IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A New Law You Would Like To Introduce” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

Mở bài

Chủ đề “Describe A New Law You Would Like To Introduce In Your Country” là một đề bài Part 2 điển hình trong IELTS Speaking, yêu cầu thí sinh phải thể hiện khả năng tư duy phản biện và diễn đạt ý tưởng phức tạp. Đây là dạng câu hỏi thuộc nhóm “social issues” – một trong những chủ đề có tần suất xuất hiện cao trong các kỳ thi IELTS từ 2022 đến nay.

Theo thống kê từ các đề thi thực tế được chia sẻ trên IELTS-Blog.com và IELTSLiz.com, chủ đề về luật pháp và quy định xã hội xuất hiện với tần suất trung bình đến cao, đặc biệt trong giai đoạn 2023-2024. Khả năng đề bài này xuất hiện trong các kỳ thi sắp tới là cao, vì nó cho phép examiner đánh giá được nhiều kỹ năng quan trọng của thí sinh.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ học được:

• Phân tích chi tiết cấu trúc đề bài và cách tiếp cận hiệu quả
• Các câu hỏi Part 1 liên quan đến luật pháp và quy tắc xã hội
• Bài mẫu Part 2 đầy đủ với 3 mức band điểm khác nhau (6-7, 7.5-8, 8.5-9)
• Câu hỏi Part 3 mở rộng về chủ đề luật pháp và tác động xã hội
• Từ vựng chuyên ngành và cụm từ ăn điểm
• Chiến lược trả lời từ góc nhìn của một IELTS Examiner chính thức
• Những lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam và cách khắc phục

IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview

Tổng Quan Về Part 1

Part 1 kéo dài 4-5 phút với các câu hỏi ngắn về cuộc sống hàng ngày. Đối với chủ đề luật pháp, examiner thường hỏi về quy tắc trong gia đình, trường học hoặc nơi làm việc thay vì hỏi trực tiếp về luật pháp quốc gia.

Chiến lược quan trọng nhất là mở rộng câu trả lời ra 2-3 câu, bao gồm: câu trả lời trực tiếp + lý do/giải thích + ví dụ cụ thể. Nhiều học viên Việt Nam thường mắc lỗi trả lời quá ngắn gọn (Yes/No) hoặc chỉ dừng lại ở việc đưa ra thông tin mà không giải thích tại sao.

Lỗi thường gặp khác bao gồm việc sử dụng từ vựng quá đơn giản (good, bad, important) thay vì các từ đồng nghĩa phong phú hơn, và thiếu ví dụ cụ thể từ trải nghiệm bản thân khiến câu trả lời trở nên chung chung, thiếu thuyết phục.

Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp

Question 1: Do you think rules are important in society?

Question 2: What rules did you have to follow when you were a child?

Question 3: Are there any rules at your workplace or school that you don’t like?

Question 4: Do people in your country generally follow rules?

Question 5: Have you ever broken any rules?

Question 6: What happens when people break rules in your country?

Question 7: Do you think some rules are unnecessary?

Question 8: Should rules be the same for everyone?

Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết

---

Question: Do you think rules are important in society?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Đưa ra quan điểm rõ ràng (Yes/Definitely/Absolutely)
• Giải thích tại sao quan trọng (2 lý do)
• Có thể thêm một ví dụ ngắn gọn

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“Yes, I think rules are very important. They help people know what they can do and what they can’t do. Without rules, society would be chaotic and people might do bad things.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, có lý do cơ bản
• Hạn chế: Từ vựng đơn giản (very important, bad things), thiếu ví dụ cụ thể, ngữ pháp đơn giản
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Câu trả lời đủ để hiểu nhưng thiếu độ tinh vi trong diễn đạt. Sử dụng cấu trúc câu cơ bản và từ vựng thông dụng. Ý tưởng chưa được phát triển đầy đủ.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“Absolutely, I’d say rules are essential for maintaining social order. They provide a clear framework for acceptable behavior and help prevent potential conflicts. For instance, traffic regulations ensure everyone’s safety on the roads – without them, we’d face complete chaos and countless accidents.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Từ vựng nâng cao (essential, social order, framework), ví dụ cụ thể về giao thông, cấu trúc câu phức tạp với mệnh đề quan hệ
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Thể hiện khả năng sử dụng từ vựng chính xác và tinh vi. Cấu trúc ngữ pháp đa dạng (conditional “without them”). Ý tưởng rõ ràng với ví dụ minh họa thuyết phục. Phát âm tự nhiên với discourse marker “Absolutely, I’d say…”

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• essential: cần thiết, thiết yếu
• social order: trật tự xã hội
• framework: khuôn khổ, hệ thống quy tắc
• potential conflicts: xung đột tiềm ẩn
• complete chaos: hỗn loạn hoàn toàn

---

Question: What rules did you have to follow when you were a child?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Liệt kê 1-2 quy tắc cụ thể
• Giải thích ai đặt ra quy tắc đó
• Nói về cảm nhận của bạn lúc đó (nếu có thời gian)

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“When I was young, I had to follow many rules at home. For example, I had to finish my homework before watching TV. My parents were quite strict about this. I also had to go to bed before 9pm on school nights.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Đưa ra ví dụ cụ thể, có cấu trúc rõ ràng
• Hạn chế: Từ vựng cơ bản (young, quite strict), thiếu cảm xúc cá nhân, câu văn đơn giản
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Trả lời đầy đủ với ví dụ thực tế nhưng thiếu chiều sâu. Ngữ pháp chính xác nhưng đơn giản. Chưa thể hiện được perspective cá nhân sâu sắc.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“Looking back, my parents imposed quite a few restrictions on me as a child. The most memorable one was their no-screen-time policy until I’d completed all my homework – which I found incredibly frustrating at the time! They also set a strict curfew of 9pm on weekdays, though I must admit this probably contributed to my good sleep habits now.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Từ vựng sophisticated (imposed restrictions, no-screen-time policy, set a strict curfew), thể hiện cảm xúc (incredibly frustrating), có reflection về hiện tại (contributed to my good sleep habits)
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Sử dụng phrasal expressions tự nhiên. Thời quá khứ chính xác. Có sự phản ánh về quá khứ và hiện tại, thể hiện mature thinking. Discourse markers như “Looking back” và “though I must admit” tạo sự tự nhiên.

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• imposed restrictions: áp đặt các hạn chế
• no-screen-time policy: chính sách không được xem màn hình
• incredibly frustrating: cực kỳ khó chịu/bực bội
• set a strict curfew: đặt giờ giới nghiêm
• contributed to: đóng góp vào, góp phần tạo nên

---

Question: Do people in your country generally follow rules?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Đưa ra general observation (có thể nói “it depends”)
• Đưa ra ví dụ cụ thể cho 1-2 loại quy tắc
• Có thể so sánh giữa các nhóm người hoặc tình huống khác nhau

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I think it depends on the rules. Most people follow big laws like not stealing or hurting others. But some people don’t follow small rules like traffic lights or parking rules. Young people sometimes break rules more than older people.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Nhận ra sự phức tạp của câu hỏi (it depends), đưa ra ví dụ về nhiều loại quy tắc
• Hạn chế: Từ vựng đơn giản (big laws, small rules), generalisation không được support đầy đủ
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Có khả năng phân biệt các loại quy tắc nhưng diễn đạt còn basic. Ý tưởng hợp lý nhưng thiếu nuance và evidence cụ thể.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“Well, it’s a bit of a mixed picture to be honest. In formal settings, people tend to be quite law-abiding – most citizens strictly adhere to major regulations. However, when it comes to minor rules like traffic regulations or public smoking bans, there’s definitely more leniency. I’ve noticed that enforcement plays a huge role – in areas with strict monitoring, compliance rates are significantly higher.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Sử dụng tentative language (a bit of a mixed picture, to be honest), từ vựng chính xác (law-abiding, strictly adhere to, enforcement, compliance rates), có observation cá nhân (I’ve noticed that), thể hiện critical thinking về mối quan hệ giữa enforcement và compliance
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Câu trả lời nuanced, không đơn giản hóa vấn đề. Vocabulary precise và academic. Cấu trúc câu phức tạp với nhiều clauses. Thể hiện analytical thinking bằng cách chỉ ra factors ảnh hưởng (enforcement).

