices if they could work from home, which would end the daily drive. For instance, large corporations all across the world are experiencing this phenomenon, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
In conclusion, while providing free public transportation can indeed help reduce traffic, it should not be the sole focus of government efforts to solve this issue.
Sample 2:
It is generally believed that if the government wants to solve the traffic congestion problem, the most effective solution is to provide free public transportation, such as buses and trains. In my opinion, I agree with this idea because it really helps to ease the situation.
Firstly, I believe that free public transportation can reduce people's dependence on cars and improve traffic congestion. People who live outside the city centre tend to go to work because there are no buses or train stations around the area. Therefore, the government should consider building railway and bus lanes to cover all remote areas. In addition, dedicated lanes can be allocated to buses to avoid traffic jams. For example, Japan has done a very good job with its advanced subway system. Their stations are always overcrowded, and trains and buses are always on time. People rarely own cars and they rely on public transportation.
Secondly, the government should always carry out publicity activities to promote the advantages of using free public transportation. By doing so, people can break the mentality that public transportation is dirty, slow, and unreliable. As long as more people know, the transportation system is well designed, more comfortable and more convenient; people will soon start using public transportation. For example, Singapore has implemented 24/7 free public transportation, and its roads are unobstructed.
In short, I firmly believe that free transportation will reduce congestion by promoting awareness-raising campaigns and investment in buses and trains. Although it is a difficult task for the government to implement free public transportation in the community, once the government implements it successfully, it will have a major impact on everyone's life.
Sample 3:
Today with the increasing population and the exponential growth of urbanization, the transportation needs of the people have increased rapidly. Due to increasing transportation and the need for vehicles, traffic congestion has become a major problem of the countries with increasing populations. Therefore, looking into the problem deeply, I find that the best way to control this traffic congestion is for the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities. There are certain reasons for increasing traffic congestion as discussed below.
Firstly, the faster pace of population growth has increased the demand for more vehicles on the road. Since the transport facilities are less as compared to the people traveling, the demands have increased day by day which has contributed to more vehicles on the road and hence contributing to traffic congestion. Secondly, the increasing urbanization has caused more of the rural population to migrate to urban cities and metropolitan cities to find jobs and work. This increased migration of the population to urban cities is also one of the major causes of the traffic congestion on roads. For example, metropolitan cities of India like Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad are highly traffic-congested cities of India due to increased urbanization and rapid migration of the rural population.
Traffic congestion is one of the major causes of carbon dioxide emission and increasing global warming of the earth. The harmful gases emitted from these vehicles pollute the environment. For example, the highly populated city of India is Delhi due to increased traffic congestion. The government must provide free transportation facilities to reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and must also encourage the population to compulsorily use these free public transportation facilities to reduce the problem of traffic congestion. Besides, in public transport, the use of environmentally-friendly electric vehicles like metro services, electric trains, electric buses, and taxis must be encouraged instead of fuel vehicles to reduce the emission of harmful gases in the environment.
Therefore, after analyzing all the points above, the conclusion drawn upon is that traffic congestion is the major problem faced by many countries at large and the best solution to this problem is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities to the people.
Sample 4:
The population has been increasing day by day and with the increasing number of people, urbanization is also at its peak. In such situations, the huge demands of vehicles have caused rapid traffic congestion on roads. However, some people argue that the best way to control traffic congestion is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, but in my opinion, this may not be the correct way to control the traffic congestion.
Some of the major reasons for traffic congestion are urbanization and the migration of the people. This has caused an increased demand for vehicles in the market. Nowadays people tend to travel a lot, and, in such conditions, they find it easier to use their own vehicles rather than opting for public transport. A survey conducted in China states that a majority of people prefer their own vehicles rather than public transport and this has increased more vehicles on road contributing to the traffic congestions. Secondly, people find it easy to carry their own vehicle to travel to different corners of the country as it is more comfortable than public transport. Also, the conditions of the public transport facilities have also deteriorated, they are also very congestive and unhygienic. Besides, the public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners due to non motorable roads and hence, the best option for traveling to these areas are the private vehicles. Secondly, private vehicles like cars and motorbikes have become more affordable and budget-friendly for people.
