TASK 1:
The provided graph illustrates the US’s energy consumption since the 80s
with 2030 prognostications in a 2008 report.
To summarize, there has been an increasing trend among most of the
energy sources and it will continue in the future, with the exception of
hydropower. It is also the most underutilized source of energy, in contrast to
petrol and oil.
In terms of non-renewable energy, petrol and oil have always been the
predominant fuel type for energy production in the USA. Similar to coal, they
experienced an initial drop in usage around the 80s but quickly recovered, and
they are projected to increase by 15 quadrillion units in 2030. Concerning
natural gas, its and coal’s usage were comparable during the late-90s and early2000s, fluctuating around 20 to 25 quadrillion units, with the latter ultimately
surpassing thereafter.
Renewable energy, however, has not seen as significant a change, and
likely will stay below 10 quadrillion units in the future. Despite all three having
started at the same level – just below 5 quadrillion units in 1980, nuclear and
solar/wind power have been the higher ones and are prognosticated to remain at
that position. Hydropower, albeit having been steadily decreasing in utilization,
remained stagnant at 2.5 quadrillion units somewhere in 2015.
(206 words)
TASK 2: Some feel that individuals should have the right to strike in all
jobs while others feel there are exceptions.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The concept of “striking” in all jobs and the right to do so have been of
contentious dispute among the public. While many are strong proponents of
these actions, others feel that the extent to which striking is appropriate for jobs
should be delimited. Personally, I am in favor of the latter, and this essay will
provide reinforcement of my opinion.
There is a plethora of reasons as to why striking should be applicable for
every job. To commence, it is an effective means of counteracting exploitation.
Advocates argue that the right to strike is capable of putting off countless
unethical business practices – unfair salaries, preferential treatment, poor
working conditions, cutting corners just to name a few. That employers
acknowledge its workers’ rights because of it and thus wouldn’t enforce such
practices upon the workplace. In addition, striking can be utilized to help
improve the industry in which one works. It essentially reflects the quality of
service the public can expect to get, which subsequently invokes a sense of
pressure and responsibility on the superintendents to meet their demand. For
instance, nurses may be striking over job losses that they believe do not
prioritize patients’ safety.
However, unrestricted and unreasonable striking can pose a huge problem
to everyone else. To begin with, strike action may deprive the populace of
public services. They, such as healthcare or education services, are essential and
it’s absolutely paramount that they be available at all times. Therefore, striking
can act as an obstacle interrupting their normal flow, which is irresponsible. For
example, a schoolchild infected with some disease would not recover as quickly
were there no nurses available on school premises. Moreover, impetuous
striking increases the likelihood of individual unemployment. As strikers are
unanimously seen as mercenaries ready to quit at the expense of
inconveniencing the public, they are unlikely to be confided with such
important tasks in the future, thus exacerbating their chances of employment.
In conclusion, while striking helps denounce unfair business practices and
reflect public services’ quality, it is irrefutable that they have the potential to be
detrimental to society if done without careful consideration, including the
deprivation of public services, and the striker’s own financial well-being,
which, in my opinion, has more far-reaching consequences.
(373 từ  làm thế này chắc chết rồi)