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• mixed picture: tình hình hỗn hợp, không rõ ràng
• law-abiding: tuân thủ pháp luật
• strictly adhere to: tuân thủ nghiêm ngặt
• enforcement: sự thực thi (luật)
• compliance rates: tỷ lệ tuân thủ
• leniency: sự nới lỏng, khoan dung

Học viên đang luyện tập trả lời câu hỏi IELTS Speaking Part 1 về chủ đề quy tắc và luật pháp

---

IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)

Tổng Quan Về Part 2

Part 2 là phần độc thoại kéo dài 2-3 phút, được coi là phần thử thách nhất của IELTS Speaking. Bạn có đúng 1 phút để chuẩn bị và ghi chú, sau đó phải nói liên tục không bị ngắt quãng.

Chiến lược quan trọng là sử dụng hiệu quả 1 phút chuẩn bị. Đừng viết câu hoàn chỉnh – chỉ ghi keywords cho mỗi bullet point. Ví dụ: “what law: plastic ban, when: immediately, why: environment pollution, how enforce: fines + education”. Điều này giúp bạn tập trung vào việc nói tự nhiên thay vì đọc notes.

Một lỗi phổ biến của học viên Việt Nam là nói không đủ thời gian. Mục tiêu tối thiểu là 1 phút 45 giây, lý tưởng là đủ 2 phút. Examiner sẽ ngắt lời khi hết 2 phút, nhưng nếu bạn dừng lại trước 1.5 phút, điểm Fluency & Coherence sẽ bị ảnh hưởng nghiêm trọng.

Lỗi khác là không trả lời đầy đủ các bullet points, đặc biệt là phần “explain” cuối cùng – đây chính là phần quan trọng nhất để thể hiện critical thinking và ghi điểm cao. Hãy dành ít nhất 30-40 giây cho phần explain.

Cue Card

Describe a new law you would like to introduce in your country

You should say:

• What the law would be about
• Why you think this law is necessary
• How this law would be implemented
• And explain what impact you think this law would have on society

Phân Tích Đề Bài

• Dạng câu hỏi: Describe a hypothetical situation (tình huống giả định)
• Thì động từ: Would + infinitive (conditional), Present tense cho phần giải thích
• Bullet points phải cover:
  • Bullet 1: Nội dung luật (cấm gì/bắt buộc gì/khuyến khích gì)
  • Bullet 2: Lý do cần thiết (vấn đề xã hội nào cần giải quyết)
  • Bullet 3: Cách thực hiện (ai chịu trách nhiệm, hình phạt/khuyến khích)
  • Bullet 4: Tác động đến xã hội (benefits, challenges)
• Câu “explain” quan trọng: Đây là phần ghi điểm cao nhất. Bạn cần phân tích sâu về benefits, potential challenges, long-term impact. Đừng chỉ nói “it’s good for society” mà phải cụ thể hóa tác động đến từng nhóm người, từng khía cạnh của đời sống.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7

Thời lượng: Khoảng 1.5-2 phút

“I would like to introduce a law about plastic bags in Vietnam. This law would ban single-use plastic bags in all shops and supermarkets.

I think this law is necessary because plastic pollution is a big problem in my country. I see plastic bags everywhere – in the streets, in rivers, and even in the countryside. They take hundreds of years to decompose and harm the environment. Marine animals sometimes eat plastic and die. So we need to reduce plastic waste.

To implement this law, the government would need to work with shop owners. They would have to stop giving plastic bags to customers. Instead, people would bring their own bags or buy reusable bags at the store. The government could give fines to shops that still use plastic bags. At first, maybe the fine would be small, but it would increase if they continue breaking the law.

I think this law would have a positive impact on society. The environment would be cleaner and we would see less plastic waste. People would develop better habits and become more environmentally conscious. Some shop owners might complain at first because they need to find alternatives, but in the long run, it’s good for everyone. Other countries like Rwanda have done this successfully, so I believe Vietnam can do it too.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	6-7	Có khả năng nói liên tục, sử dụng linking words cơ bản (because, so, at first, in the long run). Tuy nhiên còn một số hesitation và ý tưởng chưa được phát triển mượt mà.
Lexical Resource	6-7	Từ vựng đủ dùng với một số từ topic-specific (single-use plastic, decompose, marine animals, environmentally conscious). Tuy nhiên còn lặp từ (plastic bags xuất hiện nhiều lần) và thiếu paraphrasing.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	6-7	Sử dụng đúng would + infinitive cho hypothetical situation. Có mix của simple và complex sentences. Một số lỗi nhỏ không ảnh hưởng communication (people would develop better habits – có thể dùng passive tốt hơn).
Pronunciation	6-7	Giả định phát âm rõ ràng, có thể hiểu được. Có word stress và sentence stress cơ bản nhưng chưa có intonation range rộng.

Điểm mạnh:

• ✅ Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả bullet points
• ✅ Có ví dụ cụ thể (Rwanda) để support argument
• ✅ Cấu trúc rõ ràng, dễ follow
• ✅ Thời lượng đủ (gần 2 phút)

Hạn chế:

• ⚠️ Từ vựng còn repetitive (plastic bags lặp lại nhiều)
• ⚠️ Thiếu sophistication trong diễn đạt
• ⚠️ Phần explain chưa thực sự deep, chỉ dừng lại ở surface level

---

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8

Thời lượng: Khoảng 2-2.5 phút

“The law I’d like to propose is a comprehensive ban on single-use plastics, particularly disposable bags and packaging, which would be enforced nationwide across Vietnam.

This legislation is desperately needed because plastic pollution has reached alarming levels in my country. Every day, I witness mountains of plastic waste accumulating in public spaces, waterways, and coastal areas. The problem is particularly acute in urban centers where consumer culture has led to excessive reliance on disposable items. What’s more concerning is that these plastics take centuries to break down, leaching harmful chemicals into soil and water, and posing serious threats to wildlife. I’ve read that Vietnam is among the top countries contributing to ocean plastic pollution, which is quite devastating to hear.

In terms of implementation, this would require a multi-pronged approach. First, the government would need to establish a transition period – perhaps six months – to allow businesses to adapt. During this time, they’d phase out plastic bags gradually while promoting eco-friendly alternatives like paper bags, cloth bags, or biodegradable materials. Enforcement mechanisms would include substantial fines for businesses that continue using banned plastics, and these penalties would escalate for repeat offenders. Additionally, the government could launch public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the environmental impact and encourage voluntary compliance.