For the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, it will be a big burden on their exchequer. Instead, the government must focus on other measures like encouraging bicycles for school and college-going students, build wide tracks with separate lanes, build more expressways and flyovers to reduce the congestion. Also, they must subsidize the public transport fares but not completely free. A separate track for pedestrians and cyclists must be built to limit the number of vehicles on the road. Besides, an awareness campaign must be launched to inform people of the traffic rules and safety measures. Strict traffic rules must be followed, and a compulsorily fine system should be introduced.
Instead of providing free transport facilities for the public, the above-mentioned measures must be given more importance.
Sample 5:
To reduce traffic congestion, the government must provide free transport facilities to the public. But this step can be moderately implemented to reduce the congestion on roads. Some other measures should also be taken in equal proportion to deal with the issue of traffic congestion. Therefore, the statement, Government should provide 24/7 free public transportation to reduce traffic congestion is moderately correct. There are several reasons for the increasing traffic congestion on roads as mentioned below.
Population in many of the developing countries like India and China has been increasing at an alarming rate. This has caused an increasing number of people on the road either using public transport, their own vehicles or pedestrians resulting in increased traffic congestion. Also, a large-scale migration of the population to urban cities for work had deteriorated the traffic conditions of big cities. Secondly, the fares of the public transport are quite high compared to the service they render and are more congested and unhygienic. Now, when automobiles have become more affordable and fuel-efficient, people opt for quality and comfort over public facilities. Thirdly, people have started to travel more these days and public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners of the cities or towns. In such situations what people find better is the use of the facilities of the private vehicle. However, the use of private vehicles has resulted in increased traffic congestion and besides, these are the major cause of concern as they contribute to the emission of harmful gases polluting the environment.
To deal with the problem of traffic congestion, providing only free public transport may not contribute much. Besides, the government must encourage the use of electric vehicles and bicycles amongst the population. Secondly, it must focus on building more expressways and highways and separate lanes to reduce the congestion. Enough attention must be paid to constructing road facilities in remote corners of the cities and towns and especially in rural areas so that public transport can easily reach every corner of the world. Strict adherence to the traffic rules must be followed.
All these steps along with free transport facilities by the government together can contribute to reducing traffic congestion.
Sample 6:
The incidents of traffic congestion are increasing along with the population growth. Some contend that in order to lessen traffic congestion, the government ought to offer free public transportation. This solution, in my opinion, can only partially resolve the issue.
Most individuals now prefer to live in cities or towns rather than rural areas due to urbanisation. This is one of the primary causes of the heavy traffic on the roadways. At the same time, cars have also gotten cheaper and more fuel-efficient as a result of technological improvement. The number of automobiles on the roads has also increased as a result.
The government is undoubtedly attempting to reduce traffic by enhancing the efficiency and speed of public transit. For instance, the DMRC system, which facilitates bus stops across the entire city, has been installed in Delhi, a densely populated metropolis. The public can utilise this bus service 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but it is not free, thus many people opt to drive their own car instead. Because buses and trains are crowded and uncomfortable, many individuals will still choose to use their own vehicles even if public transportation is free. Free public transportation will also put a strain on the exchequer.
In my opinion, the government can take a number of additional steps to lessen traffic on the roads. For instance, it needs to create bigger roadways, additional flyovers, and separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. It should also strictly enforce traffic regulations and promote the use of environmentally friendly transportation.
In conclusion, making public transportation free will undoubtedly encourage more people to use it, but since those who value comfort and convenience over cost will still drive privately, this strategy is ineffective in easing traffic congestion.
Sample 7:
The traffic is getting worse in contemporary society, some citizens suggest that the authorities should provide free public transport every day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it's extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken at the same time.
We have to admit that this policy can increase the usage of public transport. Inhabitants will take it into consideration if it's free when they are facing traffic jam. To some extent, it can reduce traffic congestion. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the problems it caused.
