IELTS Reading: Ảnh Hưởng Của Mạng Xã Hội Đến Dư Luận – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Mở Bài

Trong kỷ nguyên số hiện nay, mạng xã hội đã trở thành một lực lượng định hình dư luận cộng đồng mạnh mẽ chưa từng có. Chủ đề “The Influence Of Social Networks On Public Opinion” (Ảnh hưởng của mạng xã hội đến dư luận) xuất hiện ngày càng thường xuyên trong các đề thi IELTS Reading thực tế, phản ánh tầm quan trọng của nó trong đời sống xã hội đương đại. Đây là một chủ đề đa chiều, liên quan đến công nghệ, truyền thông, tâm lý học và khoa học xã hội.

Bài viết này cung cấp cho bạn một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với 3 passages có độ khó tăng dần từ Easy đến Hard. Bạn sẽ được luyện tập với 40 câu hỏi đa dạng, bao gồm Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given, Yes/No/Not Given, Matching Headings, Summary Completion và nhiều dạng bài khác – tất cả đều theo format chuẩn IELTS. Mỗi câu hỏi đều có đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể về vị trí thông tin và cách paraphrase, giúp bạn hiểu rõ phương pháp làm bài.

Đề thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với cấu trúc bài thi thật, nâng cao kỹ năng đọc hiểu và tích lũy vốn từ vựng học thuật quan trọng về chủ đề công nghệ – truyền thông.

Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút và bao gồm 3 passages với tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, và tổng điểm sẽ được quy đổi thành band score từ 1-9.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1: 15-17 phút (độ khó Easy)
• Passage 2: 18-20 phút (độ khó Medium)
• Passage 3: 23-25 phút (độ khó Hard)

Lưu ý quan trọng: Không có thời gian chuyển đáp án riêng, bạn cần viết đáp án vào Answer Sheet trong vòng 60 phút.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

1. Multiple Choice – Chọn đáp án đúng từ các phương án cho sẵn
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hay không được đề cập
3. Yes/No/Not Given – Xác định ý kiến của tác giả
4. Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề phù hợp với các đoạn văn
5. Summary Completion – Hoàn thành đoạn tóm tắt
6. Matching Features – Nối thông tin với đặc điểm tương ứng
7. Short-answer Questions – Trả lời câu hỏi ngắn

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – The Rise of Social Media and Its Initial Impact

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

The emergence of social media platforms over the past two decades has fundamentally transformed how people communicate, share information, and form opinions about the world around them. What began as simple networking sites for college students has evolved into a global phenomenon that influences billions of people daily. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have become integral parts of modern life, shaping not only personal relationships but also public discourse and political landscapes.

The first recognizable social media site, Six Degrees, was launched in 1997, allowing users to create profiles and list their friends. However, it was the arrival of Facebook in 2004 that truly revolutionized the landscape. Mark Zuckerberg’s platform initially targeted college students but quickly expanded to include users of all ages and backgrounds. By 2012, Facebook had reached one billion active users, demonstrating the unprecedented speed at which social media could penetrate global consciousness. This rapid adoption was driven by several factors: the increasing availability of internet access, the proliferation of smartphones, and the human desire for connection and self-expression.

Social media platforms offer users the ability to share thoughts, images, and videos instantly with a potentially unlimited audience. This capability has democratized information distribution, breaking down the traditional gatekeeping role of mainstream media outlets. In the past, news organizations, publishers, and broadcasters controlled what information reached the public. Today, anyone with a smartphone can become a content creator, sharing their perspective on current events, social issues, or personal experiences. This shift has been both empowering and problematic.

On the positive side, social media has given marginalized communities a voice they previously lacked. Grassroots movements can now organize and spread awareness without requiring substantial financial resources or traditional media support. The Arab Spring of 2011 demonstrated how social media could facilitate political mobilization, as protesters across the Middle East used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to coordinate demonstrations and share information about government actions. Similarly, movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter gained momentum through social media, bringing attention to issues that had been underreported by traditional media.

The immediacy of social media has also changed how people consume news. Rather than waiting for the evening broadcast or the next day’s newspaper, users can access breaking news within minutes of an event occurring. This real-time information flow has made populations more informed about global events. During natural disasters or emergencies, social media serves as a crucial communication tool, allowing people to check on loved ones, request assistance, or share important safety information.

However, the transformation has not been entirely positive. The same features that make social media empowering can also make it dangerous. The removal of traditional gatekeepers means that unverified information can spread just as quickly as factual news. There are no editors fact-checking posts before they go live, and the viral nature of social media means that false information can reach millions before corrections can be made. This has led to the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, terms that have become increasingly common in public discourse.

The business model of most social media platforms is based on advertising revenue, which depends on user engagement. Platforms use sophisticated algorithms to determine what content appears in each user’s feed, and these algorithms tend to prioritize content that generates strong emotional responses, as such content is more likely to be shared, commented on, or liked. This has created what some researchers call “engagement bias,” where sensational or controversial content receives more visibility than nuanced or balanced reporting.