The impact of this law would be far-reaching. Most obviously, we’d see a dramatic reduction in plastic waste, leading to cleaner streets, beaches, and waterways. But beyond the environmental benefits, I believe it would trigger a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. People would become more mindful of their consumption patterns and more willing to adopt sustainable practices. There might be initial resistance from some business owners who worry about costs, and some consumers might find the adjustment inconvenient at first. However, evidence from countries like Rwanda and Kenya, which have successfully implemented similar bans, shows that society adapts remarkably quickly. In the long term, this could position Vietnam as a regional leader in environmental protection and even attract eco-conscious tourists and investors.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	7.5-8	Nói trôi chảy với minimal hesitation. Sử dụng sophisticated linking devices (What’s more concerning, In terms of, Additionally, However). Ý tưởng được phát triển logic và coherent.
Lexical Resource	7.5-8	Từ vựng rộng với nhiều collocations tự nhiên (desperately needed, alarming levels, multi-pronged approach, far-reaching impact). Có paraphrasing tốt (ban → legislation, reduce → dramatic reduction in). Less common vocabulary được sử dụng chính xác.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	7.5-8	Đa dạng cấu trúc: conditional (would require), passive voice (would be enforced), relative clauses (which is quite devastating), complex sentences với multiple clauses. Lỗi rất ít hoặc không có.
Pronunciation	7.5-8	Giả định có clear articulation, good word stress, natural intonation patterns, appropriate pausing. Features như connected speech và weak forms được sử dụng tự nhiên.

So Sánh Với Band 6-7

Khía cạnh	Band 6-7	Band 7.5-8
Vocabulary	“big problem”, “harm the environment”	“desperately needed”, “alarming levels”, “leaching harmful chemicals”
Grammar	“The government would need to work with shop owners”	“This would require a multi-pronged approach involving multiple stakeholders”
Ideas	“It’s good for everyone”	“Trigger a fundamental shift in consumer behavior… position Vietnam as a regional leader”
Complexity	Ý tưởng straightforward	Phân tích challenges (initial resistance) và long-term benefits (eco-conscious tourism)

---

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9

Thời lượng: 2.5-3 phút đầy đủ

“If I were given the opportunity to shape legislation in Vietnam, I would advocate for a progressive environmental law that mandates a transition to renewable energy sources for all major industries and commercial buildings within a specified timeframe.

This legislative measure is imperative for several compelling reasons. Vietnam is currently grappling with severe air pollution, particularly in metropolitan areas like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, where smog levels regularly exceed WHO safety thresholds. Our heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants and fossil fuels is not only exacerbating climate change but also taking a significant toll on public health – respiratory diseases have been on the rise, and the healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses are mounting exponentially. Moreover, as a low-lying coastal nation, Vietnam is disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels and extreme weather events. The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated – we’re at a critical juncture where decisive action could avert catastrophic consequences for future generations.

The implementation strategy would need to be nuanced and pragmatic. Rather than imposing an overnight transformation, the law would establish a graduated timeline – perhaps 10 to 15 years – with incremental targets that become progressively more stringent. Large corporations would be mandated to transition first, given their greater financial capacity and resources. The government would provide substantial subsidies and tax incentives to ease the financial burden, particularly for small and medium enterprises. In tandem with these regulations, there would be heavy investment in infrastructure – developing solar farms, wind energy facilities, and smart grid technology. Crucially, the law would include provisions for a just transition, ensuring that workers in traditional energy sectors receive comprehensive retraining programs and support in securing employment in the green economy. Enforcement would be robust, with independent regulatory bodies conducting regular audits and imposing escalating penalties for non-compliance, though the emphasis would be on facilitation rather than punishment.

The ramifications of such legislation would be truly transformative and multi-dimensional. From an environmental standpoint, we’d witness a substantial decrease in carbon emissions and air pollution, contributing meaningfully to global climate goals while safeguarding Vietnam’s ecological heritage. The public health benefits would be equally profound – fewer pollution-related illnesses would alleviate the strain on our healthcare system and improve quality of life across all demographics. Economically, while initial implementation costs would be considerable, the long-term returns would be immense – reduced healthcare expenditure, decreased dependence on imported fossil fuels, and the creation of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector. Perhaps most significantly, this would catapult Vietnam into a leadership position in Southeast Asia’s green economy, potentially attracting billions in sustainable development investment and positioning the nation as a hub for clean tech innovation.

That said, I’m not naive about the challenges. There would inevitably be pushback from entrenched interests in traditional energy sectors, and some communities heavily dependent on coal mining would face economic dislocation. The upfront capital requirements would strain public finances, and there’s always the risk of inadequate enforcement given institutional capacity constraints. However, I firmly believe that with political will, strategic planning, and broad stakeholder engagement, these obstacles are surmountable. The alternative – maintaining the status quo – is simply untenable given the existential threat posed by climate change.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	8.5-9	Hoàn toàn trôi chảy với coherence xuất sắc. Sử dụng sophisticated discourse markers (Moreover, In tandem with, Crucially, From an environmental standpoint, That said). Ý tưởng phức tạp được present một cách clear và logical.
Lexical Resource	8.5-9	Vocabulary range rộng và precise với nhiều idiomatic expressions (grappling with, taking a toll on, critical juncture, pushback from entrenched interests). Paraphrasing skillful (implement → rolling out, problems → challenges → obstacles). Collocations natural và sophisticated.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	8.5-9	Tất cả cấu trúc phức tạp được sử dụng chính xác: conditionals, passive constructions, complex noun phrases, relative clauses, participle clauses. Practically error-free. Mix của structures tạo natural speech patterns.
Pronunciation	8.5-9	Giả định có pronunciation features của proficient speaker: natural connected speech, appropriate intonation for emphasis and attitude, clear articulation without sounding overly careful, natural rhythm and stress patterns.

Tại Sao Bài Này Xuất Sắc

🎯 Fluency Hoàn Hảo:
Người nói demonstrates complete control, với zero hesitation. Ý tưởng flow naturally từ environmental rationale → implementation strategy → multi-dimensional impact → acknowledging challenges. Không có filler words hay repetition không cần thiết.

📚 Vocabulary Tinh Vi:

• “mandates a transition to” thay vì “requires change to” – legal terminology chính xác
• “disproportionately vulnerable to” – precise academic expression
• “catapult Vietnam into” – idiomatic verb cho dramatic change
• “entrenched interests” – sophisticated political vocabulary
• “existential threat” – powerful concluding phrase

📝 Grammar Đa Dạng:

• Passive voice: “would be mandated to”, “would be imposed”
• Complex conditionals: “If I were given the opportunity”
• Participle clauses: “ensuring that workers… receive”
• Relative clauses: “including rising sea levels and extreme weather events, which disproportionately affect…”
• Inversion for emphasis: “The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated”

💡 Ideas Sâu Sắc:
Không chỉ present một solution đơn giản mà analyze comprehensive ecosystem: environmental, economic, social, political dimensions. Acknowledge trade-offs và challenges (pushback from entrenched interests, economic dislocation) thể hiện mature, nuanced thinking. Reference đến specific data (WHO thresholds) và examples (coal mining communities) tạo credibility.

🎯 Critical Thinking:
Demonstrates ability to see multiple perspectives, weigh pros and cons, và arrive at reasoned conclusion. Phần “That said, I’m not naive about…” cho thấy intellectual honesty – không present unrealistic utopian vision mà acknowledge real-world constraints.

Thí sinh tự tin trình bày bài nói Part 2 về luật môi trường trong phòng thi IELTS Speaking chính thức

---

Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)

Sau khi bạn hoàn thành phần Part 2, examiner thường hỏi 1-2 câu ngắn để chuyển tiếp sang Part 3:

Question 1: Do you think this law would be easy to implement in your country?

Band 6-7 Answer:
“No, I don’t think it would be easy. It would take time for people to change their habits, and some businesses might not want to spend money on changes.”