This initiative will sharply increase the national budget. It's generally acknowledged that national funds are limited and should be used in a large variety of social aspects from education to environmental protection. The initiative will leave a burden on the financial budget and let the infrastructure cannot be maintained and guaranteed.
Furthermore, this policy cannot address the root of this issue. People use private cars not because of the high cost of the public transportation system, but because the line and route don't cover their destination or the low efficiency when they plan for a long-distance trip. No matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. In addition, traffic congestion only accrued during the rush hours, so it's pointless to provide it for free all day.
To sum up, I think the authority should reduce the price and develop the traffic infrastructure if they want to address this issue, rather than provide it for free simply.
Sample 8:
Some contend that the best way to combat traffic congestion is to always provide free bus and rail passes to everyone who needs them. While I acknowledge it may work for the vast majority of individuals, I think the government ought to offer other options to address this issue.
On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why allowing individuals to use public transportation without paying a price is advantageous in various respects. Initially, using buses and trains would assist in improving traffic flow. To be specific, more individuals would utilise public transportation instead of driving their cars to get to work or education as long as the government provides free bus and train passes for citizens in their nations. Additionally, avoiding peak hour traffic bottlenecks may be accomplished by taking free public transportation. In this circumstance, it might result in a reduction in commute times.
However, for a variety of reasons, I vehemently disagree with this assertion. First of all, governments must spend a considerable sum of money to ensure free public happiness. Since the government’s resources are finite, when they focus their investments on this area, other crucial variables would be disregarded and undervalued. Nevertheless, there are solutions to resolve this dispute, notwithstanding what was just said. A suggestion is that the government might first provide incentives for remote jobs. People need not to physically be present at offices if they could work from home, which would end the daily drive. For instance, large corporations all across the world are experiencing this phenomenon, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
In conclusion, it is undeniably true that providing free public transit to citizens may be a significant element in reducing traffic, but this is by no means the main component that governments should take into account when trying to address this issue.
Sample 9:
In recent years, traffic jams have been increasingly ubiquitous particularly in big cities which cause great fatigue for commuters. In order to tackle this problem, it is argued by many that government should provide free public transport all day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it is extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken.
First of all, it is an indisputable fact that traffic congestion is not only attributed to the vast amount of private transport but also road systems. Moreover, no matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. Thus, providing free public transport alone just contributes to cutting down the volume of traffic to some extent. In fact, many big cities like Ho Chi Minh still suffer from traffic jams in narrow roads with obsolete infrastructure in spite of the rise in availability of public transport. Therefore, I strongly believe that road needs to be widened, and traffic lights and signs should be made more state-of-the-art to stem the root causes.
More importantly, though providing free public transport 24 hours per day is not necessary and what is more is that it may leave a burden on the national budget. According to the majority of reports, traffic jams mainly occur during the rush hours, so it is pointless to provide public transport all the time. On top of that, providing free public transport in the long term may be unachievable due to its tremendous cost. This measure not only costs governments a fortune but it is also unable to address the root of the issue. It would be far more economical if this amount of money was invested in enhancing road facilities.
By way of conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that other measures rather than making public transport available may be far more efficient to traffic congestion. In years to come, I strongly believe that more investments in road systems should be adopted to make commuting more comfortable and time-saving.
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Although fossil fuels still remain the most important energy sources in many places, some countries are now already using alternative sources like solar or wind power. In my opinion, it can be difficult for a country to move towards using alternative energy at first, but this development brings about several benefits in the long run.
On the one hand, the change towards using alternative types of energy would probably put a heavy financial burden on the government and companies as they will have to invest millions of dollars in purchasing and developing new equipment and facilities for harnessing solar, wind or hydro-electric power. For example, the average cost of installing a wind turbine for generating electricity is about $3 million, and an average country would require a wind farm with hundreds of turbines to supply power to all companies and households. In addition, the production cost of large solar panels is still very high, which is why many countries, especially those with a poor economy, are still unable to use this power source.