Furthermore, social media has contributed to the creation of “echo chambers” or “filter bubbles.” These terms refer to situations where users primarily encounter information and opinions that align with their existing beliefs. The algorithms that curate content feeds learn user preferences and show them more of what they already like or agree with. While this creates a more personalized user experience, it can also reinforce existing biases and reduce exposure to diverse viewpoints. When people only encounter perspectives similar to their own, it becomes easier to view those with different opinions as not just wrong but incomprehensible or even threatening.

The impact of social media on public opinion has become a topic of intense study among researchers, policymakers, and technology companies themselves. Understanding how these platforms shape collective thinking is essential for addressing the challenges they present while preserving their benefits. As social media continues to evolve, society must grapple with questions about regulation, responsibility, and the role these platforms should play in democratic discourse.

Questions 1-13

Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

1. According to the passage, what was significant about Facebook’s growth by 2012?
A) It was the first social media platform to exist
B) It demonstrated how quickly social media could become widespread
C) It only attracted young users
D) It replaced all traditional media outlets

2. The passage suggests that social media has “democratized” information distribution by:
A) making all information free
B) requiring government approval for posts
C) allowing anyone to share content widely
D) improving the quality of journalism

3. Which event is mentioned as an example of social media facilitating political action?
A) The 2008 financial crisis
B) The Arab Spring
C) The invention of smartphones
D) The creation of Facebook

4. What problem does the passage identify with social media’s removal of traditional gatekeepers?
A) Too many people can access the internet
B) News spreads too slowly
C) Unverified information can spread rapidly
D) Newspapers are becoming more expensive

5. According to the passage, social media algorithms prioritize content that:
A) is factually accurate
B) comes from verified sources
C) generates strong emotional responses
D) is written by professional journalists

Questions 6-9: True/False/Not Given

Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage?

Write:

• TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
• FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
• NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

6. Six Degrees was more successful than Facebook in its early years.

7. The Arab Spring protests used social media platforms to organize activities.

8. All social media companies are working together to solve the misinformation problem.

9. Social media algorithms are designed to show users content similar to their preferences.

Questions 10-13: Sentence Completion

Complete the sentences below.

Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

10. Social media has given a voice to _____ who previously lacked representation.

11. The business model of most social media platforms relies on _____.

12. “Echo chambers” and “filter bubbles” describe situations where users mainly see content that matches their _____.

13. Society needs to address questions about regulation and the role of social media in _____.

---

PASSAGE 2 – The Mechanisms of Influence: How Social Networks Shape Opinion

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The capacity of social networks to influence public opinion extends far beyond simply providing a platform for information exchange. Understanding the psychological mechanisms and technological architectures underlying this influence is crucial for comprehending the profound impact these platforms have on contemporary society. Multiple factors converge to make social media an exceptionally powerful tool for shaping collective attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

One of the most significant mechanisms is social proof, a psychological phenomenon where individuals look to the behavior of others to guide their own actions, particularly in situations of uncertainty. Social media platforms are designed to capitalize on this tendency through features such as like counts, share numbers, and trending topics. When users see that thousands or millions of people have engaged with particular content, they are more likely to view it as credible, important, or worth their attention, regardless of the content’s actual merit. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where popular content becomes more visible, which leads to even greater popularity.

The concept of homophily—the tendency of individuals to associate with others who are similar to themselves—plays a fundamental role in how opinions spread through social networks. Online, this natural human tendency is amplified by both user choice and algorithmic curation. People tend to follow accounts that share their interests and viewpoints, creating networks of like-minded individuals. Research has shown that these homogeneous networks can create powerful reinforcement effects, where certain ideas or interpretations become normalized within a group while alternative viewpoints are marginalized or absent entirely.

The architecture of social media platforms inherently favors certain types of content over others. Visual content—images and videos—receives significantly more engagement than text-only posts. Emotional content, particularly that which evokes strong feelings such as anger, joy, or fear, generates more sharing and commenting than neutral information. Short, simple messages tend to outperform complex, nuanced arguments. These structural biases mean that public discourse on social media tends toward the visceral and immediate rather than the reflective and analytical. Soundbites triumph over substantive analysis, and outrage often drowns out reasoned debate.

Influencers—individuals who have built large followings on social media—represent another powerful mechanism of opinion formation. These individuals, whether they are celebrities, experts, or ordinary people who have gained popularity, possess the ability to shape the views of their followers. The parasocial relationships that develop between influencers and their audiences create a sense of trust and connection that makes followers particularly receptive to the influencer’s messages. Brands have long recognized this power, leading to the emergence of influencer marketing as a multi-billion-dollar industry. However, the influence extends beyond commercial products to political candidates, social causes, and ideological positions.

The speed at which information travels through social networks creates both opportunities and challenges for opinion formation. A tweet can be retweeted thousands of times within hours, reaching a global audience with unprecedented rapidity. This velocity means that narratives can solidify before competing interpretations have time to emerge. The phrase “going viral” captures this phenomenon—like a biological virus, information can spread exponentially through a population. However, unlike biological viruses, the most “contagious” information is not necessarily the most accurate or beneficial. Misinformation and sensationalized stories often spread faster than careful, factual reporting because they tend to be more emotionally engaging.

Confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms pre-existing beliefs—is exacerbated by social media environments. When users encounter information that challenges their worldview, they can easily dismiss it or seek out alternative sources that align with their perspectives. The abundance of information available online means that for virtually any position, supporting evidence can be found, regardless of that evidence’s quality. This can lead to belief polarization, where exposure to disagreement actually strengthens existing opinions rather than moderating them.

