IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Law You Think Should Be Introduced” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

Mở bài

Chủ đề về luật pháp và quy định xã hội là một trong những đề tài quan trọng và thường xuyên xuất hiện trong IELTS Speaking, đặc biệt là với câu hỏi “Describe A Law You Think Should Be Introduced”. Đây là dạng câu hỏi yêu cầu thí sinh không chỉ trình bày về một đạo luật cụ thể mà còn phải chứng minh khả năng phân tích, lập luận và đưa ra quan điểm về các vấn đề xã hội.

Theo thống kê từ các đề thi thực tế, chủ đề này xuất hiện với tần suất khá cao trong các kỳ thi IELTS từ 2020 đến 2024, đặc biệt tăng mạnh trong giai đoạn 2023-2024 khi các vấn đề xã hội được quan tâm nhiều hơn. Dự đoán khả năng xuất hiện trong tương lai: Cao, do tính thời sự và liên quan đến nhiều khía cạnh đời sống.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ học được:

• Các câu hỏi thường gặp về luật pháp trong cả 3 Part của IELTS Speaking
• Bài mẫu chi tiết theo nhiều band điểm từ 6-7, 7.5-8 đến 8.5-9 với phân tích cụ thể
• Hơn 50 từ vựng và cụm từ ăn điểm liên quan đến legal topics
• Chiến lược trả lời hiệu quả cho từng dạng câu hỏi
• Lời khuyên quý báu từ góc nhìn Examiner với hơn 20 năm kinh nghiệm
• Cách tránh những lỗi phổ biến mà học viên Việt Nam thường mắc phải

IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview

Tổng Quan Về Part 1

Part 1 của IELTS Speaking kéo dài 4-5 phút với các câu hỏi ngắn về đời sống hàng ngày. Đây là phần khởi động giúp bạn làm quen với giám khảo và tạo ấn tượng ban đầu. Chiến lược quan trọng nhất là trả lời tự nhiên, mở rộng ý với 2-3 câu và tránh câu trả lời một từ.

Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam trong Part 1:

• Trả lời quá ngắn chỉ Yes/No mà không giải thích
• Dùng từ vựng quá đơn giản như “good”, “bad”, “interesting”
• Thiếu ví dụ cụ thể từ kinh nghiệm bản thân
• Nói quá nhanh hoặc quá chậm do lo lắng

Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp

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

Question 2: Are there any laws in your country that you think are particularly effective?

Question 3: How do people in your country generally feel about following rules?

Question 4: Do you think young people respect laws as much as older people?

Question 5: Have you ever broken any minor rules or regulations?

Question 6: What do you think about traffic laws in your city?

Question 7: Should there be stricter punishments for certain crimes?

Question 8: Do you follow all the rules at work or school?

Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết

Question: Do you think laws are important in society?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi với “Yes, absolutely” hoặc “Yes, definitely”
• Đưa ra lý do chính tại sao luật pháp quan trọng
• Thêm ví dụ cụ thể để minh họa

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“Yes, I think laws are very important because they help society work well. Without laws, people might do bad things and there would be chaos. Laws also protect people’s rights and make sure everyone is treated fairly.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, có lý do cơ bản và ý tưởng về bảo vệ quyền lợi
• Hạn chế: Từ vựng đơn giản (very important, bad things, work well), thiếu ví dụ cụ thể, cấu trúc câu chưa đa dạng
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Đủ ý để trả lời nhưng chưa impressive, vocabulary và grammar ở mức adequate

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“Yes, absolutely. I believe laws are the backbone of any civilized society because they establish a framework for acceptable behavior. Without proper legislation, we’d have complete anarchy – people would act purely on self-interest without considering others’ wellbeing. More importantly, laws safeguard fundamental rights and ensure that everyone, regardless of their social status, has equal protection under the law.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Sử dụng metaphor “backbone” rất ấn tượng, vocabulary tinh vi (civilized society, establish a framework, legislation, anarchy, safeguard fundamental rights), cấu trúc phức tạp với “regardless of”, ý tưởng sâu sắc về equal protection
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Fluency tự nhiên, vocabulary sophisticated và precise, grammar đa dạng, ý tưởng được phát triển logic với examples implicit

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• the backbone of: trụ cột, nền tảng quan trọng
• establish a framework: thiết lập một khuôn khổ
• complete anarchy: tình trạng vô chính phủ hoàn toàn
• safeguard fundamental rights: bảo vệ các quyền cơ bản
• equal protection under the law: sự bảo vệ bình đẳng trước pháp luật

---

Question: Have you ever broken any minor rules or regulations?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Trung thực nhưng khôn ngoan (đừng kể về vi phạm nghiêm trọng)
• Chọn ví dụ nhỏ, an toàn như jaywalking, parking
• Giải thích hoàn cảnh và reflect về việc đó

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“Well, yes, sometimes I cross the street when the light is red if there are no cars coming. I know it’s not good, but many people do this in my city. I think I should follow the traffic rules more carefully.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Trung thực, có ví dụ cụ thể, thừa nhận lỗi và có ý thức cải thiện
• Hạn chế: Vocabulary đơn giản, thiếu reflection sâu sắc về hành vi
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response nhưng chưa sophisticated

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“To be honest, I have to admit that I’ve occasionally been guilty of jaywalking, especially when I’m running late. I know it’s technically a violation of traffic regulations, but it’s something that’s become quite normalized in urban Vietnam where pedestrian crossings are scarce. However, I’ve been trying to be more conscientious about following traffic rules, particularly after witnessing a near-miss accident. It really made me realize that even minor infractions can have serious consequences.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Sử dụng “To be honest” để mở đầu tự nhiên, vocabulary nâng cao (admit, violation, normalized, conscientious, infractions, consequences), có reflection về behavior change, đưa ra context của Vietnam một cách khéo léo, structure rõ ràng: action → reason → realization → change
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Natural fluency, sophisticated vocabulary, complex grammar với “particularly after witnessing”, strong critical thinking về personal growth

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• jaywalking: đi bộ băng qua đường không đúng nơi quy định
• a violation of regulations: vi phạm quy định
• normalized: trở thành điều bình thường
• conscientious: có ý thức, cẩn thận
• made me realize: khiến tôi nhận ra
• serious consequences: hậu quả nghiêm trọng

Để hiểu rõ hơn về cách đưa ra quyết định trong các tình huống khẩn cấp liên quan đến tuân thủ quy định, bạn có thể tham khảo describe a situation where you had to make a quick decision.

---

Question: What do you think about traffic laws in your city?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

• Đưa ra đánh giá cân bằng
• Nêu cả điểm tích cực và tiêu cực
• Đề xuất cải thiện nếu có thể

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I think the traffic laws in my city are okay but not everyone follows them. Many people don’t wear helmets or go through red lights. The police should do more to make people follow the rules.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Có observation về thực tế, đưa ra suggestion
• Hạn chế: Vocabulary basic, thiếu phân tích sâu, không có personal stance rõ ràng
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Communicates basic ideas nhưng lacks sophistication

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

“Well, it’s a bit of a mixed bag, to be honest. On paper, we have comprehensive traffic regulations that are quite similar to international standards. However, the real issue lies in enforcement – or rather, the lack thereof. What I find most concerning is the widespread disregard for basic safety rules like helmet-wearing and traffic signals. I think what we need is not more laws, but rather stricter enforcement combined with better public awareness campaigns to foster a culture of traffic compliance.”

