Ôn thi Tốt nghiệp THPT môn Tiếng Anh (Đề 11)

(26) ________ in technology have made a lot of changes to our everyday lifestyles, but one of the biggest has got to be how we read books. Since the invention of the e-book, there has been a significant change to our reading habits. Given the choice between taking a couple of heavy paperbacks on holiday or an e- book device like a Kindle, most of us, including our parents and grandparents, would unsurprisingly opt (27) ________ Kindle. 

But what would our lives be like with no books at all? It's a (28) ________ question. Some educational specialists are making predictions that in the future we won't even see books in classrooms - everything will be done online! (29) ________ of the idea of getting rid of books say that there will always be a need for paper-based versions of materials. (30) ________, to be realistic, we have to accept that there is a remote chance that in a decade's time, schools and classrooms will be book-free! What do you think of that?

          Are organically grown foods the best food choices? The advantages claimed for such foods over conventionally grown and marketed food products are now being debated. Advocates of organic foods - a term whose meaning varies greatly - frequently proclaim that such products are safer and more nutritious than others. 

          The growing interest of consumers in the safety and nutritional quality of the typical North American diet is a welcome development. However, much of this interest has been sparked by sweeping claims that the food supply is unsafe or inadequate in meeting nutritional needs. Although most of these claims are not supported by scientific evidence, the preponderance of written material advancing such claims makes it difficult for the general public to separate fact from fiction. As a result, claims that eating a diet consisting entirely of organically grown foods prevents or cures disease or provides other benefits to health have become widely publicised and form the basis for folklore. 

          Almost daily the public is besieged by claims for "no-aging" diets, new vitamins, and other wonder foods. There are numerous unsubstantiated reports that natural vitamins are superior to synthetic ones, that fertilised eggs are nutritionally superior to unfertilised eggs, that untreated grains are better than fumigated grains, and the like. 

          One thing that most organically grown food products seem to have in common is that they cost more than conventionally grown foods. But in many cases, consumers are misled if they believe organic foods can maintain health and provide better nutritional quality than conventionally grown foods. Therefore, there is real cause for concern if consumers, particularly those with limited incomes, distrust the regular food supply and buy only expensive organic foods instead. 

          In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones are in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn't hard to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction. 

          Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents. 

          But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice? 

          Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others. 

          Of course, there’s always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn’t been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds - or avoid doing anything incriminating in public - for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?

          The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We  are natural  gossips and  backbiters, and  while those  might not  be desirable

behaviours,  they  oil  the wheels of our  social  interactions. Once people  assume  they are

being filmed, they are likely to clam up. 

          The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet, but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."