Band 8-9 Answer:
“I’d say it would be quite challenging, to be honest. While there’s growing environmental awareness among younger generations, we’d likely face considerable resistance from businesses concerned about profit margins and citizens reluctant to alter their lifestyles. The key would be gradual implementation with strong government support.”

---

Question 2: Would you support this law if it meant higher costs for consumers?

Band 6-7 Answer:
“Yes, I would support it even if prices go up a little. The environment is more important than saving a small amount of money.”

Band 8-9 Answer:
“That’s an interesting dilemma. While I recognize that short-term price increases would disproportionately affect lower-income families, I believe the long-term benefits – both environmental and economic – would ultimately outweigh these initial costs. Perhaps the government could implement subsidies to cushion the impact on vulnerable households during the transition period.”

---

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion

Tổng Quan Về Part 3

Part 3 kéo dài 4-5 phút và là phần khó nhất, yêu cầu thí sinh thảo luận các vấn đề trừu tượng liên quan đến chủ đề Part 2. Đây là phần phân biệt giữa band 6-7 và band 8-9.

Yêu cầu chính của Part 3 là demonstrate critical thinking. Examiner không mong đợi bạn có kiến thức chuyên gia về mọi vấn đề, nhưng họ muốn thấy bạn có khả năng analyze, compare, evaluate và present balanced arguments. Câu trả lời nên dài 3-5 câu, với structure rõ ràng: opinion → reason 1 + example → reason 2 + example → conclusion/acknowledgment of complexity.

Chiến lược quan trọng là sử dụng discourse markers để structure ideas: “Well, I think there are several factors to consider…”, “On the one hand… On the other hand…”, “From my perspective…”, “It’s worth noting that…”. Những cụm từ này không chỉ giúp bạn có thêm thinking time mà còn thể hiện sophisticated language use.

Lỗi thường gặp nhất của học viên Việt Nam là trả lời quá ngắn (1-2 câu) hoặc chỉ đưa ra opinion mà không support bằng reasoning và examples. Một lỗi khác là giving answers quá absolute (“I completely agree/disagree”) thay vì acknowledge complexity (“While I understand that perspective, I tend to think…”). Examiner đánh giá cao ability to see multiple sides of an issue.

Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu

Theme 1: Law-Making Process & Effectiveness

---

Question 1: Who should be responsible for making laws in a country – the government alone or should citizens have a say?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Opinion với elements của comparison
• Key words: responsible, making laws, government, citizens, have a say
• Cách tiếp cận: Đừng choose một side hoàn toàn. Acknowledge value của cả hai, nhưng suggest một balanced approach. Có thể nói về different types of laws requiring different levels of citizen input.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I think both should be involved. The government has experts who understand laws better, so they should make most decisions. But citizens should also give their opinions because they are affected by the laws. The government could do surveys or public meetings to hear what people want. This way, laws will be fair for everyone.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Có attempt at balanced view nhưng chưa sophisticated
• Vocabulary: Basic (experts, give opinions, fair for everyone)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Ý tưởng hợp lý nhưng explanation superficial. Thiếu specific examples hoặc deeper analysis về tại sao citizen input quan trọng.

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:

“Well, I believe the most effective approach is a collaborative model that leverages the strengths of both parties. While government officials and legal experts possess the technical expertise and broader perspective necessary to draft comprehensive legislation, excluding citizens from the process would be fundamentally undemocratic and could result in laws that are disconnected from public needs.

In an ideal system, the government would spearhead the law-making process, but with built-in mechanisms for public consultation – perhaps through public forums, online surveys, or even citizens’ assemblies where representative groups deliberate on proposed legislation. This participatory approach has proven successful in countries like Iceland, which crowdsourced input for its constitutional reform.

What’s crucial, however, is striking the right balance. Not every minor regulation needs extensive public consultation – that would be impractical and inefficient. But for major legislation affecting fundamental rights or quality of life, citizen input is indispensable. This not only ensures laws are grounded in lived experience but also fosters a sense of ownership and increases compliance rates because people feel they’ve had a voice.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Exceptionally organized: statement of position → explanation of why both needed → concrete example → nuance about when citizen input is most important → broader implications
• Vocabulary: Highly sophisticated (collaborative model, leverages strengths, spearhead, built-in mechanisms, participatory approach, crowdsourced, indispensable, fosters a sense of ownership)
• Grammar: Complex structures perfectly executed: relative clauses (which crowdsourced), participle clauses (affecting fundamental rights), conditional implications (would be fundamentally undemocratic)
• Critical Thinking: Shows nuanced understanding by distinguishing between types of laws, provides concrete example (Iceland), acknowledges practical constraints, connects to broader democratic principles

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “Well, I believe…”, “In an ideal system”, “What’s crucial, however”, “Not every…”
• Tentative language: “I believe”, “would be”, “could result in” – shows academic caution
• Abstract nouns: collaboration, expertise, consultation, participation, compliance
• Collocations: “draft comprehensive legislation”, “disconnected from public needs”, “built-in mechanisms”

---

Question 2: Why do some people choose to break laws even when they know the consequences?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Cause-Effect / Explanation
• Key words: choose to break, know consequences
• Cách tiếp cận: Analyze multiple motivations – không phải tất cả law-breaking đều giống nhau. Có thể categorize: economic necessity, moral disagreement, perceived low risk, cultural factors.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“There are several reasons why people break laws. First, some people are desperate and need money, so they steal things. Second, some people think they won’t get caught, especially for small crimes like speeding. Third, some people don’t agree with certain laws and think they are unfair. For example, in the past, some people broke segregation laws in America because they thought those laws were wrong.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear with enumeration (First, Second, Third) – good organization
• Vocabulary: Adequate but simple (desperate, need money, get caught, unfair)
• Ideas: Valid points với historical example (segregation) – good attempt
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Structure tốt và có example, nhưng analysis không deep. Chưa explore psychological hoặc sociological factors. Language còn basic.

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:

“The motivations behind law-breaking behavior are actually quite complex and multifaceted. At the most basic level, some individuals transgress laws out of sheer economic necessity – when someone is facing destitution, stealing food might seem like the only viable option for survival, regardless of legal consequences. This is particularly prevalent in societies with high income inequality and inadequate social safety nets.

However, there are also more nuanced psychological and social factors at play. Many people engage in a form of moral calculus, weighing what they perceive as the unjustness of a law against the potential punishment. History is replete with examples of civil disobedience where people deliberately flouted laws they deemed immoral – Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, for instance. In these cases, individuals are making a conscious ethical choice to prioritize moral imperatives over legal obligations.

Additionally, perceived impunity plays a significant role. When people believe the likelihood of detection is low or that enforcement is lax, they’re more likely to take calculated risks – this explains widespread traffic violations or tax evasion in contexts where regulatory oversight is weak. Cultural factors also matter; in some societies, certain laws may be at odds with deeply ingrained customs, and people may default to cultural norms over legal requirements.