Phân tích:

• Điểm mạnh: Sử dụng idiom “mixed bag” tự nhiên, vocabulary chính xác (comprehensive, enforcement, lack thereof, widespread disregard, compliance), structure phức tạp với “not more laws, but rather…”, critical thinking về root cause (không phải thiếu luật mà thiếu enforcement), đề xuất solutions cụ thể
• Tại sao Band 8-9: Demonstrates high-level English với idiomatic expressions, analytical thinking, và sophisticated vocabulary related to law and governance

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

• mixed bag: tình huống có cả tốt và xấu
• comprehensive traffic regulations: quy định giao thông toàn diện
• enforcement: việc thi hành, thực thi
• lack thereof: sự thiếu vắng (của điều đó)
• widespread disregard: sự coi thường phổ biến
• stricter enforcement: thực thi nghiêm khắc hơn
• public awareness campaigns: chiến dịch nâng cao nhận thức cộng đồng
• traffic compliance: tuân thủ luật giao thông

Học viên đang luyện tập IELTS Speaking Part 1 về chủ đề luật pháp với giảng viên

IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)

Tổng Quan Về Part 2

Part 2 là phần độc thoại kéo dài 2-3 phút, trong đó bạn có 1 phút chuẩn bị với giấy và bút. Đây là phần quan trọng nhất để thể hiện khả năng nói liên tục và tổ chức ý tưởng.

Chiến lược quan trọng:

• Sử dụng hết 1 phút để ghi chú keywords (không viết câu hoàn chỉnh)
• Nói đủ 2 phút, tốt nhất là 2-2.5 phút
• Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả bullet points trong thứ tự
• Dành nhiều thời gian cho phần “explain” (30-40 giây) vì đây là phần ghi điểm cao nhất

Lỗi thường gặp:

• Không sử dụng hết thời gian chuẩn bị hoặc ghi chú quá chi tiết
• Nói dưới 1.5 phút do thiếu ý tưởng
• Bỏ sót một hoặc nhiều bullet points
• Không phát triển đủ phần “explain”
• Dùng quá nhiều filler words (um, ah, you know)

Cue Card

Describe a law you think should be introduced

You should say:

• What the law is
• What changes this law would bring
• Whether this law would be easy to enforce
• And explain why you think this law should be introduced

Phân Tích Đề Bài

• Dạng câu hỏi: Describe + Opinion (kết hợp mô tả và đưa ra quan điểm)

• Thì động từ: Chủ yếu dùng thì hiện tại và tương lai (would, could, should) vì đây là một đạo luật chưa tồn tại

• Bullet points phải cover:

  • Bullet 1: Giới thiệu rõ ràng về đạo luật là gì
  • Bullet 2: Các thay đổi cụ thể mà luật này mang lại cho xã hội
  • Bullet 3: Đánh giá tính khả thi trong việc thực thi
  • Bullet 4 (explain): Lý do sâu xa tại sao luật này cần thiết

• Câu “explain” quan trọng: Đây là phần chiếm 30-40% thời gian và ghi điểm cao nhất. Bạn cần đưa ra lý lẽ thuyết phục, có thể nêu benefits cho xã hội, personal values, hoặc long-term impact.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7

Thời lượng: Khoảng 1.5-2 phút

“I’d like to talk about a law that I think should be introduced in my country, which is about plastic bags. This law would ban single-use plastic bags in supermarkets and shops.

If this law was introduced, it would bring many changes to our daily life. First, people would have to bring their own bags when they go shopping. Shops would need to provide paper bags or other alternatives instead of plastic bags. This means less plastic waste would be created every day.

About enforcement, I think it would be quite easy to enforce because shops are fixed locations and the government can check them regularly. They could fine shops that still give out plastic bags. However, it might be difficult at first because people are used to using plastic bags and some might forget to bring their own bags.

I believe this law should be introduced because plastic pollution is a serious problem in my country. I often see plastic bags in the streets and in the river near my house. They are very bad for the environment and animals. Many animals die because they eat plastic bags by mistake. If we have this law, we can reduce plastic waste and make our environment cleaner. It’s also good for future generations because they will have a better place to live.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	6-7	Có khả năng nói liên tục, sử dụng một số linking words (first, however, because) nhưng còn đơn giản, có pause tự nhiên
Lexical Resource	6-7	Từ vựng đủ nghĩa nhưng còn basic (serious problem, very bad, better place), một số collocations đúng (single-use plastic, plastic waste)
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	6-7	Có sử dụng conditional (if this law was introduced), mix tenses phù hợp, nhưng cấu trúc câu chưa đa dạng
Pronunciation	6-7	Giả định pronunciation rõ ràng, có thể có một số lỗi nhỏ nhưng không ảnh hưởng communication

Điểm mạnh:

• ✅ Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả các bullet points theo đúng thứ tự
• ✅ Có ví dụ cụ thể từ quan sát thực tế (plastic bags in the streets and river)
• ✅ Có cấu trúc rõ ràng với signposting (first, about enforcement, I believe)
• ✅ Thời lượng phù hợp (khoảng 1.5-2 phút)

Hạn chế:

• ⚠️ Từ vựng còn basic và lặp lại (plastic bags được nhắc đến quá nhiều lần)
• ⚠️ Thiếu sophisticated expressions và idiomatic language
• ⚠️ Phần explain chưa đủ sâu sắc, chỉ dừng lại ở surface level

---

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8

Thời lượng: Khoảng 2-2.5 phút

“I’d like to describe a law that I strongly believe should be implemented in Vietnam, which is mandatory mental health education in schools and workplaces.

Essentially, this law would require all educational institutions and companies to provide regular mental health awareness programs. Schools would need to include mental health literacy in their curriculum, teaching students about stress management, emotional regulation, and when to seek help. For workplaces, employers would be obligated to offer quarterly mental health workshops and provide access to counseling services.

The changes this law would bring would be quite significant. Firstly, it would help destigmatize mental health issues, which are currently a taboo topic in Vietnamese society. People would become more comfortable discussing their struggles and seeking professional help. Additionally, it would equip individuals with practical coping mechanisms to deal with life’s challenges. In the long run, this could lead to reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and even suicide, particularly among young people who face tremendous academic pressure.

Regarding enforcement, I believe it would be moderately challenging. While monitoring schools would be relatively straightforward through the education ministry, ensuring compliance in the private sector might prove more difficult. The government would need to establish clear guidelines and perhaps offer incentives for companies that go beyond the basic requirements, rather than just imposing penalties.

The reason I feel so strongly about this law is that mental health has become a pressing concern in modern Vietnamese society, yet it remains largely overlooked. I’ve witnessed friends and colleagues struggling with burnout and depression, but they’re reluctant to seek help due to social stigma. This law could be transformative – it’s not just about preventing mental illness, but about promoting overall wellbeing and creating a more compassionate society where people feel safe to be vulnerable and seek support when needed.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	7.5-8	Nói trôi chảy với minimal hesitation, sử dụng discourse markers sophisticated (essentially, firstly, additionally, regarding), logic rõ ràng
Lexical Resource	7.5-8	Vocabulary precise và varied (implemented, mandatory, destigmatize, equip, compliance, pressing concern, overlooked, transformative), collocations tự nhiên
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	7.5-8	Wide range of structures (would require, would need to, could lead to), complex sentences, relative clauses (which are currently…), conditional phrases
Pronunciation	7.5-8	Giả định pronunciation clear với good stress và intonation

So Sánh Với Band 6-7

Khía cạnh	Band 6-7	Band 7.5-8
Vocabulary	“serious problem”, “very bad”	“pressing concern”, “transformative”, “destigmatize”
Grammar	Simple conditionals: “if this law was introduced”	Complex structures: “would require…to provide”, “rather than just imposing”
Ideas	Surface level: “bad for environment”	In-depth: “destigmatize”, “promote overall wellbeing”, “compassionate society”
Examples	General: “animals die”	Specific: “friends and colleagues struggling with burnout”, “academic pressure”

---

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9

Thời lượng: 2.5-3 phút đầy đủ

“I’d like to talk about a legislative measure that I believe would be groundbreaking if introduced in Vietnam – a comprehensive right to disconnect law that would safeguard employees’ personal time outside working hours.