However, I still believe that shifting towards using alternative energy is a worthwhile investment due to the great benefits it brings. Firstly, fossil fuels are the main cause of air pollution nowadays since petroleum-powered vehicles and factories are releasing tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Therefore, replacing coal and petroleum with wind or solar power will help to reduce the level of emissions in the atmosphere and improve air quality. Secondly, fossil fuels, like natural gas or oil, are finite resources and will soon be depleted, which will potentially threaten the economy if there are no alternative sources. This fact emphasizes the need to develop renewable energy to gradually replace traditional sources when fossil fuels inevitably run out.
In conclusion, I hold the view that despite the high initial cost of new equipment and facilities, the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is still necessary for the long-term development of the planet.
Sample 2:
The debate around our primary sources of energy has been intensifying in recent decades, with some pushing for more sustainable energy while others arguing that fossil fuels should remain the main source of power globally. I personally think renewable energy production should be encouraged, since it’s important that nations should seek to reduce their own carbon emissions to divert the dangers of climate change as well as build a more sustainable economy.
Firstly, fossil fuel should be discouraged because it could bring about the existential threat of climate change. As a result, biodiversity is at an all-time low, with shifting climates and rising sea levels slowly eroding the delicate tapestry of food webs across the globe. As scientists are convinced this is directly the cause of human activity, such as in agriculture and fossil fuel consumption, renewable energies would help slow this threat immediately and might be our only solution to salvaging the planet.
Secondly, one could argue that renewable energies are more sustainable and would therefore be better for the economy in the long run. While oil and coal are a finite resource and take millions of years to replenish, energy from wind and solar can in theory never run out. Therefore, making a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy can be a solution that thinks of the longer term, since it could avert an economic crash when oil fully depletes. Many analysts have warned that with the current trajectory, oil could run out by 2050; when this happens, it could sharply affect the biggest economies in the world that are still heavily dependent on oil.
Overall, I argue that the climate effects as a result of fossil fuels consumption combined with the economic benefits of renewable energies mean that we should encourage the development of these forms of energy.
Sample 3:
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have long been the dominant sources of energy in many countries. However, their extensive use has resulted in significant environmental harm, prompting the need for alternative sources of energy. In response to this, many countries are encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. This essay will discuss the reasons behind the promotion of alternative energy sources and argue that it is a positive development.
One of the key reasons for the promotion of alternative energy sources is their potential to mitigate the negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, thereby reducing the contribution to climate change. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented strong incentives and subsidies to support the development of solar power, leading to a significant increase in the share of renewable energy in their energy mix. This shift towards cleaner sources of energy is driven by the recognition of the urgent need to combat climate change and reduce dependence on finite fossil fuel reserves.
The encouragement of alternative energy sources has numerous positive implications and is a positive trend. It promotes energy diversification, reducing reliance on a single energy source and increasing energy security. By harnessing the power of wind, solar, and other renewable sources, countries can decrease their vulnerability to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices and geopolitical tensions related to energy resources. Additionally, the transition to renewable energy stimulates innovation and job creation. As governments invest in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies, new industries and employment opportunities emerge.
In conclusion, the encouragement of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, is driven by the need to address environmental concerns and promote sustainable development. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying energy sources, and fostering economic growth, the adoption of renewable energy brings numerous benefits. Therefore, it is crucial for countries to continue investing in research, technology, and policy frameworks that support the widespread adoption of renewable energy, ensuring a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.
Sample 4:
Fossil fuel, though extensively used, is not eco-friendly, and its usage comes with huge environmental costs. Considering global warming and climate change, and the detrimental effects fossil fuels have on the environment, green fuel, such as solar, hydro and wind power, is increasingly being used in many countries. It is a good thing that many countries have already started using these green power sources.
The promotion of alternative sources of energy has gained significant momentum in numerous countries because of a growing concern about the adverse effects of fossil fuels on the environment such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Governments and environmental organizations recognize the urgent need to transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy options. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented ambitious renewable energy targets, investing heavily in wind and solar power to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and combat climate change.
