Câu 1: PART 1: GRAMMAR (3p)

Choose the correct answers.

1. I’m so cross! I didn’t need to / needn’t have stayed up late last night to finish the
project. Miss Davis doesn’t want it until Monday now!

2. Joe couldn’t / shouldn’t have said those things to Sue. She’s really upset.

3. Peter might / needn’t have phoned while we were out. Check your voice mail.

4. She ought to / shouldn’t have left us a message. We were so worried when she
didn’t come home last night.

5. Mike should / could have won the race if he hadn’t been so tired.

6. Ned and Sandy might not / couldn’t have left until after the rush hour to avoid
the traffic.

7. Steve is terrible. He couldn’t / might have at least started to prepare the dinner
while I was out.

8. I’m afraid I shouldn’t / couldn’t have given you a lift yesterday because my car
was at the garage.

Phần trả lời:

1. needn’t
2. shouldn’t
3. may
4. ought to
5. could
6. couldn’t
7. might
8. couldn’
Câu 2: PART 2: READING (3p)

Read the text.

Don’t reach for the bottle!

We are constantly being warned about climate change and how much we
contribute to the environmental problems our planet is facing but one thing each
and every one of us can do to help is literally at our fingertips. [1 _______]
According to recent reports our obsession with buying and drinking bottled water
significantly increases our carbon footprint. Apparently in America, the largest
market in the world for bottled water, over eight billion gallons is consumed
annually and in the UK the market is worth more than two billion pounds. [2
_____] What is interesting is that according to most experts, bottled water is no
better for us than ordinary tap water. So, we have an alternative in our own
kitchens.
[3 _____] They insist that their water tastes better, has added minerals and comes
in handy plastic bottles that encourage us all to drink more water wherever we are
– something that many medical experts consider to be good for our health. But
does this all really compensate for the 600 fold increase in greenhouse gas that is
put into the atmosphere by producing and delivering the product? [4 _____] And
what about the damage caused by the 75% of plastic bottles that are not recycled
but disposed of in landfill sites? It has been calculated that drinking one bottle of
water has the same environmental impact as driving for one kilometre in a car!
Many people also question the morality of buying a product that is becoming so
scarce in some parts of the world that many people (like a third of those in Fiji) do
not have easy access to it. The moral issue aside, is it really worth buying
something that costs 2,000 times more than an alternative we can already find in
our homes? [5 _____]

Complete the text with sentences A–F. There is one sentence you do not need.

A. The bottled water industry of course refutes these findings.

B. The popular Fiji water travels 10,000 miles from its source on the island of Fiji
to the upmarket UK stores that sell it.

C. And at what cost to the environment?

D. However, not all bottled water has this effect on health.

E. These figures may not be surprising if we compare them with other bottled
drinks.

F. Turn on the tap when we’re thirsty!

Phần trả lời:

1-F 2-E 3-A 4-B 5-C
Câu 3: PART 3: WRITING (4P)

Write a for and against essay with the title: The growth of the air industry must be
restricted to control global warming. Use the writing guide to help you.

Paragraph 1: Describe the current situation.

Paragraph 2: Give points in favour of the statement.

Paragraph 3: Give points against.

Paragraph 4: Summarise and give your opinion.

Phần trả lời:

Nowadays, The growth of the air industry has become a heated topic among the public. While some
individuals say that travel by plane is friendly. I would argue that it has a great effect on global warming.

Summer is travel season. Most flights are already fully booked; many airlines have rented additional
aircraft to deal with hordes of travelers wanting seats; airports are teeming with passengers. In July and
August, more than five million planes will take off — that is more than 80,000 flights each day, more
than 30 million this year. Last year, 3.1 billion passengers took flights somewhere on earth.

A recent survey found that one in four air travelers were highly stressed by airplanes. The impact of
flights on our environments, however, is not much of a concern for people. We rarely think about the
pollution and greenhouse gases that aircraft release into the atmosphere — a major problem, as I will
explain.

Indeed, it is expected that by 2020, the 30 million flights a year will have multiplied to 200 million. The
aviation industry needs to produce five aircraft each day, or close to 10,000 new ones within five years,
to meet the huge current market demand.

Airplanes currently produce 2.5 percent of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) that humanity releases into the
atmosphere through various forms of activity. That may not seem like much, but it is 12 percent of all
transportation vehicles, including all cars, buses, and trains. Each traveler in effect produces 140 grams
of CO2 per kilometer. Car passengers produce about 100g per kilometer, roughly (depending on the
average number of persons per car, the type of fuel used, etc). Put even more strikingly, each kilo of fuel
that an airplane consumes releases 3kg of CO2.
To be fair to the aviation industry, one must note that significant improvements have been made in
aircraft technology to reduce the effects of emissions. In the past 50 years, air pollution per passenger
has been reduced by 75 percent, two-thirds of that just in the last 15 years. But with the exponential
increase in air traffic in recent years, the net atmospheric impact has been worsening, and rather fast:
Production of greenhouse gas emissions by aircraft has increased 83 percent worldwide between 1990
and 2012. Another factor weighing negatively on the problem is the aging of planes — with older ones
being much less fuel-efficient and “clean” as lower-grade airlines are unable to renew their fleet over
short time-spans.

CO2 is not the only bad product of air traffic. Fuel-burning also produces NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) gases,
which are not only bad for the environment (they react chemically to produce Ozone, which is a
greenhouse gas) but also pose hazards. Aircraft engines also release water vapor, which can be seen as
condensation trails (“contrails”) high in the sky behind airplanes, as the water vapor condenses and
freezes around small aerosol particles that are produced in the aircraft’s exhaust.

But while international regulations on aircraft contributing to pollution and production of greenhouse
gases are rather limited and weak, airlines and airports have been making notable efforts lately. In the
international aeronautics exposition that just ended in Paris, some airlines have promised to reduce CO2
emissions per passenger by 20 percent within the next six years, mainly by using cleaner fuels that are
currently under development or in trials. Eyeing the world summit on climate change that will be held
this December in Paris, International Air Transport Association has set ambitious worldwide goals:
Stopping the increase in aircraft production of greenhouse gases by 2020 and reducing them by 50
percent over the next 30 years (compared to the 2005 levels). This will not be easy, considering that the
number of air travelers will probably triple, perhaps more, within a few decades. Yet, these are good
objectives no doubt. Indeed, if we keep the same trends, there is no way we can meet the goal of
keeping the global rise in the Earth’s temperature to 1 to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

What then can and should be done?

First, we must invest in technological solutions that can improve the efficiency of engines, aircraft
aerodynamics, weights of materials, and other technical aspects of aircraft. The aviation industry is also
currently working hard to increase the usage of fuel alternatives, those based on biomass (e.g.
“biokerosene”). Two years ago, Airbus signed a big contract with China Petroleum and Chemical
Corporation to develop an entire refinery to produce fuel based on biomass. One is currently being built
near Shanghai and it will be highly interesting to see what and how much it can produce.
Some Non-governmental organizations are clamoring for a “CO2 tax”, to make air (and other) industries
pay a price for the (negative) environmental impact they make. Those Non-governmental organizations
have seen the fall in oil prices as the best time to introduce such a tax, as airlines (and ticket buyers) will
not be affected so much.

And last but not the least, environment protection agencies have been trying to educate the public on
the importance of using more environment-friendly transportation means. Indeed, as I mentioned
earlier, a trip by car produces 40 percent less CO2 over the same distance, compared to a plane. Much
better still, a train produces four to five times less, while a bus two to three times. Perhaps one of the
best solutions is to develop fast, long-distance trains. At least that way, we will learn to live more slowly
and enjoy beautiful landscapes.