The essence of this law would be to enshrine in legislation the principle that workers have the right to be completely unreachable during their off-hours without facing any repercussions. Specifically, it would prohibit employers from contacting their staff via email, messaging apps, or phone calls outside of contractually agreed working hours, except in genuine emergencies. Companies would be required to establish clear policies defining what constitutes an emergency and to provide alternative contingency plans rather than relying on off-duty employees.

The ramifications of such legislation would be far-reaching. Most immediately, it would combat the erosion of work-life boundaries that’s become alarmingly prevalent in our hyper-connected digital age. Vietnam’s emerging startup culture and traditional corporate environment both tend to glorify overwork and perpetuate the expectation of 24/7 availability. This law would fundamentally challenge that mentality. Moreover, it would level the playing field for employees who currently feel coerced into being perpetually available for fear of seeming uncommitted. The downstream effects could include improved mental health outcomes, enhanced productivity during actual working hours, and potentially even increased birth rates, as people would have more time and energy for family life.

Now, implementation wouldn’t be without its challenges. The feasibility of enforcement lies somewhere in the middle ground. While large corporations with HR departments could be relatively easily monitored through compliance audits and employee complaint mechanisms, smaller businesses and family-run enterprises might resist what they perceive as governmental overreach. There’s also the cultural dimension to consider – Vietnamese workplace culture has traditionally emphasized loyalty and dedication, often expressed through availability. Shifting this deep-seated mindset would require not just legislation but a concerted public education campaign. That said, France and other European countries have successfully implemented similar laws, suggesting it’s entirely feasible with proper frameworks.

The reason I’m such a staunch advocate for this law stems from witnessing firsthand the toll that the always-on work culture takes on people’s wellbeing. I’ve seen talented colleagues burn out spectacularly, their creativity and passion extinguished by the relentless pressure to be constantly available. Beyond individual suffering, there’s a broader societal cost – when people are perpetually exhausted, they can’t fully engage with their families, communities, or civic life. This law isn’t merely about protecting employees; it’s about preserving our humanity in an age where technology threatens to dissolve the boundaries between work and life entirely. It’s about asserting that people are more than just productive units – they’re individuals with inherent worth who deserve time to rest, reflect, and simply be. If Vietnam is to build a truly sustainable and humane economy, I believe recognizing the right to disconnect isn’t optional – it’s absolutely essential.”

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	8.5-9	Completely fluent và coherent, sophisticated discourse markers (Now, Moreover, Beyond), seamless transitions, develops ideas tự nhiên như native speaker
Lexical Resource	8.5-9	Exceptional range: idiomatic (level the playing field, burn out spectacularly), precise (ramifications, coerced, perpetually), sophisticated collocations (enshrine in legislation, downstream effects, staunch advocate, concerted campaign)
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	8.5-9	Full range của structures: passive (would be enshrined), conditionals (If Vietnam is to build), relative clauses, emphatic structures (it’s about…), complex noun phrases
Pronunciation	8.5-9	Giả định native-like pronunciation với excellent stress patterns và natural rhythm

Tại Sao Bài Này Xuất Sắc

🎯 Fluency Hoàn Hảo:

• Không có hesitation, nói tự nhiên như đang thảo luận với bạn bè về một topic quan tâm
• Transitions mượt mà giữa các ý: “Now, implementation…” đưa vào phần thách thức một cách tự nhiên
• Sử dụng rhetorical devices như “it’s not merely about…it’s about…” để nhấn mạnh

📚 Vocabulary Tinh Vi:

• Idiomatic expressions được dùng chính xác: “level the playing field” (tạo môi trường công bằng), “burn out spectacularly” (kiệt sức hoàn toàn)
• Academic vocabulary: “ramifications” (hậu quả sâu rộng), “perpetuate” (duy trì), “feasibility” (tính khả thi)
• Collocations tự nhiên: “staunch advocate” (người ủng hộ mạnh mẽ), “deep-seated mindset” (tư duy ăn sâu), “concerted campaign” (chiến dịch phối hợp)
• Topic-specific terms: “right to disconnect”, “work-life boundaries”, “compliance audits”

📝 Grammar Đa Dạng:

• Complex noun phrases: “the relentless pressure to be constantly available”
• Multiple clause types trong một câu: “If Vietnam is to build a truly sustainable and humane economy, I believe recognizing the right to disconnect isn’t optional – it’s absolutely essential”
• Passive voice để vary structure: “would be enshrined in legislation”
• Emphatic structures: “it’s about X, it’s about Y” để create rhythm và emphasis

💡 Ideas Sâu Sắc:

• Không chỉ nói về cá nhân mà còn broader societal impact
• So sánh văn hóa (Vietnamese workplace culture vs European countries)
• Acknowledge complexity: “wouldn’t be without its challenges”, “lies somewhere in the middle ground”
• Philosophical depth: “preserving our humanity”, “people are more than just productive units”
• Personal connection nhưng vẫn objective: “witnessed firsthand” nhưng sau đó expand ra societal level

Một ví dụ tương tự về việc phát triển ý tưởng luật pháp mới có thể tham khảo tại describe a new law you would like to introduce in your country.

---

Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)

Examiner có thể hỏi thêm 1-2 câu ngắn sau Part 2 để clarify hoặc explore thêm:

Question 1: Do you think most people in your country would support this law?

Band 6-7 Answer:
“I think some people would support it and some wouldn’t. Young people would probably like it more because they care about work-life balance. But some companies might not like it because they want to contact employees anytime.”

Band 8-9 Answer:
“It would likely be quite polarizing, to be honest. I imagine there’d be strong support among younger professionals who’ve grown increasingly disillusioned with the grinding work culture. However, I’d expect considerable pushback from traditionalists who might view it as coddling workers or compromising competitiveness. The key would be effective communication about the law’s long-term benefits rather than framing it as workers versus employers.”

---

Question 2: How long do you think it would take to implement such a law?

Band 6-7 Answer:
“I think it would take maybe a few years to implement this law. The government would need time to discuss it and prepare everything. Then companies would need time to adjust their policies.”

Band 8-9 Answer:
“Realistically, I’d say we’re looking at a multi-year journey. There’d need to be extensive stakeholder consultation – gathering input from business associations, labor unions, and workers themselves. Then comes the legislative process, which in Vietnam can be quite protracted. Even after passing into law, there’d likely be a grace period for businesses to adapt their systems. All told, I’d estimate five to seven years from initial proposal to full enforcement, though a phased rollout starting with larger companies could accelerate adoption.”

Giám khảo IELTS đang lắng nghe thí sinh trả lời Part 2 về describe a law you think should be introduced

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion

Tổng Quan Về Part 3

Part 3 là phần thảo luận sâu, kéo dài 4-5 phút với các câu hỏi trừu tượng và phức tạp hơn về chủ đề trong Part 2. Đây là phần khó nhất và cũng là phần phân biệt thí sinh band 6-7 với band 8-9.