The role of automated accounts, commonly known as bots, adds another layer of complexity to social media influence. These computer programs can generate content, like posts, share information, and interact with users in ways that mimic human behavior. Some estimates suggest that bots account for a significant percentage of social media activity. While some bots serve benign purposes, such as sharing weather updates or news headlines, others are designed to manipulate public opinion by artificially inflating the apparent popularity of certain messages, harassing users with opposing views, or spreading disinformation. The presence of bots makes it difficult for users to assess the genuine level of support for particular ideas or movements.

Microtargeting represents one of the most sophisticated and controversial methods of influence on social media. By collecting vast amounts of data on user behavior, preferences, and demographics, platforms can enable advertisers and political campaigns to direct highly customized messages to specific individuals or groups. This precision targeting means that different people can see entirely different information about the same topic, making it challenging to maintain a shared factual basis for public discourse. The Cambridge Analytica scandal brought this issue to widespread public attention, revealing how personal data from millions of Facebook users was harvested and used for political advertising during the 2016 US presidential election.

Research into echo chambers has produced mixed findings. Some studies suggest that social media users are actually exposed to more diverse viewpoints than traditional media consumers, as the sheer volume of content increases the likelihood of encountering varied perspectives. However, other research indicates that while exposure to opposing views may occur, meaningful engagement with those views is rare. Users may scroll past content they disagree with, dismiss it without consideration, or engage with it only to mock or refute it rather than to genuinely understand alternative positions. The distinction between mere exposure and actual engagement is critical for understanding social media’s impact on opinion formation.

The phenomenon of information cascades explains how quickly consensus can form on social networks, sometimes around inaccurate information. When individuals make decisions based on observations of others’ behavior rather than their own private information, cascades can occur where everyone follows the crowd, even when the crowd is wrong. On social media, this might look like users sharing a story because they see others sharing it, without verifying its accuracy. Once a cascade begins, it becomes self-sustaining, as each additional person who participates provides further evidence to the next person that participation is the correct choice.

Questions 14-26

Questions 14-18: Yes/No/Not Given

Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in the passage?

Write:

• YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer
• NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer
• NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

14. Social proof causes people to trust content based on how many others have engaged with it.

15. Text-based content receives more attention than visual content on social media platforms.

16. All social media bots are designed with harmful intentions.

17. Microtargeting makes it harder for people to share a common understanding of facts.

18. Research unanimously agrees that social media creates echo chambers.

Questions 19-23: Matching Headings

The passage has eleven paragraphs (Paragraphs 1-11). Choose the correct heading for paragraphs 7-11 from the list of headings below.

List of Headings:
i. The speed of information transmission
ii. The impact of automated accounts
iii. The reinforcement of existing beliefs
iv. The complexity of echo chamber research
v. The power of individual content creators
vi. The technique of personalized messaging
vii. The tendency to follow group behavior
viii. The role of similar connections

19. Paragraph 7 __

20. Paragraph 8 __

21. Paragraph 9 __

22. Paragraph 10 __

23. Paragraph 11 __

Questions 24-26: Summary Completion

Complete the summary below.

Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Social media platforms use various features like like counts and 24 to capitalize on the psychological phenomenon of social proof. The platform architecture tends to favor emotional and visual content, meaning that 25 often receives more attention than complex analysis. Additionally, the presence of 26 _____ makes it difficult to determine genuine support levels for ideas or movements.

Ảnh hưởng của mạng xã hội đến việc hình thành dư luận cộng đồng trong thời đại số

---

PASSAGE 3 – The Societal Implications and Future of Social Media’s Influence on Democratic Processes

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The pervasive influence of social networks on public opinion formation has precipitated a fundamental reconsideration of democratic governance, civic participation, and the nature of truth itself in contemporary society. As these platforms have become inextricably woven into the fabric of daily life, their capacity to shape political outcomes, social movements, and collective decision-making has prompted intense scrutiny from academics, policymakers, and civil society organizations. The implications extend far beyond individual user experiences to encompass the structural foundations of democratic institutions and the epistemic frameworks through which societies establish shared understandings of reality.

The concept of the “public sphere,” articulated by philosopher Jürgen Habermas, refers to the domain of social life where public opinion can be formed through rational-critical debate among citizens. Habermas envisioned an idealized space where individuals could engage in reasoned discourse, free from coercion and based on the force of better arguments rather than social hierarchies or economic power. Early proponents of digital communication technologies heralded social media as potentially realizing this vision, creating unprecedented opportunities for inclusive dialogue and participatory democracy. The reality, however, has proven considerably more complex and ambiguous.

Social media platforms have indeed lowered barriers to political participation, enabling citizens to voice opinions, organize collectively, and hold powerful actors accountable in ways that were previously logistically prohibitive or economically unfeasible. The decentralization of information production and distribution has challenged monopolistic control of public discourse by traditional media elites and political establishments. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the Hong Kong protests, and various pro-democracy demonstrations worldwide have leveraged social media for mobilization and coordination with remarkable effectiveness. The ability to rapidly disseminate firsthand accounts, organize protests, and build transnational solidarity represents a genuine expansion of democratic capacity.

