Mở Bài
Chủ đề về ảnh hưởng của mạng xã hội đến sự tham gia chính trị của công dân là một trong những nội dung xã hội học đương đại xuất hiện thường xuyên trong IELTS Reading. Với sự phát triển vượt bậc của các nền tảng như Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, chủ đề này không chỉ phản ánh xu hướng toàn cầu mà còn đánh giá khả năng đọc hiểu các bài viết mang tính phân tích, tranh luận của thí sinh.
Trong đề thi mẫu này, bạn sẽ trải nghiệm một bài thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với ba passages được xây dựng từ dễ đến khó, bao gồm đầy đủ 40 câu hỏi đa dạng như trong kỳ thi thật. Passage 1 giới thiệu về sự phát triển của mạng xã hội và vai trò của chúng trong đời sống chính trị. Passage 2 đi sâu phân tích các tác động tích cực và tiêu cực của hiện tượng này. Passage 3 khám phá các nghiên cứu học thuật và những tranh luận phức tạp xung quanh vấn đề.
Bài viết này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, với mục tiêu cung cấp trải nghiệm luyện tập chân thực nhất. Bạn sẽ nhận được đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích, bảng từ vựng quan trọng và các chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả giúp tối ưu hóa kết quả.
Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading
Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test
IELTS Reading Test là một trong bốn phần thi bắt buộc của kỳ thi IELTS, đánh giá khả năng đọc hiểu tiếng Anh học thuật của thí sinh. Bài thi kéo dài 60 phút với ba passages độc lập, tăng dần về độ khó và tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi.
Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:
- Passage 1 (Easy): 15-17 phút
- Passage 2 (Medium): 18-20 phút
- Passage 3 (Hard): 23-25 phút
Lưu ý quan trọng là không có thời gian bổ sung để chép đáp án sang phiếu trả lời, do đó bạn cần quản lý thời gian chặt chẽ trong suốt 60 phút thi.
Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này
Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 8 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến trong IELTS Reading:
- Multiple Choice: Chọn đáp án đúng từ 3-4 lựa chọn
- True/False/Not Given: Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hay không được đề cập
- Yes/No/Not Given: Xác định quan điểm của tác giả
- Matching Headings: Ghép tiêu đề phù hợp với đoạn văn
- Matching Information: Xác định đoạn văn chứa thông tin cụ thể
- Sentence Completion: Hoàn thành câu bằng từ trong bài
- Summary Completion: Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
- Short-answer Questions: Trả lời câu hỏi ngắn với số từ giới hạn
IELTS Reading Practice Test
PASSAGE 1 – The Rise of Social Media and Political Engagement
Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút
Over the past two decades, social media platforms have fundamentally transformed how people communicate, share information, and engage with the world around them. Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have become integral parts of daily life for billions of users worldwide. While these platforms were initially designed for personal networking and entertainment, they have increasingly become spaces where political discussions occur, campaigns are organized, and citizens express their views on public affairs.
The emergence of social media has created unprecedented opportunities for political participation. In the past, citizens who wished to engage in politics typically needed to attend physical meetings, join formal organizations, or rely on traditional media outlets to express their opinions. Today, anyone with an internet connection can share their political views, organize protests, start petitions, or directly communicate with elected officials through digital channels. This democratization of political discourse has been particularly significant in countries where traditional media is heavily controlled or censored.
Youth engagement in politics has notably increased since the widespread adoption of social media. Young people, who historically showed lower rates of political participation through conventional means such as voting or joining political parties, are now more likely to engage in online political activities. They share news articles, comment on political posts, create and distribute political content, and participate in virtual campaigns. Research indicates that social media provides a comfortable environment for young people to explore political issues without the intimidation sometimes associated with formal political settings.
Sự phát triển của mạng xã hội thúc đẩy giới trẻ tham gia chính trị nhiều hơn
Political movements have successfully utilized social media to mobilize supporters and coordinate actions. The Arab Spring protests, which began in 2010, demonstrated the power of platforms like Facebook and Twitter in organizing mass demonstrations and spreading information despite government attempts to suppress dissent. Similarly, movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and climate change activism have gained significant momentum through strategic use of social media, reaching millions of people and influencing public opinion and policy discussions.
However, the relationship between social media and political participation is not without complexity. While these platforms facilitate broader engagement, the nature of participation has changed. Traditional forms of political involvement, such as attending town hall meetings or working within political parties, require sustained effort and commitment. In contrast, social media allows for what some researchers call “clicktivism” or “slacktivism” – minimal-effort actions like liking a post or signing an online petition. Critics argue that while these actions may create a sense of participation, they rarely translate into meaningful political change or deeper engagement with complex political issues.
The accessibility of social media has also raised important questions about the quality of political discourse. Unlike traditional media, where professional journalists typically filter and verify information before publication, social media allows anyone to share content instantly without fact-checking. This has led to concerns about misinformation, fake news, and echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that reinforces their existing beliefs. These issues can polarize political debates and make constructive dialogue more difficult.