Yêu cầu của Part 3:

• Phân tích vấn đề từ nhiều góc độ (cá nhân, xã hội, toàn cầu)
• So sánh và đối chiếu (quá khứ vs hiện tại, các quốc gia khác nhau)
• Đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân có lý lẽ thuyết phục
• Xem xét cả positive và negative aspects

Chiến lược quan trọng:

• Mở rộng câu trả lời đủ 3-5 câu (khoảng 30-45 giây)
• Sử dụng discourse markers để structure ideas (Well, Actually, On the one hand…)
• Đưa ra examples từ social trends, không chỉ personal experience
• Thừa nhận complexity của vấn đề (It’s not straightforward…)
• Avoid absolute statements (always, never) – dùng tentative language (tends to, generally)

Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:

• Trả lời quá ngắn (1-2 câu), không phát triển ý
• Không đưa ra lý lẽ supporting opinion
• Thiếu từ vựng trừu tượng để discuss societal issues
• Speaking quá general, không có specific examples
• Nervous và trả lời defensive thay vì analytical

Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu

Theme 1: Law Enforcement and Effectiveness

---

Question 1: Why do some people choose to break the law even when they know the consequences?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Cause/Reason question (tìm hiểu động cơ hành vi)
• Key words: “choose to break”, “even when they know” – nhấn mạnh deliberate action
• Cách tiếp cận: Direct answer → Multiple reasons → Examples → Nuance/Conclusion

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I think there are several reasons why people break laws. First, some people do it because they need money and have no other choice, like stealing food when they’re hungry. Second, some people think they won’t get caught, so they take the risk. Also, if the punishment is not serious, people might not be afraid to break the law. Finally, sometimes people don’t agree with the law, so they break it on purpose.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear với “First, Second, Also, Finally” nhưng hơi mechanical
• Vocabulary: Basic words (need money, no other choice, take the risk)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Covers main points adequately nhưng lacks depth và sophisticated language

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“Well, this is quite a complex issue with multiple contributing factors. I’d say the primary driver is often economic desperation – when people are backed into a corner financially, they may resort to illegal activities simply to survive, regardless of potential consequences. Beyond material necessity, there’s also the calculated risk-taking behavior – some individuals conduct a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that the potential gains outweigh the risks, especially if they believe enforcement is lax or they possess the means to evade detection.

On another level, I think there’s a psychological dimension involving moral disagreement with certain laws. When people perceive a law as fundamentally unjust, they may engage in civil disobedience as a form of protest. History shows us numerous examples of this, from the civil rights movement to more recent environmental protests.

It’s also worth noting that social norms can sometimes trump legal mandates. In contexts where illegal behavior is widely normalized – such as software piracy or minor traffic violations – individuals may not even internalize these actions as truly criminal, because everyone around them does it. The social stigma that would normally deter lawbreaking simply doesn’t exist in these cases.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Sophisticated organization: Economic reasons → Risk calculation → Moral disagreement → Social factors; mỗi paragraph có clear focus
• Vocabulary: Exceptional range: “backed into a corner”, “resort to illegal activities”, “lax enforcement”, “civil disobedience”, “trump legal mandates”, “normalized”, “internalize”
• Grammar: Complex structures: “when people perceive a law as…, they may…”, “History shows us…”, conditional và relative clauses
• Critical Thinking: Multi-dimensional analysis covering economic, psychological, và sociological perspectives; references historical examples; acknowledges complexity

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “Well”, “Beyond material necessity”, “On another level”, “It’s also worth noting”
• Tentative language: “I’d say”, “often”, “may”, “can sometimes” – tránh overgeneralization
• Abstract nouns: “desperation”, “civil disobedience”, “social stigma”, “enforcement”
• Academic verbs: “perceive”, “engage in”, “internalize”, “deter”

---

Question 2: Do you think laws should be the same for everyone, or should there be exceptions?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Opinion with consideration of alternatives
• Key words: “same for everyone” vs “exceptions” – tension giữa equality và flexibility
• Cách tiếp cận: State position → Explain principle → Acknowledge counterargument → Refine position với examples

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I believe laws should be the same for everyone because that’s fair. If rich people can break laws and poor people can’t, that’s not equal. However, maybe there should be some exceptions for special situations. For example, if someone breaks the law to save a person’s life, they shouldn’t be punished the same way. But generally, I think equal laws are important for justice.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Has basic organization: opinion → reason → exception → conclusion
• Vocabulary: Simple but adequate (fair, equal, special situations, justice)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Communicates main idea clearly nhưng lacks sophisticated development

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“This is actually one of the fundamental tensions in jurisprudence. In principle, I’m a strong proponent of equality before the law – the idea that legal standards should apply uniformly regardless of wealth, status, or connections. This principle is the bedrock of a just society and prevents the kind of corruption where the powerful can act with impunity.

That said, I think we need to distinguish between equal application and contextual justice. The law can be applied equally while still accounting for circumstances. For instance, the principle of diminished responsibility in criminal law recognizes that mental capacity affects culpability. Similarly, sentencing guidelines often factor in mitigating circumstances like acting under duress or being a first-time offender. These aren’t exceptions that undermine equality; rather, they’re refinements that ensure justice by recognizing that not all violations are equivalent.

Where I draw the line is when exceptions become systematic privileges for certain groups. When celebrities receive preferential treatment or corporations evade accountability through legal loopholes unavailable to ordinary citizens, that erodes public trust in the legal system. The key distinction is between principled flexibility that serves justice and arbitrary exceptions that serve power.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Highly sophisticated: Clear position → Principle explanation → Nuanced refinement → Clear boundary → Conclusion
• Vocabulary: Legal terminology (jurisprudence, culpability, diminished responsibility, sentencing guidelines, mitigating circumstances) + sophisticated expressions (bedrock, act with impunity, systematic privileges, erodes public trust)
• Grammar: Advanced structures: “while still accounting for…”, “These aren’t exceptions that…rather, they’re…”, “When celebrities receive…or corporations evade…”
• Critical Thinking: Demonstrates ability to hold nuanced position – supports equality while acknowledging necessary flexibility; provides clear criteria for acceptable vs unacceptable exceptions

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “In principle”, “That said”, “For instance”, “Where I draw the line”
• Tentative language: “I think we need to”, “often”, “can be”
• Contrasting structures: “not all…equivalent”, “between X and Y”
• Abstract concepts: “fundamental tensions”, “contextual justice”, “principled flexibility vs arbitrary exceptions”

---

Theme 2: Impact of Laws on Society

Question 1: How have laws changed society in your country over the past few decades?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Change over time / Compare past and present
• Key words: “changed society”, “past few decades” – yêu cầu historical perspective
• Cách tiếp cận: Identify major legal changes → Explain societal impacts → Provide specific examples → Overall assessment

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“In my country, laws have changed a lot in recent decades. In the past, there were more strict rules about business and the economy. Now the government has made new laws to encourage foreign investment and private companies. This has helped the economy grow faster. Also, traffic laws have become stricter because there are more vehicles now. These changes have made life different, especially in big cities where there are more job opportunities but also more traffic problems.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Chronological comparison với some specific areas
• Vocabulary: Adequate nhưng repetitive (laws have changed, made new laws, become stricter)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Addresses question với relevant content nhưng lacks sophisticated analysis

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“Vietnam has undergone remarkable legal transformation over the past few decades, which has been instrumental in reshaping both our economy and social fabric. The most profound shift has arguably been the Doi Moi reforms starting in the late 1980s, which liberalized the economy and opened the door to foreign investment and private enterprise. This legislative pivot essentially transformed Vietnam from a centrally-planned economy to a market-oriented one, with far-reaching ramifications.