It’s also worth considering that not all law-breaking is premeditated. Impulsive behavior, substance influence, or sheer ignorance of the law can lead to violations. So while deliberate criminality certainly exists, the spectrum of law-breaking is much broader and more complex than simple defiance of authority.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Masterfully organized với clear progression từ basic economic reasons → moral/ethical dimensions → practical calculations → cultural factors → spontaneous violations. Each paragraph develops one theme fully.
• Vocabulary: Exceptional range (transgress, destitution, viable option, replete with examples, flouted laws, perceived impunity, likelihood of detection, lax enforcement, at odds with, premeditated, spectrum of law-breaking)
• Grammar: Sophisticated structures throughout – participle phrases (when facing destitution), complex conditionals (when people believe… they’re more likely), nominalization (the motivations behind…), parallel structures
• Critical Thinking: Demonstrates deep analytical thinking by categorizing different types of law-breaking, providing historical example (Rosa Parks), acknowledging psychological complexity, and showing that issue is not black-and-white
• Nuance: Phrase “It’s also worth considering” introduces final layer of complexity, showing examiner that speaker recognizes issue is even more complex than already discussed

💡 Key Language Features:

• Academic vocabulary: “transgress”, “prevalent”, “nuanced”, “moral calculus”, “premeditated”, “spectrum”
• Hedging language: “quite complex”, “might seem”, “In these cases”
• Emphasis structures: “History is replete with examples”
• Sophisticated connectors: “However”, “Additionally”, “It’s also worth considering”

---

Theme 2: Laws and Social Change

Question 3: Do you think laws can change people’s behavior, or do people’s behaviors need to change first before laws are made?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Cause-Effect relationship / Which comes first?
• Key words: laws change behavior vs. behavior change first
• Cách tiếp cận: This is a chicken-and-egg question. Best approach is to acknowledge it works both ways, với examples for each direction. Show sophisticated thinking by explaining reciprocal relationship.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:

“I think it works in both directions, actually. Sometimes laws can change behavior – for example, when smoking was banned in public places in many countries, people gradually smoked less and it became socially unacceptable. The law helped change attitudes. On the other hand, sometimes social attitudes change first and then laws follow. For instance, attitudes toward same-sex marriage changed in many societies before the laws were updated to allow it. So I’d say there’s a reciprocal relationship between laws and social behavior – they influence each other.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Good balanced answer với examples for both sides
• Vocabulary: Some good phrases (socially unacceptable, reciprocal relationship, influence each other)
• Examples: Relevant and well-chosen (smoking bans, same-sex marriage)
• Tại sao Band 7-8: Solid answer với clear structure và good examples, nhưng analysis có thể deeper về mechanisms of how this influence works.

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:

“This is really a fascinating chicken-and-egg question, and I think the relationship is far more dynamic and bidirectional than a simple cause-and-effect model suggests. In reality, both processes occur simultaneously in a complex feedback loop.

On one hand, laws can certainly serve as powerful catalysts for behavioral change, particularly when combined with robust enforcement and public education. Take seatbelt legislation, for example. When these laws were first introduced in many Western countries in the 1980s, there was considerable public resistance. However, through consistent enforcement, awareness campaigns highlighting the safety benefits, and gradual normalization, what was once viewed as government overreach is now second nature to most drivers. The law essentially jumpstarted a behavioral change that might have taken decades to occur organically.

Conversely, I’d argue that lasting legal reform often requires a critical mass of public support that stems from evolving social attitudes. The legalization of same-sex marriage in numerous countries is a prime example. The legal changes didn’t materialize out of thin air – they were preceded by years, often decades, of grassroots activism, shifting public opinion, and cultural transformation. Laws that run too far ahead of public sentiment often face implementation challenges or even backlash that undermines their effectiveness.

What’s particularly interesting is that the most successful legal reforms tend to hit a sweet spot where there’s already some momentum for social change, and the law accelerates and institutionalizes that shift. Anti-discrimination legislation often works this way – it codifies evolving norms of equality while simultaneously providing legal tools that further entrench those values. So rather than seeing this as an either-or proposition, I think we should recognize that progressive legal frameworks and evolving social attitudes are mutually reinforcing forces that operate in tandem to drive societal transformation.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Exceptionally sophisticated với clear signposting (“On one hand”, “Conversely”, “What’s particularly interesting”). Develops nuanced argument that transcends simple binary choice.
• Vocabulary: Outstanding range và precision (catalysts for, bidirectional, feedback loop, jumpstarted, materialize out of thin air, grassroots activism, hit a sweet spot, codifies, entrench, mutually reinforcing forces)
• Grammar: Complex structures executed flawlessly – relative clauses, participle phrases, conditional implications, passive constructions used appropriately
• Critical Thinking: Demonstrates sophisticated analysis by moving beyond simple “both sides” answer to explain the dynamic interaction between law and behavior. Provides specific examples (seatbelt laws, same-sex marriage) and analyzes the mechanisms of influence in each case.
• Depth: Goes beyond surface level to discuss concepts like “critical mass of public support”, “sweet spot”, “implementation challenges”, showing deep understanding of how social change actually works

💡 Key Language Features:

• Academic discourse markers: “In reality”, “Take…for example”, “Conversely”, “What’s particularly interesting”
• Sophisticated vocabulary: bidirectional, catalysts, normalization, stems from, materialize, codifies, entrench
• Hedging and nuance: “I’d argue that”, “often”, “tend to”, “I think we should recognize”
• Emphasis structures: “The relationship is far more dynamic than…”, “didn’t materialize out of thin air”

Cuộc thảo luận sâu giữa giám khảo và thí sinh về các vấn đề luật pháp và xã hội trong Part 3

---

Theme 3: International Laws and Cooperation

Question 4: Should there be more international laws that all countries must follow?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Opinion về global governance
• Key words: international laws, all countries, must follow
• Cách tiếp cận: This is a complex geopolitical question. Need to balance benefits of coordination với respect for sovereignty. Discuss areas where international cooperation is essential (climate, human rights) versus areas where cultural/political autonomy is important.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:

“I think international laws can be beneficial in certain areas, but not everything should be governed globally. For issues that affect everyone, like climate change or human rights, having international laws makes sense because these problems cross borders and require coordinated solutions. For example, the Paris Climate Agreement brings countries together to address global warming. However, I don’t think every aspect of society should be governed by international laws because different countries have different cultures, values, and needs. What works in one country might not work in another. So I’d say we need a balanced approach – international cooperation on global issues, but respecting national sovereignty on domestic matters.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear position với distinction between different types of issues
• Vocabulary: Some good phrases (cross borders, coordinated solutions, national sovereignty)
• Example: Paris Climate Agreement – relevant and appropriate
• Tại sao Band 7-8: Balanced argument với clear reasoning, but could explore deeper về challenges of enforcement, tension between sovereignty and cooperation, specific examples của when international laws succeeded or failed.

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:

“This is an incredibly nuanced question that sits at the heart of debates about global governance. My view is that while expanded international legal frameworks are absolutely essential for addressing transnational challenges, we need to be extremely thoughtful about which domains warrant this level of coordination.

For certain issues, international laws are not just beneficial but existentially necessary. Climate change is the most obvious example – greenhouse gas emissions in one country don’t respect national borders and contribute to a collective problem that requires unified action. Without binding international commitments like those enshrined in the Paris Agreement, we’d face a classic tragedy of the commons where individual nations lack sufficient incentive to make costly transitions because the benefits are diffused globally. Similarly, international human rights law serves a crucial function in establishing universal standards that transcend cultural relativism – certain fundamental rights should be non-negotiable regardless of where you’re born.

That said, I’m deeply wary of an overly prescriptive global legal regime that erodes national sovereignty or fails to account for legitimate cultural and contextual differences. The reality is that governance models that work in Scandinavian social democracies might be wholly inappropriate for countries with different historical trajectories, economic structures, or cultural values. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach could breed resentment, undermine local ownership, and ultimately prove counterproductive.

The key, I believe, is establishing clear criteria for when international law is appropriate. Areas involving genuine global commons – the atmosphere, oceans, biosecurity threats like pandemics – clearly fall within this domain. Issues of fundamental human dignity – prohibitions on genocide, slavery, torture – should similarly be universal. But beyond these core areas, we should err on the side of allowing diverse approaches and learning from natural experiments as different societies tackle problems in different ways.