However, these democratizing affordances coexist with features that fundamentally undermine the conditions necessary for healthy democratic deliberation. The attention economy that governs social media operation incentivizes sensationalism, polarization, and the exploitation of cognitive biases rather than thoughtful engagement with complex issues. Platform algorithms, optimized for user engagement and advertising revenue, create what legal scholar Cass Sunstein has termed “cybercascades“—self-reinforcing information flows that can rapidly polarize populations and entrench factional divisions. These dynamics are not incidental byproducts but rather intrinsic to the business models that sustain these platforms.

The phenomenon of “computational propaganda“—the use of algorithms, automation, and human curation to deliberately distribute misleading information or manipulate public opinion—represents a qualitatively novel threat to democratic processes. Unlike traditional propaganda, which required substantial resources and was identifiable by its source, computational propaganda can be deployed at minimal cost, scaled exponentially, and disguised through the use of fake accounts, bots, and coordinated inauthentic behavior. State actors, political campaigns, and various interest groups have exploited these capabilities to interfere in elections, suppress dissent, and manufacture the appearance of grassroots support for orchestrated campaigns—a practice known as “astroturfing.”

The 2016 US presidential election served as a watershed moment in public recognition of these vulnerabilities. Subsequent investigations revealed extensive efforts by foreign actors to use social media platforms to sow division, amplify extreme voices, and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, created thousands of fake accounts across multiple platforms, generating content that reached hundreds of millions of users. Similar tactics have been documented in elections and referenda across numerous countries, suggesting a systematic weaponization of social media against democratic processes.

The challenge of content moderation presents a profound dilemma for platform companies and societies more broadly. Allowing unfettered speech can facilitate the spread of harmful disinformation, hate speech, and incitements to violence, while aggressive moderation raises concerns about censorship, bias, and the concentration of power over public discourse in the hands of unelected corporate entities. The sheer volume of content posted daily—estimates suggest hundreds of millions of posts across major platforms—makes comprehensive human review logistically impossible, necessitating reliance on artificial intelligence systems whose opacity and potential for error are well-documented. The question of who should determine the boundaries of acceptable speech in these digital public squares remains deeply contentious.

The erosion of trust in traditional institutional gatekeepers—journalism, academia, scientific institutions, and government bodies—has been both a cause and consequence of social media’s rise. While these institutions undoubtedly possessed imperfections and sometimes failed in their responsibilities, they provided mechanisms for verification, accountability, and expertise-based evaluation of information. The flattening of epistemic hierarchies on social media, where a medical professional’s vaccine information competes on equal footing with conspiracy theories, has contributed to what some scholars characterize as “epistemic chaos“—a state where citizens lack reliable methods for distinguishing truth from falsehood and expertise from charlatanism.

The concept of “information disorders” has emerged as a framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of problematic content on social media. This encompasses misinformation (false information shared without harmful intent), disinformation (false information deliberately created and shared to cause harm), and malinformation (genuine information shared to cause harm, such as leaked private data or decontextualized facts). Each type presents distinct challenges and requires different responses. The oversimplified narrative of “fake news” obscures these distinctions and can itself become a tool for dismissing legitimate criticism or inconvenient facts.

Regulatory responses to these challenges have varied considerably across jurisdictions, reflecting different cultural values, legal traditions, and political contexts. The European Union has taken a proactive stance with regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed Digital Services Act, which seek to impose transparency requirements, establish content moderation standards, and create accountability mechanisms for platforms. Germany’s NetzDG law requires social networks to remove illegal content within specific timeframes or face substantial fines. Conversely, the United States has largely maintained a more hands-off approach, grounded in strong constitutional protections for free speech, though this position is increasingly contested across the political spectrum.

China represents an alternative model entirely, employing extensive state control over digital platforms, sophisticated censorship infrastructure, and the integration of social media monitoring into broader systems of social control. While effective at preventing certain types of content from circulating, this approach raises fundamental questions about individual liberty, state power, and the feasibility or desirability of such comprehensive control in pluralistic democracies. The divergent paths taken by different societies in addressing social media’s influence on public opinion reflect deeper tensions between competing values: free expression versus social protection, individual privacy versus collective security, and innovation versus precaution.

Looking forward, several potential developments may reshape social media’s influence on public opinion. Technological advances in artificial intelligence could enable more sophisticated manipulation but also more effective detection of inauthentic behavior and misleading content. The possibility of decentralized social networks, based on blockchain or similar technologies, could redistribute power away from centralized platforms, though such systems face their own challenges regarding governance and content moderation. Digital literacy education—teaching citizens to critically evaluate online information—is increasingly recognized as essential, though its efficacy in countering sophisticated manipulation remains uncertain.

The question of whether social media’s influence on public opinion ultimately strengthens or weakens democratic systems may depend less on the technologies themselves than on the regulatory frameworks, social norms, and institutional adaptations societies develop in response. The challenge lies in preserving the genuine benefits—enhanced connectivity, lowered barriers to participation, and diverse information access—while mitigating the threats to shared truth, constructive dialogue, and informed decision-making that these platforms have introduced. As these technologies continue to evolve, so too must our understanding of their implications and our capacity to shape their trajectory toward democratically beneficial ends.