On the economic front, these legal changes catalyzed unprecedented growth. We’ve seen the emergence of a vibrant middle class, the proliferation of entrepreneurship, and Vietnam’s integration into the global economy. The legal framework for intellectual property rights, contract enforcement, and commercial regulations has become increasingly sophisticated, facilitating both domestic business development and attracting multinational corporations.

Beyond economics, there have been significant social implications. Labor laws have evolved to provide greater worker protections, though implementation remains uneven. Environmental regulations have been strengthened, albeit in response to severe pollution problems rather than proactively. We’ve also seen modest progress in laws addressing gender equality and domestic violence, reflecting gradual social evolution.

However, I should note that the pace of legal reform has often outstripped enforcement capacity. We have many well-intentioned laws on the books that remain poorly implemented due to bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of resources, or sometimes insufficient political will. So while the legal landscape has certainly evolved dramatically, translating legal provisions into lived reality remains an ongoing challenge.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Masterful organization: Historical context → Economic impacts → Social impacts → Critical evaluation; clear topic sentences cho mỗi paragraph
• Vocabulary: Sophisticated and precise: “instrumental in reshaping”, “legislative pivot”, “far-reaching ramifications”, “catalyzed unprecedented growth”, “outstripped enforcement capacity”, “translating legal provisions into lived reality”
• Grammar: Complex structures including passive voice, relative clauses, và participial phrases; variety trong sentence structure
• Critical Thinking: Balanced analysis acknowledging both progress và limitations; historical perspective; specific examples (Doi Moi reforms); distinction between legal reform và implementation

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “On the economic front”, “Beyond economics”, “However”, “So while”
• Tentative language: “arguably”, “often”, “remains”, “albeit”
• Concessive structures: “though implementation remains uneven”, “albeit in response to”
• Academic vocabulary: “ramifications”, “catalyzed”, “proliferation”, “facilitating”, “proactively”, “bureaucratic inefficiency”

---

Question 2: Do you think international laws are effective in solving global problems?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Evaluate effectiveness (yêu cầu critical assessment)
• Key words: “international laws”, “global problems” – scope rộng, cần examples cụ thể
• Cách tiếp cận: Define scope → Mixed evaluation (both effective và limited) → Provide examples → Explain limitations → Suggest improvements

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“I think international laws can be effective sometimes, but not always. For example, international laws about trade help countries do business together peacefully. However, when it comes to big problems like climate change, international laws are not very strong because countries don’t always follow them. Some powerful countries ignore international laws when they don’t agree. So I think international laws need to be stronger and countries should be more willing to follow them.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Simple balanced view with examples
• Vocabulary: Basic expressions (can be effective, not very strong, powerful countries)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Reasonable answer nhưng lacks depth và sophisticated argumentation

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“Well, the effectiveness of international law is highly variable and depends significantly on the issue at hand and the enforcement mechanisms available. I’d say it’s a mixed picture that defies simple characterization.

Where international law has been remarkably successful is in areas involving technical cooperation and mutually beneficial frameworks. The international aviation system, governed by ICAO conventions, is a prime example – it works brilliantly because all countries have a vested interest in maintaining safe and orderly air travel. Similarly, international postal agreements and telecommunications protocols function smoothly because they’re predicated on reciprocity and clear mutual benefits.

However, when we venture into more contentious domains like human rights or environmental protection, the picture becomes considerably murkier. The Paris Climate Agreement, while symbolic of global consensus, has proven remarkably toothless in terms of actual enforcement. Countries regularly miss their emissions targets with virtually no consequences. The fundamental problem is the lack of a supranational authority with genuine coercive power – international law ultimately relies on voluntary compliance and peer pressure, which prove inadequate when national interests conflict with global objectives.

The inherent paradox of international law is that it’s created by sovereign states to regulate sovereign states, yet these same states jealously guard their sovereignty and resist external impositions. This creates what I’d call an enforcement deficit. When the UN Security Council, theoretically the most powerful enforcement body, is paralyzed by veto power, you see this limitation in stark relief.

That said, I don’t think the solution is necessarily stronger enforcement mechanisms – which would be politically untenable for most nations – but rather better alignment of incentives. Treaties that incorporate smart incentive structures, like trade preferences contingent on compliance with labor or environmental standards, tend to be more effective than purely normative declarations. Economic interdependence itself can be a powerful enforcement mechanism when cleverly leveraged.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Exceptionally sophisticated: Opening nuanced position → Areas of success with examples → Areas of failure with analysis → Root cause analysis → Proposed solution; demonstrates ability to explore topic comprehensively
• Vocabulary: Extensive range: “highly variable”, “defies simple characterization”, “predicated on reciprocity”, “considerably murkier”, “remarkably toothless”, “supranational authority”, “coercive power”, “enforcement deficit”, “politically untenable”, “cleverly leveraged”
• Grammar: Full range of complex structures: conditional clauses, relative clauses, participial phrases, passive constructions
• Critical Thinking: Exceptional analytical depth: distinguishes between different types of international law; identifies structural problems; proposes solution based on incentive alignment rather than coercion; shows sophisticated understanding of geopolitical realities

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “Where international law has been…”, “However”, “That said”, “The fundamental problem is”
• Tentative language: “I’d say”, “considerably”, “tends to be”, “can be”
• Contrasting structures: “while symbolic…proven toothless”, “not necessarily…but rather”
• Academic vocabulary: “variable”, “enforcement mechanisms”, “predicated on”, “contentious domains”, “supranational authority”, “inherent paradox”, “alignment of incentives”

Để có thêm insight về việc đưa ra quyết định trong các tình huống phức tạp liên quan đến chính sách và luật pháp, bạn có thể xem thêm describe a time when you had to work with a difficult team member.

---

Theme 3: Lawmaking Process and Public Opinion

Question 1: Should ordinary citizens have more say in what laws are created?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Opinion về democratic participation trong lawmaking
• Key words: “ordinary citizens”, “more say” – về participatory democracy
• Cách tiếp cận: State position → Explain benefits → Acknowledge risks → Propose balanced approach

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“Yes, I think citizens should have more say in making laws because the laws affect their lives. In a democracy, people should be able to give their opinions about what laws they want. However, ordinary people might not understand all the complicated legal issues, so we still need experts and politicians to make the final decisions. Maybe there could be more public discussions or surveys about important laws before they are passed.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear position với basic reasoning
• Vocabulary: Simple but communicates ideas (affect their lives, give opinions, complicated issues)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response nhưng lacks sophisticated argumentation

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“This is a fascinating question that touches on fundamental debates about democracy and governance. In principle, I’m strongly in favor of enhanced citizen participation in the legislative process, but I think we need to be thoughtful about the mechanisms.

The case for greater citizen involvement is compelling. Laws derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and when people feel disconnected from lawmaking, you get democratic deficits and declining trust in institutions. Moreover, citizens often have valuable ground-level insights that insulated policymakers might miss. The wisdom of crowds can sometimes surpass expert judgment, particularly on issues that directly affect daily life.

However, I’m wary of simplistic direct democracy approaches like frequent referendums on complex issues. Brexit serves as a cautionary tale – highly technical matters of trade law and international relations were reduced to a binary choice, with disastrous consequences. Most citizens, through no fault of their own, lack the specialized knowledge to make informed decisions on intricate legal matters. There’s also the problem of populist manipulation – emotionally charged campaigns can override careful deliberation.