Despite these challenges, social media platforms continue to play an increasingly important role in how citizens engage with politics. Politicians themselves have recognized this shift, with many maintaining active social media presences to communicate directly with constituents, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. Former US President Barack Obama’s successful use of social media in his 2008 campaign is often cited as a turning point in political communication strategy, and subsequent campaigns worldwide have followed similar approaches.
Looking forward, the impact of social media on political participation will likely continue to evolve as platforms develop new features and societies adapt to digital communication. Understanding both the opportunities and limitations of social media as a space for political engagement remains crucial for citizens, policymakers, and researchers interested in the health of democratic processes in the digital age.
Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
1. According to the passage, social media platforms were originally created for:
A. political campaigning and activism
B. personal connections and entertainment
C. news distribution and journalism
D. government communication
2. The passage suggests that social media has been especially important in countries where:
A. internet access is limited
B. young people don’t vote
C. traditional media faces restrictions
D. political parties are weak
3. The term “clicktivism” refers to:
A. effective online political campaigns
B. low-effort forms of online participation
C. professional political activism
D. traditional political engagement
4. The Arab Spring protests demonstrated that social media could:
A. replace traditional journalism
B. organize collective action despite government opposition
C. eliminate the need for physical protests
D. guarantee democratic reforms
5. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign is mentioned as an example of:
A. the failure of traditional campaign methods
B. the dangers of social media in politics
C. a significant moment in political communication strategy
D. the superiority of American political systems
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. Social media has completely replaced traditional forms of political participation.
7. Young people now participate more in online political activities than in conventional political activities.
8. All online petitions signed through social media lead to policy changes.
9. Professional journalists always fact-check information before publishing on social media.
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 created a __ of political discussion, allowing more people to participate.
11. Research shows that social media offers a __ for young people to explore political topics.
12. One concern about social media is the spread of __ and fake news.
13. Politicians use social media to communicate with voters without going through traditional media __.
PASSAGE 2 – Dual Impact: Benefits and Drawbacks of Social Media in Politics
Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút
The integration of social media into political processes has sparked considerable debate among scholars, politicians, and citizens alike. While some celebrate these platforms as tools of empowerment and democratization, others warn of their potential to undermine informed deliberation and rational political discourse. Understanding this dual nature requires examining both the positive contributions and serious concerns associated with social media’s role in political participation.
A. Enhanced Accessibility and Inclusivity
One of the most significant benefits of social media in politics is the unprecedented level of accessibility it provides. Historically, political participation was often limited by geographical constraints, financial barriers, and social hierarchies. Citizens needed physical presence at meetings, rallies, or voting locations, which disadvantaged those with mobility issues, demanding work schedules, or childcare responsibilities. Social media has effectively removed many of these barriers, enabling participation from anywhere at any time. This is particularly transformative for marginalized communities who previously lacked platforms to voice their concerns. Women in conservative societies, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and rural populations can now engage in political discussions and activism that might have been inaccessible through traditional channels.
Furthermore, social media platforms have lowered the costs associated with political organizing. Traditional campaign activities – printing flyers, booking venues, coordinating volunteers – require substantial financial resources that typically favor established politicians and well-funded parties. In contrast, creating a social media page, organizing online events, or viral content creation requires minimal financial investment, allowing grassroots movements and independent candidates to compete more effectively in the political arena.
B. Information Dissemination and Transparency
Social media has fundamentally altered the flow of political information. Citizens no longer depend solely on mainstream media outlets to learn about political developments; they can access diverse sources, follow international news, and witness events through user-generated content. This multiplicity of perspectives can contribute to a more informed electorate, particularly when official channels provide limited or biased coverage.
The transparency afforded by social media can also serve as a check on political power. Politicians’ statements and actions are now subject to immediate scrutiny from millions of users who can record, share, and analyze political communication. This accountability mechanism makes it more difficult for politicians to make contradictory statements to different audiences or to deny previous positions. Citizen journalism through social media has exposed corruption, documented human rights abuses, and brought attention to issues ignored by traditional media.
Tác động tích cực và tiêu cực của mạng xã hội đối với tham gia chính trị
C. Polarization and Echo Chambers
Despite these advantages, critics point to significant concerns about how social media may be fragmenting political discourse and deepening societal divisions. The algorithmic curation employed by most platforms tends to show users content similar to what they have previously engaged with, creating what researchers call “filter bubbles” or “echo chambers.” Within these digital spaces, users predominantly encounter perspectives that reinforce their existing beliefs while alternative viewpoints are systematically filtered out.
This phenomenon has measurable consequences for political polarization. Studies have demonstrated that individuals who primarily consume political information through social media exhibit more extreme partisan positions compared to those who rely on diverse information sources. The reinforcement of existing beliefs without exposure to counter-arguments makes compromise and consensus increasingly difficult to achieve, potentially threatening democratic stability.