Questions 27-40

Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

27. According to the passage, Habermas’s concept of the “public sphere” involves:
A) social media platforms controlling public debate
B) rational discussion among citizens free from coercion
C) government regulation of online speech
D) commercial interests driving public discourse

28. The passage suggests that social media platforms’ business models:
A) prioritize thoughtful engagement with complex issues
B) are designed to eliminate political polarization
C) incentivize sensationalism and exploitation of cognitive biases
D) focus primarily on user privacy protection

29. “Computational propaganda” differs from traditional propaganda because it:
A) requires more financial resources
B) is always created by government agencies
C) can be deployed at minimal cost and scaled exponentially
D) is easier for users to identify

30. The Internet Research Agency is mentioned as an example of:
A) a social media platform
B) foreign interference in democratic processes
C) a content moderation company
D) a digital literacy organization

31. According to the passage, which approach to social media regulation has Europe primarily adopted?
A) A hands-off approach with minimal regulation
B) Complete state control like China
C) Proactive regulations with transparency requirements
D) Banning social media platforms entirely

Questions 32-36: Matching Features

Match each concept (32-36) with the correct description (A-H) from the list below.

32. Astroturfing
33. Cybercascades
34. Epistemic chaos
35. Information disorders
36. Malinformation

List of Descriptions:
A) A framework encompassing misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation
B) The inability of citizens to distinguish truth from falsehood reliably
C) Self-reinforcing information flows that polarize populations
D) Genuine information shared with harmful intent
E) The use of bots to spread propaganda
F) Manufacturing the appearance of grassroots support for orchestrated campaigns
G) Government censorship of online content
H) Educational programs about digital media

Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions

Answer the questions below.

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

37. What does the passage say social media platforms have lowered regarding political participation?

38. What type of AI systems does the passage mention are used for content moderation, whose opacity is well-documented?

39. According to the passage, what has been both a cause and consequence of social media’s rise?

40. What does the passage identify as increasingly recognized as essential for helping citizens evaluate online information?

Cơ chế tâm lý và công nghệ của mạng xã hội trong việc định hình quan điểm công chúng

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. B
2. C
3. B
4. C
5. C
6. FALSE
7. TRUE
8. NOT GIVEN
9. TRUE
10. marginalized communities
11. advertising revenue
12. existing beliefs
13. democratic discourse

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. YES
15. NO
16. NO
17. YES
18. NO
19. iii
20. ii
21. vi
22. iv
23. vii
24. trending topics
25. soundbites / outrage
26. bots / automated accounts

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. C
29. C
30. B
31. C
32. F
33. C
34. B
35. A
36. D
37. barriers
38. artificial intelligence (systems)
39. erosion of trust
40. digital literacy education

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Facebook, 2012, significant
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: Câu trong bài viết “By 2012, Facebook had reached one billion active users, demonstrating the unprecedented speed at which social media could penetrate global consciousness” được paraphrase thành đáp án B “demonstrated how quickly social media could become widespread”. “Unprecedented speed” = “how quickly”, “penetrate global consciousness” = “become widespread”.

Câu 2: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: democratized, information distribution
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói “This capability has democratized information distribution, breaking down the traditional gatekeeping role” và “anyone with a smartphone can become a content creator”. Đây được paraphrase thành “allowing anyone to share content widely”.

Câu 3: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: event, example, political action
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Bài viết đề cập “The Arab Spring of 2011 demonstrated how social media could facilitate political mobilization”. Đây là ví dụ rõ ràng về việc mạng xã hội tạo điều kiện cho hành động chính trị.

Câu 4: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: problem, removal, traditional gatekeepers
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “The removal of traditional gatekeepers means that unverified information can spread just as quickly as factual news” – điều này được paraphrase trực tiếp trong đáp án C.

Câu 5: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: algorithms, prioritize
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: “These algorithms tend to prioritize content that generates strong emotional responses” – đáp án C lặp lại chính xác thông tin này.

Câu 6: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Six Degrees, more successful, Facebook, early years
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói Six Degrees ra đời năm 1997, nhưng “it was the arrival of Facebook in 2004 that truly revolutionized the landscape” và Facebook đạt 1 tỷ người dùng năm 2012. Điều này cho thấy Facebook thành công hơn, ngược lại với câu phát biểu.

Câu 7: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Arab Spring, social media, organize
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4
• Giải thích: “Protesters across the Middle East used platforms like Twitter and Facebook to coordinate demonstrations” – thông tin khớp chính xác với câu phát biểu.

Câu 8: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: social media companies, working together, misinformation
• Vị trí trong bài: Không có thông tin
• Giải thích: Bài viết không đề cập đến việc các công ty mạng xã hội có hợp tác với nhau để giải quyết vấn đề thông tin sai lệch hay không.

Câu 9: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: algorithms, show users, similar preferences
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “The algorithms that curate content feeds learn user preferences and show them more of what they already like or agree with” – khớp với câu phát biểu.

Câu 10: marginalized communities

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: given a voice, previously lacked
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “Social media has given marginalized communities a voice they previously lacked” – cụm từ cần điền chính xác là “marginalized communities”.

Câu 11: advertising revenue

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: business model, relies on
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “The business model of most social media platforms is based on advertising revenue” – “based on” = “relies on”.