The stock of fossil fuels is limited and would get exhausted at a certain point. So, alternative and green sources, which are renewable, would be the main source of our energy in the future. Despite the shift from fossil fuel to green energy being expensive and labour-intensive, green energy like wind and solar energy is renewable, their use should be as much encouraged as possible from right now, and it is a good thing that the trend has already started. Alternative sources of power, such as solar and wind power, do not pollute the environment, have lower carbon emissions and are eco-friendly. So, their use could save the planet from the disaster of global warming which is already visible around us. Wind power and solar power are in use in countries like Denmark, Germany and France, and more and more countries are joining the list. We already have extremely efficient technology to produce solar and wind power, and the trend is quite encouraging.
To conclude, the energy demand is increasing at a fast pace, and the stock of fossil fuels is diminishing. So, we should turn to alternative green energy sources and share the technology and expertise with all nations so that the transition happens all around the world to save our otherwise dying planet due to climate change and greenhouse effects.
Sample 5:
Every year the energy demand is increasing globally. So, the strains on the current and already limited resources are high. Since these energy resources, like fossil fuels, are mostly imported by countries, some countries have opted for alternative sources of energy to enjoy greater energy security. I wholeheartedly believe that it is a positive trend.
Alternative sources of energy offer greater energy security and independence and that is why their production and use is increasing. Relying on traditional energy sources, often imported from other countries, can leave nations vulnerable to price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions. Embracing renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, or biomass, allows countries to tap into their own natural resources and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. This is why it has already gained popularity.
Fossil fuels, like coal and oil, are not unlimited. A few countries like Germany and Japan, for example, are completely dependent on the import of such resources. For all these countries, alternative energy, also known as green energy, is the answer for the future, and it is a welcoming trend that many countries have already started producing green energy. By embracing renewable energy options, countries can address climate change, enhance energy independence, create employment opportunities, and drive technological progress. Countries like France and Norway, among others, have invested in the technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun or produce wind power. The positive impacts of this development are innumerable, and many countries are following in their footsteps.
In conclusion, the use of green energy sources is gaining traction because many countries want to become energy self-sufficient. This is definitely a positive trend as it reduces reliance on energy imports, helps countries fight climate change, advances technology and creates more employment.
Sample 6:
These days, the environment is being severely affected by the excessive use of nonrenewable energy resources, such as petrol, diesel, coal and natural gas. However, eco-friendly and renewable power sources like wind and solar power are being adopted in many countries mainly because they do not harm the environment, and I wholeheartedly think that it is a positive trend.
The shift towards renewable energy sources in many countries is primarily to fight global warming and climate change. Fossil fuels are often the reason climate change is so severe and threatens the existence of humans on the mother planet. Many countries, including Germany, Norway and France, have adopted the use of green energy like solar and wind power to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to save the environment.
It is a positive trend as it greatly reduces the carbon content of the environment and makes the planet more sustainable. Without extensive use of green energy, we will soon transform our planet into an uninhabitable one. To save our planet from destruction, we need to produce and use more green and renewable energy. Moreover, it is cheaper to produce such clean energy than to extract coal or natural gas which makes these eco-friendly energies affordable to mass people. A recent study by Oxford University reveals that the production of solar power is 30% cheaper than that of fossil fuel. This finding again emphasizes how important it is for all nations to opt for renewable energy sources, and how beneficial it is that many countries have already invested in generating clean power.
In conclusion, even though we have harmed our mother planet to a great extent by indiscriminately using fossil fuels, some countries have already shown us a better way to produce and use power. It is expected that more countries will invest in alternative sources of energy to make the planet green again and make energy affordable for all.
Sample 7:
While fossil fuels have been the backbone of our energy supply for centuries, they have severe harmful impacts on our environment. Therefore, some countries have started relying on green energy to reverse the situation. And it is a positive trend that we have started researching and using alternative sources of energy, also known as green energy, that are sustainable and do not cause long-term damage to our environment.