Social media’s design features may exacerbate these problems. Platforms typically prioritize content that generates strong emotional responses, as such content receives more engagement through likes, shares, and comments. Political messages that are divisive, inflammatory, or sensational therefore receive disproportionate visibility, while nuanced, moderate perspectives struggle to gain attention. This structural bias toward extreme content can distort political discourse and give disproportionate influence to fringe perspectives.
D. Misinformation and Manipulation
Perhaps the most serious concern regarding social media’s political impact involves the proliferation of false information and deliberate manipulation of public opinion. The ease and speed with which content spreads on social media creates ideal conditions for misinformation campaigns. False stories, doctored images, and misleading headlines can reach millions of users before fact-checkers can respond, and corrections rarely achieve the same reach as the original false content.
State and non-state actors have recognized social media’s potential as a tool for political manipulation. Intelligence agencies have documented sophisticated disinformation campaigns designed to influence elections, suppress voter turnout, or destabilize democratic institutions. These operations often employ fake accounts, coordinated networks, and targeted advertising to amplify particular messages while creating the illusion of grassroots support.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which revealed how personal data from millions of Facebook users was harvested and used for political targeting during the 2016 US presidential election, exemplifies the risks of data-driven manipulation. Such incidents have raised fundamental questions about privacy, consent, and the ethics of using social media data for political purposes.
E. Quality of Engagement
Finally, scholars have questioned whether social media truly deepens political engagement or merely creates the appearance of participation. While clicking “like” on a political post or sharing a petition link requires minimal effort, these actions may not indicate genuine political commitment or understanding of complex issues. Some research suggests that individuals who are very active on social media may actually be less likely to engage in substantive political activities such as contacting representatives, attending public meetings, or volunteering for campaigns.
This raises an important distinction between performative and substantive participation. Social media makes it easy to signal political positions to one’s network, which may fulfill personal desires for social approval or identity expression without necessarily contributing to political change. The concern is that this form of “pseudo-participation” might actually reduce deeper engagement by providing a sense of having “done something” political without the effort or effectiveness of traditional forms of activism.
Questions 14-19: Matching Headings
The passage has five sections, A-E.
Choose the correct heading for each section from the list of headings below.
List of Headings:
i. The problem of shallow political actions
ii. Removing obstacles to political involvement
iii. Financial advantages of digital campaigning
iv. False information spreading online
v. How algorithms create isolated viewpoints
vi. Better access to multiple information sources
vii. Social media’s surveillance of politicians
viii. The design features that reward extreme content
14. Section A
15. Section B
16. Section C
17. Section D
18. Section E
Questions 19-23: 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
19. Social media has completely eliminated all barriers to political participation.
20. Filter bubbles contribute to increased political polarization among social media users.
21. All politicians intentionally spread misinformation on social media.
22. The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted serious concerns about political use of personal data.
23. Social media companies should be responsible for fact-checking all political content.
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 24. __ that shows users content similar to their previous interests, creating filter bubbles. This leads to 25. __, where users mainly see opinions that match their own. The platforms prioritize content that generates strong reactions, giving 26. __ to divisive and extreme messages rather than moderate viewpoints.
PASSAGE 3 – Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Evidence: Reconceptualizing Political Participation in the Digital Age
Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)
Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút
The advent of social media has necessitated a fundamental reconceptualization of political participation within political science scholarship. Traditional theories of political engagement, developed primarily in the mid-to-late twentieth century, were predicated on assumptions about the costs, benefits, and mechanisms of participation that no longer adequately capture the multifaceted nature of contemporary political action. Scholars are now grappling with how to theoretically situate and empirically measure new forms of digitally-mediated political activity, while simultaneously debating whether these activities constitute genuine participation or merely superficial engagement that lacks meaningful political consequence.
Classical models of political participation, notably Verba, Schlozman, and Brady’s Civic Voluntarism Model, identified three critical factors influencing participation: resources (time, money, and civic skills), psychological engagement with politics, and recruitment through social networks. These frameworks proved remarkably durable in explaining conventional participatory acts such as voting, campaign volunteering, and contacting officials. However, social media has disrupted each of these dimensions in complex ways that challenge the model’s explanatory power.
The resource dimension presents a particularly intriguing paradox. Social media dramatically reduces certain transactional costs associated with political participation – no longer must citizens physically travel to meetings, print materials, or invest substantial time in organizational activities. This reduction in barriers to entry theoretically should democratize participation, allowing those with fewer resources to engage more equally with their better-resourced counterparts. Yet empirical evidence presents a more nuanced picture. While social media has indeed facilitated certain types of political expression, particularly low-intensity actions like sharing content or signing petitions, research consistently demonstrates that socioeconomic disparities in political participation persist and in some dimensions have intensified.
