Đề thi thử THPT 2026 môn Tiếng anh – Sở GDĐT Đồng Tháp

Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best arrangement of utterances or sentences to make a cohesive and coherent exchange or text in each of the following questions from 9 to 13.

Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best arrangement of utterances or sentences to make a cohesive and coherent exchange or text in each of the following questions from 9 to 13.

Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best arrangement of utterances or sentences to make a cohesive and coherent exchange or text in each of the following questions from 9 to 13.

Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best arrangement of utterances or sentences to make a cohesive and coherent exchange or text in each of the following questions from 9 to 13.

Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best arrangement of utterances or sentences to make a cohesive and coherent exchange or text in each of the following questions from 9 to 13.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following announcement and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 14 to 19.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 20 to 24.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 20 to 24.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 20 to 24.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 20 to 24.

Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 20 to 24.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 25 to 34.
We seem to be entering a boom era for the “15-minute city” – the tactic of redesigning urban areas to prioritize pedestrians over cars. Picture running a traditional sprawling metropolis: meaningful traffic reduction would demand painful negotiations, huge infrastructure budgets, and a full redesign of the transit model. Adopting a “bike-friendly” label for a few downtown streets is far easier, buying time while overall car dependency remains untouched.
Citizens meet this urban planning sleight of hand everywhere. Mayors sell “green” avenues, councils boast about “pedestrian zones”, and basic painted bike lanes are re-labelled as revolutionary mobility networks. Political spin is old, yet today it is manipulated to overstate the actual livability of these neighborhoods. Urban influencers and glossy architectural magazines amplify these claims, broadcasting the narrative far beyond traditional town hall meetings.
The concept of localized living emerged decades ago, but hastily rebranding cities has exploded only recently. Intensifying public anxiety over gridlock traffic and air pollution has placed city planners under sharp scrutiny; many politicians therefore choose eye-catching PR over the tougher route of overhauling zoning laws, expanding public transit, and restricting private vehicles. This political maneuver allows them to appease voters while enforcement still lags behind municipal marketing ingenuity. Exhausted commuters, eager for a shorter trip to work, frequently applaud these surface-level initiatives, reinforcing the cycle.
Why does this matter? Over-hyped urban projects and car-centric planning share a core objective to postpone the deep systemic reforms claimed by mobility experts as urgent in this decade. [I] Traditional highway expansion had obvious flaws that the public could easily recognize and criticize. [II] Unregulated “smart” urbanism misleads citizens into believing the traffic problem is instantly solved by simple painted lines. [III] This illusion thereby erodes advocacy for genuine infrastructure investment. [IV] In effect, it acts as a soothing lullaby, guiding society away from active commuting while fostering a false sense of progress. Exposing the facade – and insisting on comprehensive, accessible transit networks – is essential if rhetoric is to give way to real mobility.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.

Read the following leaflet and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the option that best fits each of the numbered blanks from 35 to 40.