One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are being used to produce green energy in many countries is their ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are a major contributor to climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, the use of renewable energy sources can help reduce global CO2 emissions by up to 70% by 2050. This is a significant step towards protecting our planet from the devastating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.
The use of renewable sources to generate energy is a positive development for a variety of reasons. For instance, investing in renewable energy can also create jobs and boost the economy. According to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review 2020, the renewable energy sector employed around 11.5 million people worldwide in 2019, a 6% increase from the previous year. This growth in employment opportunities can help to stimulate local economies and provide new job opportunities for people in both developed and developing countries. For example, in Germany, the government's decision to phase out nuclear power plants and invest in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has created over 300,000 jobs and contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In conclusion, the shift towards green energy sources is a positive development that can help to protect our environment and create new job opportunities. While it may take time and investment to transition away from fossil fuels, it is a necessary step to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.
Sample 8:
Many nations are now supporting the adoption of various energy alternatives in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. In my opinion, though there may be short-term economic downsides, this is a decidedly positive development due to the implications on the environment generally.
Those who feel the sudden adoption of alternative energies is a negative point out the financial repercussions. There are economies around the world that are currently dependent on exporting fossil fuels, in particular in The Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. Many of these countries are still developing and have few other natural resources or industries that could replace a decline in the energy sector. The economic effects will extend far beyond exporters though. Both developed and developing nations ranging from the United States and Vietnam to China and Russia exploit oil for private vehicles and various industries. Substituting cheap oil for a more expensive alternative might result in economic catastrophe with wide-ranging repercussions.
However, the environmental effect is overwhelmingly more important for the long-term health of the planet. The economic results of less dependence on fossil fuels will cause short-term problems but the issues caused by climate change are also becoming a present reality. For instance, there has been a rise in the number of cataclysmic natural disasters related to rising ocean temperatures and deforestation. Even more troubling are the less noticed problems such as habitats being destroyed in remote areas like Antarctica and the Amazon Rainforest. Beyond the animals becoming endangered and extinct, it is only a number of years before human life is affected. This existential threat is the reason alternative energies are a pressing need.
In conclusion, despite the economic drawbacks of a sudden shift to alternative power sources, this reorientation will have a markedly positive long-term impact on the environment. Governments should therefore implement and bolster alternative energy initiatives.
Sample 9:
The development of renewable energies like wind power, wave power, or solar energy to replace the electricity generated from burning fossil fuels has become an increasingly popular trend in the world. I believe this is a green movement in the energy sector with countless benefits that people should welcome.
The most palpable advantage one can recognize at once when mentioning renewable energies is that they reduce the burden on the environment. The use of solar power creates no emission at all, and thus provides for the need of power at almost no environmental cost. It is similarly clean and sustainable when wind, wave, and water moving around the Earth eternally can be used in energy production. Also, the independence from fossil fuels in electricity generation saves the world from a rapid depletion of coal, oil and natural gases, and slow down the imminent energy crisis which may even cause wars over energy sources among countries.
Moreover, the production of green energy also benefits individuals and the country as a whole. Thanks to less burning of fossil fuels in thermal energy plants, workers in energy companies face less risks of occupational health problems especially those related to respiratory diseases and may lead to early death. On the large scale of a country, the utilization of wind, wave, sunlight, and even geothermal heat to produce electricity will diversify the energy portfolio of different nations, making them free from reliance on limited natural resources to generate electricity due to their unfavourable geographical locations.
In conclusion, the movement of the world towards more use of renewable energy is completely positive when it solves multiple problems of environmental pollution, dependence on natural resources for energy, and poor health of workers in thermal power plants.
Sample 10:
Governments across continents have turned their attention to more sustainable sources of energy as alternatives to fossil fuels. In my opinion, this could be seen as a progress for the following reasons.