Nghiên cứu học thuật về ảnh hưởng của mạng xã hội đến tham gia chính trị
Studies by Schlozman, Verba, and Brady themselves, revisiting their earlier work in the digital context, found that while the internet reduces some participation costs, it simultaneously creates new forms of digital inequality. Educational attainment remains a powerful predictor of online political engagement, suggesting that cognitive resources and political literacy matter as much or more than mere platform access. Those who are already politically knowledgeable and engaged tend to leverage social media most effectively for political purposes, potentially amplifying rather than ameliorating participatory inequalities.
The psychological engagement dimension has been substantially reconfigured by social media’s architectural features. Traditional political participation required what scholars termed “political efficacy” – citizens’ belief that their actions could influence political outcomes. Social media introduces more ambiguous relationships between action and consequence. The immediacy of feedback in the form of likes, shares, and comments can create powerful psychological reinforcement that sustains engagement, yet this feedback often reflects social approval within one’s network rather than meaningful political impact.
Theocharis and colleagues have proposed a reconceptualized framework that distinguishes between “expressive” and “organizational” forms of digital political participation. Expressive participation involves publicly articulating political positions, sharing political content, or using political hashtags – activities that signal identity and opinions to one’s social network but do not necessarily coordinate collective action. Organizational participation, conversely, involves using digital tools to coordinate with others toward specific political objectives, such as organizing protests, fundraising for candidates, or mobilizing voters.
This typological distinction proves theoretically productive, as these different forms of participation appear to have distinct antecedents and consequences. Research indicates that expressive participation correlates strongly with identity-based motivations and the desire for social belonging, while organizational participation more closely resembles traditional participation in requiring sustained commitment and strategic coordination. Critically, expressive participation does not reliably translate into organizational participation, challenging assumptions that any form of political engagement serves as a gateway to deeper involvement.
The mobilization hypothesis, which suggests that social media’s networking capabilities should facilitate recruitment into political activity, has received mixed empirical support. Some studies document impressive cases of rapid mobilization, where protests or movements gained thousands of participants within days through viral dissemination of information and calls to action. The 2011 Egyptian revolution, where social media helped coordinate protests that ultimately toppled the Mubarak regime, represents perhaps the most dramatic vindication of this hypothesis.
However, subsequent research has introduced important caveats. Tufekci’s ethnographic work on contemporary protest movements reveals that while social media enables rapid mobilization, it may simultaneously create movements that lack the organizational infrastructure and sustained commitment developed through traditional organizing. Protests organized primarily through social media often struggle with strategic decision-making, internal coordination, and long-term sustainability once initial enthusiasm wanes. The absence of formal organizational structures that characterized earlier social movements – while reducing barriers to initial participation – may ultimately limit movements’ ability to achieve lasting political change.
The echo chamber hypothesis has become particularly prominent in scholarly discourse, though empirical evidence reveals considerable complexity. While early studies emphasized social media’s potential to expose users to diverse viewpoints through weak social ties, more recent research employing sophisticated network analysis and tracking methodologies demonstrates that ideological segregation on social media is substantial and appears to be increasing. Barberá’s research using Twitter data found that while users do encounter some cross-ideological content, they engage much more deeply with congenial information, creating asymmetric exposure patterns.
Moreover, the consequences of this selective exposure extend beyond mere opinion reinforcement. Bail and colleagues conducted experiments demonstrating that exposure to opposing political views on social media can actually increase polarization rather than moderate it, contrary to conventional assumptions. This backfire effect appears to occur because oppositional content encountered on social media is often presented in particularly polarizing forms – either through deliberately provocative framing by opponents or through algorithmic selection of the most engaging (and therefore often most extreme) content.
The manipulation hypothesis, concerning social media’s vulnerability to coordinated inauthentic behavior and computational propaganda, has gained urgency following documented interference in numerous electoral contexts. The Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational Propaganda Project has catalogued disinformation campaigns in over seventy countries, employing bot networks, troll farms, and microtargeted advertising to manipulate public opinion. These operations range from crude spam campaigns to sophisticated psychological operations that leverage behavioral data to identify and exploit individual vulnerabilities.
Emerging consensus within the scholarly community suggests that social media’s impact on political participation is fundamentally ambivalent – simultaneously enabling new forms of engagement while introducing novel challenges to democratic deliberation and informed participation. The optimistic techno-utopianism that characterized early assessments of social media’s political potential has largely given way to more sober analyses recognizing both opportunities and threats. Rather than asking whether social media helps or harms political participation, researchers increasingly focus on identifying the specific conditions under which different effects obtain, and on developing interventions – whether through platform design, digital literacy education, or regulatory frameworks – that might maximize benefits while mitigating harms.
This ongoing research holds profound implications for democratic societies navigating the digital age. As political participation continues to evolve in response to technological change, understanding these dynamics becomes essential for safeguarding democratic processes, promoting meaningful citizen engagement, and ensuring that digital tools serve to enhance rather than undermine the principles of representative governance.