Another crucial consideration is enforcement mechanisms. International law is only meaningful if there are credible consequences for violations. Currently, enforcement is spotty at best, with powerful nations often acting with impunity while smaller countries bear the brunt of sanctions. Any expansion of international law would need to grapple with this accountability deficit and ensure more equitable enforcement. Otherwise, we risk entrenching a system where might makes right rather than genuine rule of law.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Masterful organization với clear progression: establish position → explain where international law is necessary với examples → acknowledge limitations và concerns → establish criteria for when appropriate → address practical enforcement challenges. Each paragraph builds on previous ones.
• Vocabulary: Exceptional sophistication (transnational challenges, binding commitments, tragedy of the commons, erodes national sovereignty, prescriptive regime, breed resentment, biosecurity threats, err on the side of, acting with impunity, accountability deficit)
• Grammar: Complex structures throughout – multiple embeddings, conditional reasoning, abstract nominalization, sophisticated use of passive voice
• Critical Thinking: Shows profound analytical depth by considering multiple dimensions: necessity vs. sovereignty tension, criteria for appropriate international law, enforcement challenges, equity concerns. References theoretical concepts (tragedy of the commons, cultural relativism) that demonstrate broader knowledge.
• Balance: Skillfully navigates between advocating for international cooperation and respecting diversity, showing intellectual maturity and nuanced worldview
• Geopolitical awareness: Acknowledges power dynamics (powerful nations acting with impunity) showing realistic understanding of how international law actually functions

💡 Key Language Features:

• Academic discourse: “sits at the heart of”, “warrant this level of”, “enshrined in”, “grapple with”
• Tentative/cautious language: “I’m deeply wary of”, “could breed”, “we should err on the side of”
• Emphasis structures: “are not just beneficial but existentially necessary”, “certain fundamental rights should be non-negotiable”
• Complex connectors: “That said”, “Similarly”, “Otherwise”, “Any expansion of”
• Sophisticated vocabulary clusters: “tragedy of the commons”, “cultural relativism”, “accountability deficit”, “might makes right”

---

Question 5: How have laws changed in your country over the past few decades?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Describe changes over time
• Key words: changed, past few decades
• Cách tiếp cận: Give specific examples of legal changes, explain driving forces behind changes (economic development, social attitudes, globalization), và discuss impact.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:

“Vietnam’s legal landscape has transformed significantly over recent decades, particularly since the Đổi Mới economic reforms. One major area of change has been business and investment laws – the country has gradually opened up to foreign investment and private enterprise, with new laws protecting property rights and facilitating market activities. Traffic laws have also become much stricter, with tougher penalties for drunk driving and violations. Additionally, there’s been progress in labor laws, with better protections for workers’ rights. I think these changes reflect Vietnam’s integration into the global economy and evolving social attitudes.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear với specific areas of change identified
• Vocabulary: Some good terms (legal landscape, economic reforms, facilitating market activities, integration into global economy)
• Content: Relevant examples specific to Vietnam
• Tại sao Band 7-8: Good concrete examples with some analysis, but could be more detailed về specific laws, their impacts, và challenges in implementation.

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:

“Vietnam’s legal framework has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past three to four decades, largely paralleling the country’s dramatic economic and social evolution since the Đổi Mới reforms of 1986.

Perhaps the most striking changes have been in the realm of economic legislation. Vietnam has transitioned from a centrally planned economy with rigid state control to a socialist-oriented market economy with increasingly sophisticated legal protections for private property and foreign investment. The successive iterations of our Enterprise Law and Investment Law have progressively dismantled bureaucratic barriers and created more transparent frameworks for business operations. This legal evolution has been instrumental in attracting substantial foreign direct investment and catalyzing Vietnam’s integration into the global economy, culminating in WTO membership in 2007.

On the social front, there have been noteworthy advances, though perhaps not as dramatic as economic reforms. Labor laws have been strengthened considerably, with enhanced protections around working conditions, minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights – though enforcement remains a challenge in many sectors. We’ve also seen incremental progress in gender equality legislation and modest liberalization of certain social policies.

Traffic and environmental legislation represents another area of substantial change, driven by the dual pressures of rapid urbanization and growing environmental consciousness. Penalties for drunk driving have been significantly stiffened, helmet laws rigorously enforced, and we’re beginning to see nascent environmental regulations, though these still lag behind international standards.

What’s particularly interesting from a legal development perspective is how these changes reflect Vietnam’s careful balancing act between economic liberalization and maintaining political stability. The legal reforms have been pragmatic and incremental rather than revolutionary, allowing the system to adapt gradually while avoiding the institutional disruption that derailed some other transitional economies. However, challenges persist – judicial independence remains limited, corruption continues to undermine rule of law in practice, and there’s often a significant gap between law on the books and law in action.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Excellently organized by thematic areas (economic, social, traffic/environment) với clear transition between paragraphs. Final paragraph provides meta-analysis về nature of legal change in Vietnam.
• Vocabulary: Exceptional range với specialized legal/economic terminology (centrally planned economy, socialist-oriented market economy, successive iterations, dismantled bureaucratic barriers, nascent regulations, judicial independence, law on the books vs. law in action)
• Grammar: Sophisticated structures: participle phrases (driven by, reflecting), complex noun phrases (the dual pressures of rapid urbanization), passive constructions (have been strengthened), parallel structures
• Content depth: Shows detailed knowledge of Vietnam’s specific context with references to Đổi Mới, WTO membership, specific types of laws. Also demonstrates analytical thinking by discussing not just what changed but why (pragmatic balancing act) and acknowledging persistent challenges.
• Critical perspective: Doesn’t just present rosy picture but acknowledges gap between legislation and enforcement, issues with corruption and judicial independence – shows mature, realistic understanding
• Comparative awareness: References to “transitional economies” shows awareness of broader patterns beyond just Vietnam

💡 Key Language Features:

• Academic vocabulary: “undergone transformation”, “paralleling”, “successive iterations”, “instrumental in”, “catalyzing”, “culminating in”
• Hedging and precision: “perhaps not as dramatic”, “modest liberalization”, “nascent regulations”
• Contrastive language: “though enforcement remains a challenge”, “however, challenges persist”
• Legal terminology: “legal framework”, “socialist-oriented market economy”, “judicial independence”, “rule of law”