Câu 12: existing beliefs

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: echo chambers, filter bubbles, content matches
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Users primarily encounter information and opinions that align with their existing beliefs” – cụm từ cần điền là “existing beliefs”.

Câu 13: democratic discourse

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: questions, regulation, role of social media
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, câu cuối
• Giải thích: “Questions about regulation, responsibility, and the role these platforms should play in democratic discourse” – cụm từ cuối cùng là đáp án.

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: social proof, trust content, others engaged
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: “When users see that thousands or millions of people have engaged with particular content, they are more likely to view it as credible” – đây là quan điểm rõ ràng của tác giả về social proof.

Câu 15: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: text-based content, more attention, visual content
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2
• Giải thích: “Visual content—images and videos—receives significantly more engagement than text-only posts” – điều này trực tiếp mâu thuẫn với câu phát biểu.

Câu 16: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all bots, harmful intentions
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 5-6
• Giải thích: “While some bots serve benign purposes, such as sharing weather updates or news headlines, others are designed to manipulate” – không phải tất cả bot đều có mục đích xấu.

Câu 17: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: microtargeting, harder, common understanding, facts
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 4-5
• Giải thích: “Making it challenging to maintain a shared factual basis for public discourse” – tác giả rõ ràng đồng ý với quan điểm này.

Câu 18: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: research, unanimously agrees, echo chambers
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “Research into echo chambers has produced mixed findings” – từ “mixed findings” cho thấy không có sự đồng thuận, mâu thuẫn với “unanimously agrees”.

Câu 19: iii (The reinforcement of existing beliefs)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7
• Giải thích: Đoạn 7 nói về “confirmation bias” và cách mọi người tìm kiếm thông tin củng cố niềm tin hiện có, dẫn đến “belief polarization”.

Câu 20: ii (The impact of automated accounts)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8
• Giải thích: Đoạn 8 tập trung vào vai trò của bots (automated accounts) và cách chúng ảnh hưởng đến mạng xã hội.

Câu 21: vi (The technique of personalized messaging)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9
• Giải thích: Đoạn 9 thảo luận về microtargeting và customized messages được gửi đến các cá nhân hoặc nhóm cụ thể.

Câu 22: iv (The complexity of echo chamber research)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10
• Giải thích: Đoạn 10 trình bày “mixed findings” từ nghiên cứu về echo chambers, cho thấy sự phức tạp của vấn đề này.

Câu 23: vii (The tendency to follow group behavior)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 11
• Giải thích: Đoạn 11 giải thích về “information cascades” – hiện tượng mọi người đưa ra quyết định dựa trên hành vi của người khác.

Câu 24: trending topics

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: like counts, social proof
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “Features such as like counts, share numbers, and trending topics” – đáp án là “trending topics”.

Câu 25: soundbites / outrage

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: favor emotional content, more attention, complex analysis
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-6
• Giải thích: “Soundbites triumph over substantive analysis, and outrage often drowns out reasoned debate” – cả hai từ đều chấp nhận được.

Câu 26: bots / automated accounts

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: difficult, determine genuine support
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: “The presence of bots makes it difficult for users to assess the genuine level of support” – cả “bots” và “automated accounts” đều đúng.

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Habermas, public sphere
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “Rational-critical debate among citizens” và “reasoned discourse, free from coercion” mô tả khái niệm public sphere của Habermas.

Câu 28: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: business models, social media platforms
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “The attention economy…incentivizes sensationalism, polarization, and the exploitation of cognitive biases” – đáp án C paraphrase chính xác thông tin này.

Câu 29: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: computational propaganda, differs, traditional propaganda
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “Unlike traditional propaganda, which required substantial resources…computational propaganda can be deployed at minimal cost, scaled exponentially” – đáp án C tóm tắt sự khác biệt này.

Câu 30: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Internet Research Agency
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: “The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, created thousands of fake accounts” để can thiệp vào bầu cử Mỹ – đây là ví dụ về foreign interference.

Câu 31: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Europe, approach, regulation
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “The European Union has taken a proactive stance with regulations such as…GDPR…which seek to impose transparency requirements” – đáp án C mô tả chính xác cách tiếp cận này.

Câu 32: F

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: “Astroturfing” được định nghĩa là “manufacture the appearance of grassroots support for orchestrated campaigns”.

Câu 33: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5
• Giải thích: “Cybercascades” được mô tả là “self-reinforcing information flows that can rapidly polarize populations”.

Câu 34: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 6-7
• Giải thích: “Epistemic chaos” là “a state where citizens lack reliable methods for distinguishing truth from falsehood”.

Câu 35: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Information disorders” là “a framework” bao gồm “misinformation…disinformation…and malinformation”.

Câu 36: D

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 3
• Giải thích: “Malinformation” là “genuine information shared to cause harm”.

Câu 37: barriers

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
• Từ khóa: lowered, political participation
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “Social media platforms have indeed lowered barriers to political participation”.

Câu 38: artificial intelligence (systems)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
• Từ khóa: content moderation, opacity, well-documented
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: “Necessitating reliance on artificial intelligence systems whose opacity and potential for error are well-documented”.

Câu 39: erosion of trust

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
• Từ khóa: cause and consequence, social media’s rise
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “The erosion of trust in traditional institutional gatekeepers…has been both a cause and consequence of social media’s rise”.