First, there is no arguing that producing energy from buried dead organisms lacks sustainability, which means such production could not guarantee the survival of humans in the long term. In fact, the consumption of energy generated from fossil fuels tends to accelerate in direct correlation with the growth of the world population. With the current rate of exploitation, this valuable resource would dwindle away in no time, leaving no other choice than seeking additional reserves such as nuclear power or hydroelectricity. This is a safe solution to the fear of energy scarcity and ensures the future development of the human race.
Second, dependence on fossil fuel for worldwide energy supply would cause environmental degradation while using solar power, for example, is considered an ultimate choice of energy conservation. The combustion of fossil fuels is the culprit of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, leading to tremendous damage to the environment. Such suffering of the Earth could not be justified by the growing need of humans. By contrast, this would never be the case when it comes to other alternatives as mentioned above. If governments continue to invest in exploiting those new sources, there will be an unlimited amount of inexpensive energy in the long run.
In conclusion, I believe that the use of other potential energy sources to replace fossil fuels is obviously an important step forward.
Sample 11:
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are extensively used in many countries and cause harm to the environment. The use of alternative sources of energy, including wind and solar power, however, is being encouraged in many countries. Is this a positive or negative development?
In several nations, non-renewable sources of energy, namely coal, petroleum, and gasoline, are used inordinately, which is severely damaging the ecosystem. However, other countries are promoting the usage of non-conventional sources of power, such as wind and solar energy. I personally consider that this has been a positive development because the non-traditional approach will aid in efficient energy output and protect the ecosystem from feasible hazards.
Primarily, the remarkable advantage of the aforementioned alternative sources is that they are renewable. These energy sources have a constant supply of power and there is no requirement for significant raw materials. Although it could be argued that the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is extremely high, I would assert that once the installation cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible. Apart from this, it is widely accepted that fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and once consumed, they cannot be re-used. To illustrate, if modern individuals burn immense petroleum and coal, these resources are likely to vanish, and future generations would not be capable of using these precious energy sources.
Another major benefit of eco-friendly energy sources is their non-polluting nature. The intensive usage of natural resources forms carbon emissions and emits noxious gases that are nurturing global warming and depleting the ozone layer. Even worse, by inhaling such poisonous gases and carbon fumes, human beings are susceptible to various health ailments such as asthma and lung cancer. However, when energy is harnessed from wind turbines and solar panels there are no such deleterious by-products. Unlike other automobiles, for instance, commuting through a solar car would not emit carbon dioxide.
In conclusion, not only do alternative sources provide an inordinate amount of energy supply constantly, but they also preserve the environment in a very effective way. Therefore, I completely believe that this trend is a wholly positive development and one that authorities ought to promote.
Sample 12:
In this day and age, the consumption of non-renewable resources is burgeoning day by day. Owing to this it reached an alarming rate. It takes millions of years to form. However, some nations are taking a step forward and using non-conventional sources of power. This essay will highlight that this is certainly an optimistic approach that needs to be opted.
At the outset, non-conventional sources can be recycled and utilized again. Although, the use of alternative sources has some hurdles like the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these also rely on geographical locations. When masses use this energy source for a long period of time, the energy can be renewed and produced, no extra cost will have more economic benefit than the others. Besides this, the use of renewable energy could help to conserve foreign exchange and generate local employment if conservation technologies are designed, manufactured, assembled, and installed locally.
Moving further, alternative sources- wind power, tidal power, solar power – sources are totally safe for the environment, have lower carbon emission, and are eco-friendly. The research concluded that there are some countries that have utilized alternative sources namely German, France, and Denmark as these nations save the planet from a disaster of global warming. Some countries use automobile cars that work on solar power. Consequently, it has reduced the carbon footprint of such countries and made its greenery.
Based on this study it can be reiterated that the use of alternative sources of energy is an optimistic evolvement, which can save the whole globe from the catastrophic impact of greenhouse emissions as well as global warming. Furthermore, more and more folks should adopt renewable sources to ameliorate the conditions of the environment. In this way, by taking joint efforts individuals can preserve the world.