I think the sweet spot lies in what’s called deliberative democracy. This involves citizens’ assemblies where randomly selected people are given time, information, and expert guidance to thoroughly explore an issue before making recommendations. Ireland has used this model successfully for contentious issues like abortion law. It combines democratic legitimacy with informed decision-making. Additionally, robust public consultation periods, digital platforms for feedback, and transparency requirements can all enhance citizen input without sacrificing the benefits of representative democracy and expert analysis.

The key is striking a balance – empowering citizens while maintaining institutional capacity for nuanced policymaking. We want to harness popular participation without descending into mob rule.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Highly sophisticated: Principle → Arguments for participation → Arguments against direct democracy with example → Proposed solution (deliberative democracy) → Balance conclusion
• Vocabulary: Exceptional: “touches on fundamental debates”, “derive legitimacy”, “democratic deficits”, “insulated policymakers”, “wisdom of crowds”, “cautionary tale”, “populist manipulation”, “deliberative democracy”, “citizens’ assemblies”, “contentious issues”, “harness popular participation”, “descending into mob rule”
• Grammar: Full range including complex conditionals, relative clauses, participial phrases, và emphatic structures
• Critical Thinking: Demonstrates sophisticated political philosophy understanding; provides real-world example (Brexit, Ireland); proposes specific solution rather than generic answer; acknowledges trade-offs

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “In principle”, “However”, “I think the sweet spot lies in”, “The key is”
• Tentative language: “I’m wary of”, “can sometimes”, “I think”
• Metaphorical language: “sweet spot”, “descending into mob rule”, “harness popular participation”
• Academic vocabulary: “legitimacy”, “consent of the governed”, “binary choice”, “deliberation”, “institutional capacity”

---

Question 2: How do cultural differences affect the laws that different countries create?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

• Dạng: Analyze relationship/influence (culture → law)
• Key words: “cultural differences”, “affect” – về cultural relativism trong legal systems
• Cách tiếp cận: Establish relationship → Provide specific examples from different regions → Discuss tension với universal values → Conclude với nuanced view

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

“Cultural differences have a big effect on laws in different countries. For example, in some Asian countries, laws are stricter about respecting elders because of traditional culture. In Western countries, there is more focus on individual freedom in laws. Some countries have laws based on religion, while others separate religion and law. These differences show that what people think is right or wrong can be different in each culture.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Clear examples of cultural influence
• Vocabulary: Basic but communicates concepts (traditional culture, individual freedom, based on religion)
• Tại sao Band 6-7: Addresses question adequately nhưng superficial treatment

---

📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:

“Cultural norms and values profoundly shape legal frameworks, often in ways that illuminate deep philosophical differences about the relationship between the individual and society.

Perhaps most fundamentally, different cultures have varying conceptions of the locus of rights. Western legal traditions, rooted in Enlightenment individualism, tend to privilege individual autonomy and rights – you see this in robust protections for free speech, privacy, and personal liberty. By contrast, many Asian legal systems, influenced by Confucian philosophy, place greater emphasis on collective harmony and social responsibility. This manifests in laws that might seem paternalistic by Western standards but are viewed as legitimate safeguards of social order within their own cultural context.

Religious traditions also exert enormous influence. Sharia-based legal systems in countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran derive their authority from Islamic scripture and regulate aspects of life that secular Western law considers private matters. Similarly, Hindu legal traditions in India have influenced laws around caste discrimination, while Buddhist principles have shaped restorative justice approaches in countries like Bhutan.

The cultural dimension also extends to enforcement styles and attitudes toward law itself. In high-trust societies like Scandinavia, laws are generally complied with voluntarily out of civic duty, whereas in lower-trust contexts, enforcement may need to be more coercive. Some cultures view law as a rigid system of rules, while others see it more flexibly as guidelines subject to contextual interpretation.

This raises thorny questions about universal human rights versus cultural relativism. While I believe certain fundamental rights – freedom from torture, slavery, etc. – should be non-negotiable, we also need to guard against cultural imperialism. The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cultural differences that deserve respect and harmful practices that violate basic human dignity, regardless of cultural justification.

What’s particularly interesting is how globalization and cultural exchange are creating hybrid legal systems that blend different traditions. Vietnam, for instance, has been incorporating elements of Western commercial law while maintaining distinctly Vietnamese characteristics in family law and social regulation. This suggests that legal systems are not static cultural artifacts but evolving frameworks that respond to both indigenous values and global influences.”

Phân tích:

• Structure: Masterful: Establishes thesis → Individual vs collective rights → Religious influence → Enforcement cultures → Universal rights debate → Synthesis về hybrid systems; shows comprehensive understanding
• Vocabulary: Sophisticated legal and philosophical terminology: “locus of rights”, “privilege individual autonomy”, “Enlightenment individualism”, “Confucian philosophy”, “manifests in”, “paternalistic”, “exert enormous influence”, “restorative justice”, “cultural relativism”, “cultural imperialism”, “non-negotiable”, “indigenous values”
• Grammar: Full sophisticated range: complex sentences với multiple clauses, passive voice for academic tone, participial phrases, conditional structures
• Critical Thinking: Demonstrates deep understanding of legal philosophy, cultural theory, và global trends; provides specific examples across multiple cultures; addresses ethical complexity của universal rights vs cultural relativism; shows dialectical thinking

💡 Key Language Features:

• Discourse markers: “Perhaps most fundamentally”, “By contrast”, “Similarly”, “This raises thorny questions”, “What’s particularly interesting”
• Tentative language: “might seem”, “often”, “generally”, “suggests that”
• Comparison structures: “By contrast”, “whereas”, “while others”, “distinguishing between”
• Academic vocabulary: “profoundly shape”, “illuminate”, “manifests in”, “exert influence”, “evolving frameworks”, “indigenous values”

Thí sinh tự tin thảo luận trong IELTS Speaking Part 3 về các vấn đề luật pháp quốc tế