Câu 40: digital literacy education

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
• Từ khóa: increasingly recognized, essential, evaluate online information
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 12, dòng 4-5
• Giải thích: “Digital literacy education—teaching citizens to critically evaluate online information—is increasingly recognized as essential”.

Các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến trong bài thi IELTS Reading với chủ đề mạng xã hội

---

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
global phenomenon	n	/ˈɡləʊbəl fəˈnɒmɪnən/	hiện tượng toàn cầu	Social media has become a global phenomenon	worldwide phenomenon, cultural phenomenon
integral parts	n	/ˈɪntɪɡrəl pɑːts/	bộ phận không thể thiếu	Platforms have become integral parts of modern life	integral component, integral element
public discourse	n	/ˈpʌblɪk ˈdɪskɔːs/	diễn ngôn công cộng	Shaping public discourse and political landscapes	political discourse, social discourse
revolutionized	v	/ˌrevəˈluːʃənaɪzd/	cách mạng hóa	Facebook revolutionized the landscape	revolutionize communication, revolutionize industry
unprecedented speed	n	/ʌnˈpresɪdentɪd spiːd/	tốc độ chưa từng có	The unprecedented speed of adoption	unprecedented scale, unprecedented level
penetrate	v	/ˈpenɪtreɪt/	thâm nhập	Penetrate global consciousness	penetrate the market, deeply penetrate
proliferation	n	/prəˌlɪfəˈreɪʃən/	sự lan tràn	The proliferation of smartphones	nuclear proliferation, rapid proliferation
democratized	v	/dɪˈmɒkrətaɪzd/	dân chủ hóa	Democratized information distribution	democratize access, democratize education
gatekeeping	n	/ˈɡeɪtkiːpɪŋ/	vai trò kiểm soát	Breaking down the gatekeeping role	media gatekeeping, gatekeeping function
marginalized communities	n	/ˈmɑːdʒɪnəlaɪzd kəˈmjuːnətiz/	cộng đồng thiểu số	Given marginalized communities a voice	marginalized groups, marginalized populations
grassroots movements	n	/ˈɡrɑːsruːts ˈmuːvmənts/	phong trào cơ sở	Grassroots movements can now organize	grassroots campaign, grassroots activism
momentum	n	/məʊˈmentəm/	động lực, đà phát triển	Movements gained momentum through social media	gain momentum, build momentum, gather momentum

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
psychological mechanisms	n	/ˌsaɪkəˈlɒdʒɪkəl ˈmekənɪzəmz/	cơ chế tâm lý	Understanding the psychological mechanisms	defense mechanisms, cognitive mechanisms
technological architectures	n	/ˌteknəˈlɒdʒɪkəl ˈɑːkɪtektʃəz/	kiến trúc công nghệ	Technological architectures underlying influence	system architecture, network architecture
capitalize on	v	/ˈkæpɪtəlaɪz ɒn/	tận dụng, khai thác	Platforms capitalize on this tendency	capitalize on opportunities, capitalize on strengths
self-reinforcing cycle	n	/self ˌriːɪnˈfɔːsɪŋ ˈsaɪkəl/	chu kỳ tự củng cố	Creates a self-reinforcing cycle	vicious cycle, reinforcing loop
homophily	n	/həˈmɒfɪli/	xu hướng đồng dạng	The concept of homophily plays a role	social homophily, network homophily
amplified	v	/ˈæmplɪfaɪd/	khuếch đại	This tendency is amplified online	amplify the effect, greatly amplified
homogeneous networks	n	/ˌhɒməˈdʒiːniəs ˈnetwɜːks/	mạng lưới đồng nhất	Homogeneous networks create reinforcement	homogeneous group, relatively homogeneous
normalized	v	/ˈnɔːməlaɪzd/	được chuẩn hóa	Ideas become normalized within a group	normalize relations, normalize behavior
visceral	adj	/ˈvɪsərəl/	bản năng, thuộc nội tạng	Toward the visceral and immediate	visceral reaction, visceral response
parasocial relationships	n	/ˌpærəˈsəʊʃəl rɪˈleɪʃənʃɪps/	mối quan hệ đơn phương	Parasocial relationships develop between influencers	parasocial interaction, one-sided relationship
unprecedented rapidity	n	/ʌnˈpresɪdentɪd rəˈpɪdəti/	sự nhanh chóng chưa từng có	Information travels with unprecedented rapidity	remarkable rapidity, increasing rapidity
confirmation bias	n	/ˌkɒnfəˈmeɪʃən ˈbaɪəs/	thiên kiến xác nhận	Confirmation bias is exacerbated online	cognitive bias, implicit bias
exacerbated	v	/ɪɡˈzæsəbeɪtɪd/	làm trầm trọng thêm	Bias is exacerbated by social media	exacerbate the problem, severely exacerbated
microtargeting	n	/ˈmaɪkrəʊˌtɑːɡɪtɪŋ/	nhắm mục tiêu vi mô	Microtargeting represents sophisticated influence	political microtargeting, precision targeting
customized messages	n	/ˈkʌstəmaɪzd ˈmesɪdʒɪz/	thông điệp tùy chỉnh	Direct customized messages to individuals	customized service, highly customized