Questions 27-30: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
27. According to the passage, the Civic Voluntarism Model identified which factors as influencing participation?
A. education, income, and social class
B. resources, psychological engagement, and recruitment
C. time, technology, and motivation
D. platforms, algorithms, and networks
28. The “resource dimension” paradox refers to the fact that:
A. social media requires more resources than traditional participation
B. wealthy people no longer participate in politics
C. despite reduced participation costs, socioeconomic disparities persist
D. all citizens now have equal access to political platforms
29. Theocharis and colleagues distinguish between:
A. online and offline participation
B. effective and ineffective participation
C. expressive and organizational participation
D. young and old participants
30. According to Tufekci’s research, protests organized mainly through social media:
A. are always more successful than traditional movements
B. may lack organizational infrastructure for long-term success
C. never achieve any political change
D. are identical to traditionally organized movements
Questions 31-35: Matching Features
Match each researcher or research group (31-35) with the correct finding (A-H).
Researchers/Research Groups:
31. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady
32. Barberá
33. Bail and colleagues
34. Oxford Internet Institute
35. Tufekci
Findings:
A. Documented disinformation campaigns in over seventy countries
B. Found that educational attainment predicts online political engagement
C. Discovered that users engage more with information matching their views
D. Showed that exposure to opposing views can increase polarization
E. Proved that social media eliminates all political inequalities
F. Demonstrated that rapid mobilization may create organizationally weak movements
G. Found that all social media content is equally distributed
H. Showed that algorithms have no effect on political opinions
Questions 36-40: Summary Completion
Complete the summary below using words from the box.
Word Box:
sustains / undermines / classical / digital / ambivalent / optimistic / pessimistic / deliberation / manipulation / literacy / regulatory / technological / superficial / meaningful / identical
The scholarly community has moved away from the 36. __ view of social media’s political impact that characterized early assessments. Current research suggests social media’s effect on political participation is 37. __, with both positive and negative aspects. Rather than determining if social media helps or harms participation, researchers now focus on identifying specific conditions and developing 38. __ through platform design, 39. __ education, or 40. __ frameworks that can maximize benefits while minimizing harms to democratic processes.
Answer Keys – Đáp Án
PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13
- B
- C
- B
- B
- C
- FALSE
- NOT GIVEN
- NOT GIVEN
- FALSE
- democratization
- comfortable environment
- misinformation
- gatekeepers
PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26
- ii
- vi
- v
- iv
- i
- NO
- YES
- NOT GIVEN
- YES
- NOT GIVEN
- algorithmic curation
- echo chambers
- disproportionate visibility
PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40
- B
- C
- C
- B
- B
- C
- D
- A
- F
- optimistic
- ambivalent
- interventions
- literacy
- regulatory
Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết
Passage 1 – Giải Thích
Câu 1: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: originally created for
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 3-4
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “these platforms were initially designed for personal networking and entertainment” (các nền tảng này ban đầu được thiết kế cho việc kết nối cá nhân và giải trí). Đáp án B paraphrase chính xác ý này với “personal connections and entertainment”.
Câu 2: C
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: especially important in countries
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
- Giải thích: Đoạn văn đề cập “This democratization of political discourse has been particularly significant in countries where traditional media is heavily controlled or censored” (Sự dân chủ hóa diễn ngôn chính trị này đặc biệt có ý nghĩa ở những quốc gia mà truyền thông truyền thống bị kiểm soát hoặc kiểm duyệt nặng nề). Đáp án C “traditional media faces restrictions” là cách diễn đạt khác của ý này.
Câu 3: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: clicktivism refers to
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 5-7
- Giải thích: Bài đọc định nghĩa clicktivism là “minimal-effort actions like liking a post or signing an online petition” (các hành động tối thiểu nỗ lực như thích một bài đăng hoặc ký một petitions trực tuyến). Đáp án B “low-effort forms of online participation” chính xác diễn đạt lại ý này.
Câu 6: FALSE
- Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
- Từ khóa: completely replaced traditional forms
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5
- Giải thích: Bài đọc không nói social media đã thay thế hoàn toàn các hình thức truyền thống, mà chỉ nói “the nature of participation has changed” (bản chất của sự tham gia đã thay đổi) và vẫn đề cập đến sự tồn tại của các hình thức truyền thống. Do đó câu khẳng định “completely replaced” là sai.
Câu 7: NOT GIVEN
- Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
- Từ khóa: participate more in online… than conventional
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3
- Giải thích: Đoạn 3 nói rằng giới trẻ “are now more likely to engage in online political activities” nhưng không có sự so sánh trực tiếp về mức độ tham gia giữa online và conventional activities. Thông tin này không được cung cấp đủ để xác định.
Câu 10: democratization
- Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
- Từ khóa: political discussion, allowing more people
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 7
- Giải thích: Cụm từ “democratization of political discourse” xuất hiện trong bài, nghĩa là làm cho diễn ngôn chính trị dân chủ hơn, cho phép nhiều người tham gia hơn.
Câu 12: misinformation
- Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
- Từ khóa: concern, spread, fake news
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 5-6
- Giải thích: Bài đọc đề cập “concerns about misinformation, fake news” như những vấn đề liên quan đến social media.