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/	pháp luật, luật pháp	New legislation was introduced to protect consumers.	pass legislation, draft legislation, environmental legislation, existing legislation
enforce	v	/ɪnˈfɔːrs/	thi hành, thực thi (luật)	It’s difficult to enforce this law in rural areas.	strictly enforce, effectively enforce, enforce regulations, enforce compliance
regulation	n	/ˌreɡjuˈleɪʃn/	quy định, quy chế	The company must comply with safety regulations.	strict regulations, comply with regulations, government regulations, traffic regulations
compliance	n	/kəmˈplaɪəns/	sự tuân thủ	Ensuring compliance with environmental laws is challenging.	ensure compliance, compliance with regulations, full compliance, compliance issues
deterrent	n	/dɪˈterənt/	biện pháp răn đe	Harsh penalties serve as a deterrent to crime.	act as a deterrent, effective deterrent, powerful deterrent, crime deterrent
loophole	n	/ˈluːphəʊl/	lỗ hổng pháp lý	Lawyers found a loophole in the tax law.	legal loophole, close the loophole, exploit a loophole, tax loophole
jurisdiction	n	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃn/	phạm vi quyền hạn	This matter falls under federal jurisdiction.	legal jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction, within someone’s jurisdiction, jurisdiction over
legitimate	adj	/lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/	hợp pháp, chính đáng	Citizens have legitimate concerns about privacy.	legitimate concern, legitimate authority, legitimate purpose, perfectly legitimate
prosecute	v	/ˈprɒsɪkjuːt/	truy tố	The authorities decided to prosecute the offenders.	prosecute someone for, fully prosecute, prosecute a case, fail to prosecute
culpable	adj	/ˈkʌlpəbl/	đáng khiển trách, có tội	The driver was found culpable for the accident.	culpable negligence, hold someone culpable, morally culpable, criminally culpable
statute	n	/ˈstætʃuːt/	đạo luật, quy chế	The statute of limitations has expired.	statute law, federal statute, statute book, according to statute
infraction	n	/ɪnˈfrækʃn/	vi phạm (nhỏ)	Minor infractions may result in fines.	minor infraction, traffic infraction, commit an infraction, infraction of rules
jurisprudence	n	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈpruːdns/	luật học, triết lý pháp luật	She studied jurisprudence at university.	legal jurisprudence, study jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, jurisprudence on
amendment	n	/əˈmendmənt/	tu chính án, điều khoản sửa đổi	The constitutional amendment was passed unanimously.	constitutional amendment, propose an amendment, pass an amendment, amendment to the law
enshrine	v	/ɪnˈʃraɪn/	ghi nhận, quy định (trong luật)	These rights are enshrined in the constitution.	enshrine in law, enshrine principles, enshrine rights, legally enshrined
precedent	n	/ˈpresɪdənt/	tiền lệ	This court ruling sets an important precedent.	set a precedent, legal precedent, establish a precedent, without precedent
prohibition	n	/ˌprəʊɪˈbɪʃn/	lệnh cấm	The prohibition on smoking in public places is strictly enforced.	impose a prohibition, prohibition against/on, lift a prohibition, prohibition law
liability	n	/ˌlaɪəˈbɪləti/	trách nhiệm pháp lý	The company accepted liability for the damages.	legal liability, criminal liability, accept liability, liability for damages
verdict	n	/ˈvɜːdɪkt/	phán quyết, bản án	The jury reached a guilty verdict.	guilty verdict, reach a verdict, deliver a verdict, unanimous verdict
codify	v	/ˈkəʊdɪfaɪ/	hệ thống hóa thành luật	The government plans to codify existing regulations.	codify laws, codify rules, codify practices, legally codified

Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases

Cụm từ	Nghĩa	Ví dụ sử dụng	Band điểm
the letter of the law	tuân theo đúng từng điều luật (không linh hoạt)	Following the letter of the law without considering context can lead to injustice.	7.5-9
above the law	không bị luật pháp ràng buộc	No one should be above the law, regardless of their position.	7-8
take the law into one’s own hands	tự ý xử trí không qua luật pháp	Vigilante justice occurs when people take the law into their own hands.	7.5-8
the long arm of the law	quyền lực xa tới của pháp luật	Criminals will eventually be caught by the long arm of the law.	7.5-8.5
bend the rules	làm mềm quy định, không tuân thủ nghiêm ngặt	Sometimes it’s necessary to bend the rules in exceptional circumstances.	7-8
a grey area	vùng mơ hồ không rõ pháp lý	Online privacy regulations remain a grey area in many countries.	7-8
turn a blind eye	làm ngơ, phớt lờ	Authorities sometimes turn a blind eye to minor violations.	7-8
set a precedent	tạo tiền lệ	This landmark ruling sets a precedent for future cases.	7.5-8.5
zero tolerance policy	chính sách không khoan nhượng	The school has a zero tolerance policy toward bullying.	7-8
slap on the wrist	hình phạt nhẹ, không đáng kể	He only got a slap on the wrist for such a serious offense.	7.5-8.5
throw the book at someone	xử phạt nặng nhất có thể	The judge threw the book at the repeat offender.	8-9
cut corners	làm không đúng quy định để tiết kiệm	Companies that cut corners on safety should face penalties.	7-8

Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)

Để bắt đầu câu trả lời:

• 📝 Well,… – Khi cần suy nghĩ hoặc đưa vào topic một cách tự nhiên
• 📝 Actually,… – Khi đưa ra góc nhìn khác hoặc thông tin bất ngờ
• 📝 To be honest,… – Khi nói thật về opinion cá nhân
• 📝 I’d say that… – Khi đưa ra quan điểm có suy nghĩ
• 📝 From my perspective,… – Khi nhấn mạnh đây là personal view

Để bổ sung ý:

• 📝 On top of that,… – Thêm vào đó (formal hơn “also”)
• 📝 What’s more,… – Hơn nữa, ngoài ra
• 📝 Not to mention… – Chưa kể đến (dùng khi add thông tin quan trọng)
• 📝 Beyond that,… – Ngoài điều đó ra
• 📝 Additionally,… – Thêm nữa (formal)

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… chúng ta cũng cần xem xét…
• 📝 That said,… – Dù vậy, tuy nhiên (dùng để introduce contrasting point)
• 📝 Having said that,… – Đã nói như vậy, nhưng…

Để giải thích và làm rõ:

• 📝 What I mean is… – Ý tôi là…
• 📝 In other words,… – Nói cách khác…
• 📝 To put it another way,… – Nói theo cách khác…
• 📝 That is to say,… – Có nghĩa là…

Để đưa ra ví dụ:

• 📝 For instance,… – Ví dụ (formal)
• 📝 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,… – Tóm lại, nhìn chung
• 📝 At the end of the day,… – Cuối cùng thì (informal nhưng natural)
• 📝 All things considered,… – Xét tất cả mọi mặt…
• 📝 In the final analysis,… – Xét cho cùng (formal)

Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng

1. Conditional Sentences (Câu điều kiện):

• Mixed conditional: “If the government had introduced this law earlier, we wouldn’t be facing such serious problems now.”

  • Dùng để nói về past action với present consequence
  • Formula: If + past perfect, would + infinitive

• Inversion for emphasis: “Were this law to be implemented, it would transform society.”

  • Dùng để formal và emphatic hơn
  • “Should anyone violate this regulation, severe penalties would apply.”

2. Relative Clauses (Mệnh đề quan hệ):

• Non-defining: “The right to disconnect law, which has been successful in France, could benefit Vietnamese workers.”

  • Thêm information không essential
  • Luôn có comma

• Reduced relative clauses: “Laws prohibiting discrimination help protect vulnerable groups.”

  • Lược bỏ relative pronoun và ‘be’ verb
  • Concise và sophisticated hơn

3. Passive Voice (Câu bị động):

• Passive with reporting verbs:

  • “It is widely believed that stricter penalties deter crime.”
  • “It has been suggested that this law is outdated.”
  • “It is thought that enforcement remains the key challenge.”

• Passive for formality: “New regulations were introduced to address environmental concerns.”

4. Cleft Sentences (Câu chẻ):

• What-cleft: “What I find most concerning is the lack of enforcement.”

  • Nhấn mạnh object
  • “What we need is better implementation, not more laws.”

• It-cleft: “It’s the principle of equality that makes this law so important.”

  • Nhấn mạnh specific element
  • “It was in 2015 that this landmark legislation was passed.”

5. Participle Clauses:

• “Having witnessed the negative impacts, I strongly support this law.”

  • Shows sequence của events

• “Recognizing the urgency of the issue, lawmakers fast-tracked the bill.”

  • Gives reason

6. Emphatic Structures:

• Do/Does/Did for emphasis: “This law does address a real social need.”
• Inversion after negative adverbials: “Never before have we seen such comprehensive legislation.”
• Not only… but also: “This law not only protects workers but also promotes economic stability.”