Sample 13:
Due to the shortage of fossil fuels, whether other natural power resources should be encouraged to harness or not, becomes a paramount concern for many countries. I believe, while this advancement may decrease awareness among people about protecting the fuels, it also solves the problem of the lack of energy sources.
First of all, fossil fuels which are the major energy resources in many nations are facing the threats of becoming obsolete due to the overuse by the human race in daily life. As a result, people should be encouraged to raise awareness of fuel conservation. However, the utilization of alternative natural energy sources could prevent people from doing this by reducing the fears of coal or oil that might be running out. Because there are other sources to use, they would use more energy generated from gas or oil without hesitation. In my personal opinion, the negative sides of using different resources of power could deteriorate the shortage of fuels.
Harnessing alternative power sources (such as solar or wind power), in contrast, could reduce the usage of fossil fuels in generating energy for a range of demanding activities such as heating and driving. While coal and oil mines are limited, natural resources such as wind and solar power are considered unlimited. This wind power or solar energy is consequently able to produce enough energy for human demand without the help of fossil fuels. As a result, it should be encouraged to be utilized in more countries in the world to gradually cut down the usage of fossil fuels.
To sum up, the encouragement of using natural resources (such as solar or wind) for producing energy has both negative and positive sides. However, I deem that humankind should consider using more power from solar or wind and less from coal and gas to protect the remaining parts of fossil fuels.
Sample 14:
Coals, oil, and gas are some fossil fuels that are the most common sources of energy for the majority of countries. On the other hand, some countries encourage the use of renewable resources like wind and solar energy. I believe this is a strongly positive development as we will be in grave danger if the world runs out of these natural non-renewable resources like fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are used in almost all industries and for running motor vehicles. We can minimize this by using alternatives wherever possible. If it goes on like this, we will soon have such a shortage of these fuels that can pose a threat to running things efficiently. For example, some industries can only run on coal or oil, though this is not the case for cars. Automobiles can easily run on electricity, and so we should limit the use of such fuels. Burning too much of these fossil fuels also contributes to air pollution. Thus, it is important to minimize usage wherever possible.
On the other hand, wind energy and solar energy take comparatively longer time to generate, and they are largely dependent on the sun and the wind. We do not have any control over them, so the production of goods might slow down if there is less generation of energy as we cannot, in fact, control the weather. Perhaps tropical countries, where there is an abundant amount of sunshine and wind, can be encouraged to use these natural sources and not waste fossil fuels. However, for temperate climates, this might not be an option. Dependency on nature can have slower production rates and lead to not meeting the deadline or having scarcity in the market.
On the whole, I believe all the countries should be aware of the hazards of wasting too much of our natural reserves of energy and use them consciously and responsibly. Initiatives such as building consciousness about the issue should be taken to build a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.
Sample 15:
Fossil fuels harm the environment and to save our planet we need to encourage the use of green energy. The use of alternative sources of energy, or ‘green’ energy, is a positive trend of development, and indeed their use should be encouraged further.
As the demand for energy worldwide is increasing the strains on the existing and already limited resources also increase. To solve this problem, we must consider two issues: how to better use the existing, limited fossil fuel resources and how we can encourage the use of alternative energy sources.
It is universally acknowledged that there is a limitation on the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Some countries are rich in oil deposits like OPEC, whereas China is rich in coal deposits and Russia in natural gas. Others, such as Japan and Germany, are completely dependent on the import of resources. For all countries- resource-rich versus resource-poor, alternative energy should be encouraged and utilised to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as well as to keep the global environment in balance and ‘healthy’.
The only way is to turn to other sources to get energy supply. Wind power and solar power are at present feasible alternatives. France is one country that has the advanced technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun. Both kinds of power can reduce a country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, they do not pollute the environment and in turn, help keep the ecosystem stable.
To conclude, while fossil fuel resources are diminishing, the energy demand continues to increase year after year. It is a positive trend to develop other alternative sources of power and experiences should be shared and promoted. If this switch to alternative energy is encouraged early enough, then we may yet avoid the pending energy crisis and environmental disaster.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 250K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.