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
pervasive influence	n	/pəˈveɪsɪv ˈɪnfluəns/	ảnh hưởng lan tràn	The pervasive influence on public opinion	pervasive effect, increasingly pervasive
precipitated	v	/prɪˈsɪpɪteɪtɪd/	làm xảy ra đột ngột	Has precipitated a reconsideration	precipitate a crisis, precipitate change
inextricably woven	adj	/ˌɪnɪkˈstrɪkəbli ˈwəʊvən/	gắn chặt không tách rời	Inextricably woven into daily life	inextricably linked, inextricably connected
epistemic frameworks	n	/ˌepɪˈstemɪk ˈfreɪmwɜːks/	khung nhận thức	Epistemic frameworks for shared understanding	theoretical framework, conceptual framework
rational-critical debate	n	/ˈræʃənəl ˈkrɪtɪkəl dɪˈbeɪt/	tranh luận lý trí phê phán	Through rational-critical debate among citizens	critical thinking, rational discourse
heralded	v	/ˈherəldɪd/	báo hiệu, tuyên bố	Proponents heralded social media	herald a new era, widely heralded
logistically prohibitive	adj	/ləˈdʒɪstɪkli prəˈhɪbɪtɪv/	cấm về mặt hậu cần	Previously logistically prohibitive	prohibitively expensive, prohibitive cost
democratizing affordances	n	/dɪˈmɒkrətaɪzɪŋ əˈfɔːdənsɪz/	khả năng dân chủ hóa	Democratizing affordances of platforms	technological affordances, digital affordances
computational propaganda	n	/ˌkɒmpjuˈteɪʃənəl ˌprɒpəˈɡændə/	tuyên truyền bằng máy tính	The phenomenon of computational propaganda	political propaganda, spread propaganda
qualitatively novel	adj	/ˈkwɒlɪtətɪvli ˈnɒvəl/	mới về chất lượng	Represents a qualitatively novel threat	qualitatively different, novel approach
coordinated inauthentic behavior	n	/kəʊˈɔːdɪneɪtɪd ˌɪnɔːˈθentɪk bɪˈheɪvjə/	hành vi giả mạo có phối hợp	Disguised through coordinated inauthentic behavior	authentic engagement, authentic content
astroturfing	n	/ˈæstrəʊtɜːfɪŋ/	giả vờ phong trào cơ sở	A practice known as astroturfing	political astroturfing, corporate astroturfing
watershed moment	n	/ˈwɔːtəʃed ˈməʊmənt/	khoảnh khắc bước ngoặt	Served as a watershed moment	watershed event, watershed decision
sow division	v	/səʊ dɪˈvɪʒən/	gieo rắc chia rẽ	Use social media to sow division	sow discord, sow confusion
unfettered speech	n	/ʌnˈfetəd spiːtʃ/	tự do ngôn luận không hạn chế	Allowing unfettered speech can facilitate harm	unfettered access, unfettered power
epistemic chaos	n	/ˌepɪˈstemɪk ˈkeɪɒs/	hỗn loạn nhận thức	Contributed to epistemic chaos	cognitive chaos, informational chaos
charlatanism	n	/ˈʃɑːlətənɪzəm/	sự lừa đảo	Expertise from charlatanism	quackery and charlatanism
decontextualized	adj	/ˌdiːkənˈtekstʃuəlaɪzd/	bị đưa ra khỏi ngữ cảnh	Such as decontextualized facts	decontextualized information

---

Kết Bài

Chủ đề “The influence of social networks on public opinion” không chỉ là một đề tài học thuật quan trọng mà còn phản ánh thực tế đời sống mà chúng ta đang trải qua hàng ngày. Qua ba passages với độ khó tăng dần, bạn đã được tiếp cận với nhiều khía cạnh khác nhau của vấn đề: từ sự phát triển ban đầu của mạng xã hội, các cơ chế tâm lý và công nghệ tác động đến dư luận, cho đến những hệ quả sâu rộng đối với quy trình dân chủ và tương lai của xã hội.

Bộ đề thi mẫu này cung cấp cho bạn 40 câu hỏi đa dạng với 7 dạng bài khác nhau, giúp bạn làm quen với format thi IELTS Reading thực tế. Đặc biệt, phần giải thích đáp án chi tiết không chỉ cho bạn biết đáp án đúng là gì, mà còn hướng dẫn cách xác định vị trí thông tin trong bài, nhận diện paraphrase và áp dụng kỹ thuật làm bài hiệu quả.

Hơn 50 từ vựng học thuật được trình bày trong bảng từ vựng sẽ giúp bạn nâng cao vốn từ về chủ đề công nghệ – truyền thông – xã hội, những lĩnh vực thường xuyên xuất hiện trong IELTS Reading. Hãy học các từ này kèm với collocations để sử dụng tự nhiên và chính xác hơn.

Để đạt kết quả tốt nhất, bạn nên làm bài test này trong điều kiện giống thi thật: 60 phút, không tra từ điển, và chuyển đáp án vào Answer Sheet. Sau đó, dành thời gian phân tích kỹ những câu làm sai để hiểu rõ lỗi của mình và cải thiện cho lần sau. Chúc bạn ôn tập hiệu quả và đạt band điểm cao trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!