Để tìm hiểu thêm về cách trình bày ý tưởng một cách thuyết phục tương tự như khi thảo luận về luật pháp, bạn có thể xem describe a person who is very inspiring.

Chiến Lược Tổng Thể Cho Chủ Đề Luật Pháp

Chuẩn Bị Trước Khi Thi

1. Nghiên cứu các vấn đề xã hội hiện tại:

Để có content phong phú cho chủ đề này, bạn nên cập nhật về các social issues và potential laws:

• Environmental issues (plastic ban, carbon tax)
• Technology and privacy (data protection laws)
• Social equality (gender pay gap, discrimination)
• Public health (tobacco control, junk food regulations)
• Work-life balance (right to disconnect, parental leave)
• Education (free education, standardized testing reforms)

2. Chuẩn bị template thinking nhưng không học thuộc lòng:

Thay vì học thuộc câu trả lời, hãy prepare thinking framework:

Cho Part 2 (Describe a law):

• What: Define law clearly
• Why needed: Current problem/gap
• Changes: Specific impacts on individuals và society
• Enforcement: Realistic assessment of challenges
• Personal stance: Why you support it

Cho Part 3 (Discussion questions):

• Direct answer to question
• Reason 1 + example
• Reason 2 + example
• Acknowledge complexity/other viewpoint
• Conclusion/nuanced stance

3. Luyện tập với recording:

• Record câu trả lời của bạn
• Listen và identify weaknesses:
  • Quá nhiều filler words?
  • Vocabulary lặp lại?
  • Grammar errors?
  • Ideas không clear?
• Re-record với improvements

Trong Phòng Thi

Part 1 Strategy:

• Mở rộng câu trả lời nhưng không quá dài (2-3 câu là đủ)
• Structure: Direct answer → Reason/Example → Additional thought
• Ví dụ: “Yes, I think laws are crucial. They provide structure to society and protect people’s rights. Without them, we’d have chaos.”

Part 2 Strategy:

During 1-minute preparation:

• Ghi keywords cho mỗi bullet point
• Plan opening và closing sentence
• Note down 2-3 specific examples/details
• DON’T write full sentences

While speaking:

• Start confidently với clear topic sentence
• Follow bullet points in order
• Spend 30-40 seconds on “explain” part
• Use signposting: “First, regarding what the law is…”, “Moving on to the changes it would bring…”
• If finish before 2 minutes, elaborate more on explain part
• Maintain eye contact với examiner occasionally

Part 3 Strategy:

• Take 2-3 seconds để think before answering (totally acceptable)
• Use discourse markers để buy time: “Well, that’s an interesting question…”
• Structure: Position → Elaboration → Example → Counterpoint → Conclusion
• Don’t be afraid to say “That’s a complex issue” hoặc “There are multiple perspectives on this”
• Show critical thinking bằng acknowledging different viewpoints
• Give specific examples từ real world (countries, studies, trends)

Xử Lý Tình Huống Khó

Situation 1: Không hiểu câu hỏi

DON’T:

• Stay silent
• Guess randomly
• Say “I don’t understand” (giảm band score)

DO:

• Ask for clarification professionally:
  • “Sorry, could you rephrase that question?”
  • “Just to clarify, are you asking about [interpretation]?”
  • “Do you mean [paraphrase your understanding]?”

Situation 2: Không có ý tưởng

For Part 2: Nếu không nghĩ ra law cụ thể:

• Modify một existing law (make it stricter/more lenient)
• Think about common complaints (traffic, noise, littering) và propose solutions
• Dùng example từ countries khác mà bạn biết

For Part 3: Nếu blank:

• Start bằng tentative phrase: “Well, I haven’t thought about this deeply before, but I would say…”
• Break down question: “This really depends on several factors. First,… Second,…”
• Give general principle trước: “In general, I believe… For example…”

Situation 3: Nói sai hoặc mắc lỗi

If you realize mid-sentence:

• Self-correct naturally: “Sorry, what I meant to say is…”
• Continue without drawing attention to minor slips

DON’T:

• Stop và apologize repeatedly
• Lose confidence và speak more hesitantly
• Over-correct every tiny mistake

Situation 4: Examiner ngắt lời

• This is NORMAL, especially nếu bạn đang nói quá dài
• DON’T take it personally
• Stop gracefully và listen to next question
• In Part 2, nếu examiner stops you ở 2 minutes, đó là good sign (you spoke enough)

Những Điều Tuyệt Đối Tránh

1. Học thuộc template và áp dụng cứng nhắc:

• Examiners nhận ra ngay
• Sounds unnatural và robotic
• Band score sẽ bị cap ở 5-6

2. Sử dụng từ vựng quá complicated mà không hiểu nghĩa:

• Better to use simpler words correctly than complex words incorrectly
• Precision matters more than showiness

3. Nói về chính trị nhạy cảm:

• Tránh criticize specific politicians hoặc political systems directly
• Focus on issues và policies, not political personalities
• Keep opinions balanced và respectful

4. Overuse filler words:

• Occasional “um”, “ah” is natural
• Constant fillers distract from content
• Practice pausing silently thay vì “um”

5. Speak too fast:

• Clarity > Speed
• Fast speaking often leads to more errors
• Examiners value clear pronunciation over rapid delivery

6. Give one-word answers in Part 1:

• Yes. No. Sometimes. → Band 5-6 maximum
• Always elaborate với 2-3 sentences

7. Memorize và recite sample answers:

• Examiners có trained to detect this
• Will ask follow-up questions để test authenticity
• Better to speak naturally với simple language

Lộ Trình Luyện Tập

4 tuần trước thi:

Week 1: Building Foundation

• Học 10 từ vựng/day từ list trên
• Practice Part 1 questions (2-3 topics/day)
• Record và listen để identify pronunciation issues

Week 2: Part 2 Focus

• Practice 1 cue card/day
• Time yourself (1 min prep + 2 min speak)
• Get feedback từ teacher hoặc study partner
• Rewrite notes và practice lại

Week 3: Part 3 Development

• Practice discussion questions
• Focus on developing ideas (không chỉ answer ngắn)
• Learn discourse markers và practice using them naturally
• Record longer responses (45-60 seconds each)

Week 4: Mock Tests

• Full mock tests (Part 1+2+3)
• Identify patterns trong mistakes
• Review và improve weakest areas
• Practice staying calm và confident

1-2 ngày trước thi:

• Light review của key vocabulary
• Practice một vài câu để warm up
• DON’T cram new material
• Rest well và stay confident

Mindset Quan Trọng

Remember:

• IELTS Speaking không test kiến thức về law – nó test English ability
• You don’t need to be a legal expert
• Coherent ideas với clear expression quan trọng hơn sophisticated legal knowledge
• Examiners want to hear YOU speak, không phải memorized script
• Mistakes are OK – native speakers make mistakes too
• Confidence và fluency compensate for minor errors

Final Tips:

• Treat it like a conversation, không phải exam
• Show interest trong topic through intonation
• Maintain eye contact và good posture
• Smile occasionally – it helps you relax và creates positive impression
• If nervous, take a deep breath before starting
• Trust your preparation và speak naturally

Để có thêm động lực và hiểu rõ hơn về việc học tập và phát triển bản thân trong quá trình chuẩn bị IELTS, bạn có thể tham khảo describe a famous writer you enjoy reading.

Chúc bạn đạt band điểm cao trong kỳ thi IELTS Speaking. Hãy nhớ rằng preparation và practice là chìa khóa thành công, nhưng confidence và natural communication mới là những gì examiners thực sự đánh giá cao.