---

Từ vựng và cụm từ quan trọng

Topic-Specific Vocabulary

Từ vựng/Cụm từ	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ	Collocation
legislation	n	/ˌledʒɪˈsleɪʃn/	luật pháp, pháp luật	New legislation is needed to address cybercrime.	draft legislation, implement legislation, enact legislation, propose legislation
enforce	v	/ɪnˈfɔːrs/	thực thi, thi hành	It’s difficult to enforce traffic laws in rural areas.	strictly enforce, effectively enforce, fail to enforce, enforcement mechanisms
comply with	v	/kəmˈplaɪ wɪð/	tuân thủ, chấp hành	Companies must comply with environmental regulations.	comply with regulations, comply with standards, failure to comply, compliance rates
violate	v	/ˈvaɪəleɪt/	vi phạm	Those who violate the law face serious penalties.	violate rules, violate rights, serious violation, repeated violations
penalty	n	/ˈpenəlti/	hình phạt, lệ phí phạt	The penalty for drunk driving has been increased.	impose a penalty, face penalties, severe penalty, financial penalty
mandate	v/n	/ˈmændeɪt/	bắt buộc, ủy nhiệm	The new law mandates mask-wearing in public spaces.	government mandate, legal mandate, mandatory requirements
implement	v	/ˈɪmplɪment/	thực hiện, triển khai	It took years to implement the new education law.	implement policy, implement changes, implementation strategy, effective implementation
loophole	n	/ˈluːphəʊl/	lỗ hổng pháp lý	Lawyers found a loophole in the tax law.	legal loophole, close a loophole, exploit a loophole
deterrent	n	/dɪˈterənt/	yếu tố ngăn chặn	Heavy fines serve as a deterrent to crime.	effective deterrent, act as a deterrent, deterrent effect
amend	v	/əˈmend/	sửa đổi (luật)	Parliament voted to amend the constitution.	amend legislation, constitutional amendment, proposed amendments
precedent	n	/ˈpresɪdənt/	tiền lệ	This court decision sets an important precedent.	set a precedent, legal precedent, establish precedent
jurisdiction	n	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃn/	quyền tài phán	This case falls under federal jurisdiction.	legal jurisdiction, within jurisdiction, outside jurisdiction
litigation	n	/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃn/	tranh tụng, kiện tụng	The company wants to avoid costly litigation.	civil litigation, lengthy litigation, litigation process
abolish	v	/əˈbɒlɪʃ/	bãi bỏ, hủy bỏ	Many countries have abolished the death penalty.	abolish laws, abolish system, complete abolition
regulate	v	/ˈreɡjuleɪt/	quản lý, điều tiết	The government needs to regulate social media companies.	heavily regulated, regulatory framework, regulatory body
law-abiding	adj	/lɔː əˈbaɪdɪŋ/	tuân thủ pháp luật	Most citizens are law-abiding people.	law-abiding citizens, law-abiding behavior
statutory	adj	/ˈstætʃətri/	theo luật định	There’s a statutory requirement for safety inspections.	statutory obligation, statutory rights, statutory law
legal framework	n phrase	/ˈliːɡl ˈfreɪmwɜːk/	khuôn khổ pháp lý	We need a clear legal framework for cryptocurrency.	establish legal framework, comprehensive legal framework
burden of proof	n phrase	/ˈbɜːdn əv pruːf/	gánh nặng chứng minh	The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.	shift burden of proof, meet burden of proof
due process	n phrase	/djuː ˈprəʊses/	quy trình pháp lý đúng	Everyone is entitled to due process under the law.	ensure due process, deny due process, due process rights

Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases

Cụm từ	Nghĩa	Ví dụ sử dụng	Band điểm
take the law into one’s own hands	tự ý giải quyết, không qua pháp luật	Vigilante justice occurs when people take the law into their own hands.	7.5-8
above the law	không bị luật pháp kiểm soát	No one should be above the law, regardless of their position.	7-8
letter of the law	văn bản luật (theo đúng nghĩa đen)	Following the letter of the law sometimes misses the spirit of justice.	8-8.5
gray area	vùng xám, không rõ ràng	Cryptocurrency regulation is still a gray area in many countries.	7-7.5
slippery slope	con đường trơn trượt (dẫn đến hậu quả xấu)	Some argue that restricting free speech is a slippery slope.	7.5-8
open up a can of worms	mở ra một loạt vấn đề phức tạp	Changing inheritance law might open up a can of worms.	7-7.5
set a precedent	tạo tiền lệ	This ruling will set a precedent for future cases.	7.5-8
cast the net wide	mở rộng phạm vi, truy quét rộng	Police cast the net wide in their investigation.	7-8
on the books	được quy định trong luật	There are many outdated laws still on the books.	7.5-8
tip the scales	làm nghiêng về một phía	New evidence could tip the scales in the defendant’s favor.	8-8.5
throw the book at someone	trừng phạt nghiêm khắc nhất	The judge decided to throw the book at the repeat offender.	7-7.5
have a leg to stand on	có cơ sở pháp lý	Without evidence, they don’t have a leg to stand on in court.	7.5-8

Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)

Để bắt đầu câu trả lời:

• 📝 Well, I think… – Khi cần một chút thời gian để sắp xếp ý tưởng
• 📝 That’s an interesting question… – Thể hiện bạn đang suy nghĩ nghiêm túc
• 📝 From my perspective,… – Khi đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân
• 📝 In my view,… / In my opinion,… – Bày tỏ ý kiến
• 📝 I’d say that… – Cách mềm mỏng hơn “I think”
• 📝 Looking at this issue,… – Khi phân tích một vấn đề

Để bổ sung ý:

• 📝 On top of that,… – Thêm vào đó
• 📝 What’s more,… / Moreover,… – Hơn nữa
• 📝 In addition to this,… – Ngoài điều này
• 📝 Not to mention… – Chưa kể đến
• 📝 Another point worth considering is… – Một điểm đáng xem xét khác

Để đưa ra quan điểm cân bằng:

• 📝 On the one hand,… On the other hand,… – Một mặt… mặt khác
• 📝 While it’s true that…, we also need to consider… – Mặc dù đúng là… nhưng ta cũng cần xem xét
• 📝 That said,… / Having said that,… – Mặc dù vậy
• 📝 Nevertheless,… / Nonetheless,… – Tuy nhiên

Để nhượng bộ và thừa nhận phức tạp:

• 📝 I’m not saying…, but… – Tôi không nói… nhưng
• 📝 To be fair,… – Để công bằng thì
• 📝 Admittedly,… – Phải thừa nhận rằng
• 📝 It’s worth noting that… – Đáng chú ý là

Để đưa ra ví dụ:

• 📝 For instance,… / For example,… – Ví dụ
• 📝 Take… for example – Lấy… làm ví dụ
• 📝 A case in point is… – Một trường hợp điển hình là
• 📝 To illustrate this point,… – Để minh họa điểm này

Để kết luận:

• 📝 All in all,… / All things considered,… – Xét tất cả các yếu tố
• 📝 At the end of the day,… – Cuối cùng thì
• 📝 In the final analysis,… – Xét cho cùng
• 📝 The bottom line is… – Điểm mấu chốt là

Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng

1. Conditional Sentences (Câu điều kiện):

Mixed conditional:

• Formula: If + past simple, would + infinitive (hoặc ngược lại)
• Ví dụ: “If this law had been implemented earlier, we wouldn’t be facing such severe environmental problems now.”
• “If people were more aware of the consequences, the incident would never have happened.”

Inversion for emphasis:

• Formula: Had/Were/Should + subject + verb
• Ví dụ: “Were the government to introduce this law, there would be significant public opposition.”
• “Had stricter regulations been in place, the financial crisis could have been avoided.”

2. Relative Clauses (Mệnh đề quan hệ):

Non-defining relative clauses:

• Formula: …, which/who/where…
• Ví dụ: “The new traffic law, which was passed last year, has significantly reduced accidents.”
• “Singapore, where chewing gum is banned, has exceptionally clean streets.”

Reduced relative clauses:

• Ví dụ: “Laws targeting environmental protection often face resistance from industries.”
• “Regulations implemented without public consultation rarely succeed.”

3. Passive Voice (Câu bị động):

Academic passive constructions:

• “It is widely believed that harsher penalties deter crime.”
• “It has been argued that some laws are outdated and need reform.”
• “It is generally accepted that rule of law is essential for democracy.”
• “This can be attributed to inadequate enforcement mechanisms.”

4. Cleft Sentences (Câu chẻ) – để nhấn mạnh:

What-clefts:

• “What concerns me most is the lack of enforcement.”
• “What we need is a comprehensive legal framework, not piecemeal regulations.”