Passage 2 – Giải Thích
Câu 14: ii (Section A)
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
- Giải thích: Section A tập trung vào việc social media loại bỏ các rào cản như “geographical constraints, financial barriers, and social hierarchies”, cho phép nhiều người tham gia chính trị hơn. Heading ii “Removing obstacles to political involvement” phù hợp nhất.
Câu 15: vi (Section B)
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
- Giải thích: Section B nói về “multiplicity of perspectives” và việc công dân có thể “access diverse sources”, không còn phụ thuộc hoàn toàn vào “mainstream media outlets”. Heading vi “Better access to multiple information sources” chính xác mô tả nội dung này.
Câu 16: v (Section C)
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
- Giải thích: Section C đề cập trực tiếp đến “filter bubbles” và “echo chambers”, giải thích cách “algorithmic curation” tạo ra những không gian mà người dùng chỉ thấy quan điểm phù hợp với niềm tin của họ. Heading v “How algorithms create isolated viewpoints” phản ánh chính xác nội dung này.
Câu 19: NO
- Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
- Vị trí trong bài: Section A
- Giải thích: Tác giả nói social media “removed many of these barriers” (loại bỏ nhiều rào cản) chứ không phải “all barriers” (tất cả rào cản). Từ “completely eliminated all” làm cho câu khẳng định này trái ngược với quan điểm của tác giả.
Câu 20: YES
- Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
- Vị trí trong bài: Section C
- Giải thích: Tác giả rõ ràng nói “filter bubbles” và “echo chambers” có “measurable consequences for political polarization” và “individuals who primarily consume political information through social media exhibit more extreme partisan positions”. Đây là sự đồng tình rõ ràng.
Câu 22: YES
- Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
- Vị trí trong bài: Section D, cuối đoạn
- Giải thích: Tác giả đề cập scandal này “exemplifies the risks” và nói nó “raised fundamental questions about privacy, consent, and the ethics”, cho thấy tác giả đồng ý đây là một vấn đề nghiêm trọng đáng lo ngại.
Câu 24: algorithmic curation
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Vị trí trong bài: Section C, đầu đoạn
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “The algorithmic curation employed by most platforms tends to show users content similar to what they have previously engaged with”.
Câu 25: echo chambers
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Vị trí trong bài: Section C
- Giải thích: Sau khi đề cập đến algorithmic curation, bài đọc nói điều này tạo ra “echo chambers” nơi người dùng chủ yếu gặp quan điểm tương tự.
Passage 3 – Giải Thích
Câu 27: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: Civic Voluntarism Model, identified factors
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-4
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ model này “identified three critical factors: resources (time, money, and civic skills), psychological engagement with politics, and recruitment through social networks”. Đáp án B tóm tắt chính xác ba yếu tố này.
Câu 28: C
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: resource dimension paradox
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3
- Giải thích: Nghịch lý được giải thích là mặc dù social media “dramatically reduces certain transactional costs” và “theoretically should democratize participation”, nhưng “socioeconomic disparities in political participation persist and in some dimensions have intensified”. Đáp án C chính xác mô tả nghịch lý này.
Câu 29: C
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: Theocharis and colleagues distinguish
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ họ “proposed a reconceptualized framework that distinguishes between ‘expressive’ and ‘organizational’ forms of digital political participation”. Đáp án C chính xác.
Câu 30: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: Tufekci’s research, protests organized through social media
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8
- Giải thích: Tufekci phát hiện rằng “while social media enables rapid mobilization, it may simultaneously create movements that lack the organizational infrastructure and sustained commitment”. Đáp án B phản ánh chính xác phát hiện này.
Câu 31: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói “Schlozman, Verba, and Brady themselves… found that… Educational attainment remains a powerful predictor of online political engagement”.
Câu 32: C
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9
- Giải thích: Barberá’s research “found that while users do encounter some cross-ideological content, they engage much more deeply with congenial information” (thông tin phù hợp với quan điểm của họ).
Câu 33: D
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, cuối
- Giải thích: “Bail and colleagues conducted experiments demonstrating that exposure to opposing political views on social media can actually increase polarization rather than moderate it”.
Câu 34: A
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10
- Giải thích: “The Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational Propaganda Project has catalogued disinformation campaigns in over seventy countries”.
Câu 36: optimistic
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 11, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói “The optimistic techno-utopianism that characterized early assessments of social media’s political potential has largely given way to more sober analyses”.
Câu 37: ambivalent
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 11, dòng 1
- Giải thích: “Emerging consensus within the scholarly community suggests that social media’s impact on political participation is fundamentally ambivalent”.
Câu 38: interventions
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 11, cuối
- Giải thích: Các nhà nghiên cứu tập trung vào “developing interventions – whether through platform design, digital literacy education, or regulatory frameworks”.
Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage
Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| integral | adj | /ˈɪntɪɡrəl/ | không thể thiếu, thiết yếu | Social media has become integral parts of daily life | integral part of, play an integral role |
| emergence | n | /ɪˈmɜːdʒəns/ | sự xuất hiện, nổi lên | The emergence of social media has created opportunities | the emergence of technology, sudden emergence |
| democratization | n | /dɪˌmɒkrətaɪˈzeɪʃən/ | sự dân chủ hóa | This democratization of political discourse | democratization of access, political democratization |
| intimidation | n | /ɪnˌtɪmɪˈdeɪʃən/ | sự đe dọa, hăm dọa | without the intimidation sometimes associated with formal settings | fear and intimidation, voter intimidation |
| mobilize | v | /ˈməʊbəlaɪz/ | huy động, tổ chức | movements have successfully mobilized supporters | mobilize support, mobilize resources |
| mass demonstrations | n | /mæs ˌdemənˈstreɪʃənz/ | biểu tình đại chúng | organizing mass demonstrations | stage mass demonstrations, peaceful demonstrations |
| strategic use | n | /strəˈtiːdʒɪk juːs/ | sử dụng chiến lược | strategic use of social media | make strategic use of, strategic use of resources |
| clicktivism | n | /ˈklɪktɪvɪzəm/ | hành động chính trị trực tuyến hời hợt | researchers call it clicktivism | engage in clicktivism, rise of clicktivism |
| accessibility | n | /əkˌsesəˈbɪləti/ | khả năng tiếp cận | The accessibility of social media | improve accessibility, easy accessibility |
| misinformation | n | /ˌmɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃən/ | thông tin sai lệch | concerns about misinformation | spread misinformation, combat misinformation |
| echo chambers | n | /ˈekəʊ ˌtʃeɪmbəz/ | buồng vang, môi trường chỉ có quan điểm giống nhau | echo chambers where users encounter similar beliefs | create echo chambers, trapped in echo chambers |
| gatekeepers | n | /ˈɡeɪtkiːpəz/ | người kiểm soát thông tin | bypassing traditional media gatekeepers | media gatekeepers, act as gatekeepers |
Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| empowerment | n | /ɪmˈpaʊəmənt/ | trao quyền, làm mạnh thêm | tools of empowerment and democratization | political empowerment, empowerment of citizens |
| deliberation | n | /dɪˌlɪbəˈreɪʃən/ | sự cân nhắc, thảo luận | undermine informed deliberation | careful deliberation, democratic deliberation |
| marginalized | adj | /ˈmɑːdʒɪnəlaɪzd/ | bị gạt ra lề, thiệt thòi | particularly transformative for marginalized communities | marginalized groups, socially marginalized |
| grassroots | adj | /ˈɡrɑːsruːts/ | cơ sở, quần chúng | allowing grassroots movements to compete | grassroots movement, grassroots campaign |
| viral | adj | /ˈvaɪrəl/ | lan truyền nhanh | viral content creation | go viral, viral video |
| multiplicity | n | /ˌmʌltɪˈplɪsəti/ | tính đa dạng | This multiplicity of perspectives | multiplicity of views, multiplicity of sources |
| accountability | n | /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪləti/ | trách nhiệm giải trình | This accountability mechanism | ensure accountability, lack of accountability |
| polarization | n | /ˌpəʊləraɪˈzeɪʃən/ | sự phân cực | measurable consequences for political polarization | political polarization, increase polarization |
| algorithmic | adj | /ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk/ | thuộc về thuật toán | The algorithmic curation employed by platforms | algorithmic bias, algorithmic filtering |
| exacerbate | v | /ɪɡˈzæsəbeɪt/ | làm trầm trọng thêm | may exacerbate these problems | exacerbate tensions, exacerbate the situation |
| inflammatory | adj | /ɪnˈflæmətri/ | kích động, gây tranh cãi | Political messages that are inflammatory | inflammatory remarks, inflammatory rhetoric |
| proliferation | n | /prəˌlɪfəˈreɪʃən/ | sự tăng sinh, lan tràn | the proliferation of false information | nuclear proliferation, proliferation of weapons |
| disinformation | n | /ˌdɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃən/ | thông tin giả có chủ đích | sophisticated disinformation campaigns | spread disinformation, combat disinformation |
| doctored | adj | /ˈdɒktəd/ | bị sửa đổi, làm giả | doctored images | doctored photos, doctored evidence |
| performative | adj | /pəˈfɔːmətɪv/ | mang tính biểu diễn | distinction between performative and substantive | performative activism, performative behavior |
Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| advent | n | /ˈædvent/ | sự xuất hiện, đến | The advent of social media | the advent of technology, since the advent of |
| reconceptualization | n | /ˌriːkənˌseptʃuəlaɪˈzeɪʃən/ | sự tái khái niệm hóa | necessitated a fundamental reconceptualization | require reconceptualization, theoretical reconceptualization |
| predicated | adj | /ˈpredɪkeɪtɪd/ | dựa trên | theories were predicated on assumptions | be predicated on, predicated upon |
| multifaceted | adj | /ˌmʌltiˈfæsɪtɪd/ | nhiều mặt, đa chiều | the multifaceted nature of political action | multifaceted approach, multifaceted problem |
| durable | adj | /ˈdjʊərəbl/ | bền vững, lâu dài | frameworks proved remarkably durable | durable solution, durable goods |
| explanatory power | n | /ɪkˈsplænətri ˈpaʊə/ | sức mạnh giải thích | challenge the model’s explanatory power | have explanatory power, lack explanatory power |
| transactional costs | n | /trænˈzækʃənl kɒsts/ | chi phí giao dịch | reduces certain transactional costs | reduce transactional costs, high transactional costs |
| nuanced | adj | /ˈnjuːɑːnst/ | tinh tế, nhiều sắc thái | presents a more nuanced picture | nuanced understanding, nuanced approach |
| socioeconomic | adj | /ˌsəʊsiəʊˌiːkəˈnɒmɪk/ | thuộc kinh tế xã hội | socioeconomic disparities persist | socioeconomic status, socioeconomic factors |
| intensified | v | /ɪnˈtensɪfaɪd/ | tăng cường, mạnh hơn | in some dimensions have intensified | intensify efforts, conflict intensified |
| cognitive resources | n | /ˈkɒɡnətɪv rɪˈsɔːsɪz/ | nguồn lực nhận thức | cognitive resources and political literacy matter | draw on cognitive resources, limited cognitive resources |
| ameliorating | v | /əˈmiːliəreɪtɪŋ/ | cải thiện, làm dịu bớt | rather than ameliorating participatory inequalities | ameliorate conditions, ameliorate the problem |
| efficacy | n | /ˈefɪkəsi/ | hiệu quả, hiệu lực | political efficacy – citizens’ belief | sense of efficacy, political efficacy |
| typological | adj | /ˌtaɪpəˈlɒdʒɪkl/ | thuộc về phân loại | This typological distinction | typological classification, typological analysis |
| vindication | n | /ˌvɪndɪˈkeɪʃən/ | sự chứng minh đúng | the most dramatic vindication of this hypothesis | seek vindication, complete vindication |
| ethnographic | adj | /ˌeθnəˈɡræfɪk/ | thuộc về dân tộc học | Tufekci’s ethnographic work | ethnographic research, ethnographic study |
| caveats | n | /ˈkæviæts/ | lời cảnh báo, điều kiện | introduced important caveats | with the caveat that, important caveats |
| computational propaganda | n | /ˌkɒmpjuˈteɪʃənl ˌprɒpəˈɡændə/ | tuyên truyền có sử dụng máy tính | coordinated inauthentic behavior and computational propaganda | combat computational propaganda, study computational propaganda |
| techno-utopianism | n | /ˈteknəʊ juːˈtəʊpiənɪzəm/ | chủ nghĩa không tưởng công nghệ | The optimistic techno-utopianism | naive techno-utopianism, reject techno-utopianism |
Kết Bài
Chủ đề về ảnh hưởng của mạng xã hội đến sự tham gia chính trị không chỉ là một nội dung phổ biến trong IELTS Reading mà còn phản ánh những thay đổi sâu sắc trong cách con người tương tác với hệ thống chính trị. Qua ba passages với độ khó tăng dần, bạn đã trải nghiệm đầy đủ các kỹ năng đọc hiểu cần thiết: từ nắm bắt thông tin cơ bản, phân tích quan điểm tác giả, đến hiểu các lập luận học thuật phức tạp.
Bài thi mẫu này cung cấp 40 câu hỏi đa dạng với 8 dạng khác nhau, giúp bạn làm quen với tất cả các định dạng câu hỏi có thể xuất hiện trong kỳ thi thật. Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích không chỉ cho bạn biết câu trả lời đúng là gì, mà còn hướng dẫn cách xác định thông tin trong bài, nhận diện paraphrase và áp dụng các chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả.
Hệ thống từ vựng được tổng hợp theo từng passage với hơn 40 từ và cụm từ quan trọng sẽ giúp bạn xây dựng vốn từ vựng học thuật cần thiết cho band điểm cao. Hãy chú ý đến các collocations và cách sử dụng từ trong ngữ cảnh để nâng cao khả năng đọc hiểu của mình.
Để đạt kết quả tốt nhất, hãy luyện tập đề thi này trong điều kiện giống thi thật: giới hạn thời gian 60 phút, không tra từ điển và hoàn thành cả 40 câu hỏi. Sau đó, dành thời gian phân tích kỹ lưỡng phần giải thích đáp án để hiểu rõ những điểm mạnh và điểm cần cải thiện của bản thân. Việc luyện tập đều đặn với các đề thi chất lượng cao như thế này sẽ giúp bạn tự tin hơn và đạt được band điểm mục tiêu trong kỳ thi IELTS Reading.