It-clefts:

• “It’s the enforcement, rather than the laws themselves, that needs improvement.”
• “It was only after the scandal that regulations were tightened.”

5. Inversion After Negative Adverbials:

• “Never before have we seen such rapid changes in legislation.”
• “Rarely do we find laws that satisfy everyone.”
• “Not only does this law protect the environment, but it also creates green jobs.”

6. Participle Clauses:

• “Having considered all perspectives, I believe this law is necessary.”
• “Faced with mounting pressure, the government was forced to act.”
• “Working in the legal field, I’ve witnessed these challenges firsthand.”

7. Subjunctive Mood:

• “It’s crucial that the law be enforced consistently.”
• “I suggest that the government reconsider this policy.”
• “It’s essential that citizens be informed about their rights.”

---

Chiến Lược Trả Lời Từ Examiner’s Perspective

Những Điều Examiner Thực Sự Đánh Giá Cao

Tự nhiên và chân thành:
Examiner có thể phát hiện ngay khi bạn đang recite một template đã học thuộc. Họ muốn nghe một cuộc trò chuyện tự nhiên, không phải một bài thuyết trình được soạn sẵn. Thể hiện personality của bạn, dùng natural fillers như “Well”, “Let me think”, “That’s an interesting point” sẽ tạo ấn tượng tốt hơn nhiều so với việc nói quá trơn tru như robot.

Khả năng phát triển ý tưởng:
Một câu trả lời Band 8-9 không chỉ dài mà còn có depth. Thay vì nói “This law is good because it helps the environment”, hãy explain HOW it helps, give specific examples, discuss potential challenges, và acknowledge complexity. Examiner đang đánh giá critical thinking của bạn qua cách bạn develop ideas.

Xử lý tình huống không biết:
Nếu bạn không hiểu câu hỏi, đừng ngại hỏi lại: “Sorry, could you rephrase that?” hoặc “Do you mean…?”. Điều này tốt hơn nhiều so với việc trả lời sai trọng tâm. Nếu không có ý kiến mạnh mẽ về một vấn đề, hãy thành thật: “I haven’t thought deeply about this before, but off the top of my head…” – điều này thể hiện honesty và vẫn cho phép bạn develop một reasonable answer.

Lỗi Thường Gặp Của Học Viên Việt Nam

Trả lời quá ngắn:
Nhiều học viên Việt Nam có xu hướng trả lời Part 1 chỉ với 1 câu, Part 3 với 2 câu. Điều này khiến band điểm Fluency & Coherence bị giới hạn ở mức 6 hoặc thấp hơn. Mục tiêu: Part 1 nên 2-3 câu (15-20 giây), Part 3 nên 4-6 câu (30-45 giây).

Sử dụng từ vựng không tự nhiên:
Nhiều học viên học từ vựng academic quá phức tạp mà không phù hợp với speaking context. Ví dụ: nói “endeavor to promulgate” thay vì “try to introduce” nghe rất awkward. Vocabulary score cao không đến từ việc dùng từ khó nhất bạn biết, mà từ việc dùng từ PHẢI HỢP và tự nhiên trong context.

Không có examples cụ thể:
Câu trả lời thiếu examples thường nghe chung chung và không convincing. Thay vì nói “Many people care about the environment now”, hãy nói “I’ve noticed that even my parents’ generation, who never used to think about recycling, now carefully separate their waste – it’s become normal behavior”.

Pronunciation issues:
Các vấn đề phổ biến: không phân biệt /s/ và /ʃ/ (sit vs. shit), /l/ và /r/ (law vs. raw), word stress sai (PROject vs. proJECT), không có sentence stress khiến speaking nghe monotonous. Pronunciation chiếm 25% điểm số – đừng bỏ qua yếu tố này.

Lộ Trình Chuẩn Bị Hiệu Quả

4-6 tuần trước thi:

• Làm quen với format và band descriptors
• Xác định current level qua mock test
• Identify weaknesses cụ thể (vocabulary, grammar, fluency, ideas)
• Bắt đầu build topic vocabulary theo chủ đề

2-3 tuần trước thi:

• Practice daily 20-30 phút với speaking apps hoặc study partner
• Record yourself và nghe lại để identify lỗi
• Work on specific weaknesses (nếu thiếu vocab → học 10-15 từ/ngày với context, nếu grammar issues → focus vào 2-3 structures và use them repeatedly until natural)
• Practice Part 2 với timing: 1 phút note-taking, nói đúng 2 phút

1 tuần trước thi:

• Full mock tests với timer
• Review common topics và prepare flexible ideas (không học thuộc)
• Practice natural delivery – không cần perfect, cần natural
• Work on confidence và mindset

Ngày thi:

• Warm up voice trước khi vào phòng (nói tiếng Anh 10-15 phút)
• Smile và eye contact với examiner – they’re human too
• Nếu nervous, take a deep breath và nói chậm hơn một chút
• Remember: một vài mistakes nhỏ là okay, examiner không expect perfection

Tips Từ Góc Nhìn Examiner

Be a good conversationalist:
IELTS Speaking không phải là exam về knowledge – nó là exam về communication skills. Bạn không cần phải biết mọi thứ về luật pháp, chính trì, kinh tế. Bạn chỉ cần có khả năng express opinions, give reasons, và have a natural conversation về những topics này.

Quality over quantity:
Một câu trả lời 30 giây well-structured với good vocabulary tốt hơn một câu trả lời 1 phút nhưng repetitive và không có substance. Focus vào saying something meaningful rather than just filling time.

Show range:
Examiner muốn thấy bạn có range – range of vocabulary, range of grammar structures, range of ideas. Đừng repeat the same words (good, important, I think) throughout. Có conscious effort để paraphrase và use variety.

It’s okay to disagree politely:
Nếu examiner hỏi “Don’t you think…?” và bạn không đồng ý, hoàn toàn okay để disagree: “Well, I see your point, but I tend to think differently because…”. Điều này thậm chí có thể impress examiner vì thể hiện bạn có independent thinking.

Manage nervousness:
Hầu hết examiner đều understand test-takers are nervous. Một chút nervousness là normal và sẽ không affect score. Nhưng nếu nervousness khiến bạn nói quá nhanh, forget words, hoặc give very short answers thì sẽ impact performance. Breathing technique helps: breathe slowly before starting each part.

Huấn luyện viên IELTS giàu kinh nghiệm đang hướng dẫn chiến lược làm bài Speaking về chủ đề luật pháp

---

Kết Luận

Chủ đề “describe a new law you would like to introduce in your country” là một đề bài challenging nhưng cũng là cơ hội tuyệt vời để showcase critical thinking và language skills của bạn. Thành công trong IELTS Speaking không đến từ việc học thuộc câu trả lời mẫu, mà từ việc develop khả năng think on your feet, express ideas clearly, và use language flexibly.

Hãy nhớ rằng điều quan trọng nhất là communicate effectively. Một câu trả lời Band 9 không cần phải perfect về mặt ngữ pháp, mà cần natural, coherent, và demonstrates your ability to discuss complex topics với confidence. Focus vào building genuine speaking skills – extensive vocabulary trong context, varied grammar structures được sử dụng naturally, và most importantly, ideas that are well-developed và thoughtful.

Practice regularly với realistic conditions, record yourself để identify areas for improvement, và đừng ngại make mistakes trong quá trình học. Mỗi mistake là một learning opportunity. Với preparation đúng cách và mindset tích cực, bạn hoàn toàn có thể achieve target band score của mình.

Chúc bạn thi tốt và tự tin showcase English speaking abilities của mình!