Chủ đề “Describe A New Law You Would Like To Have In Your Country” là một đề tài xuất hiện khá thường xuyên trong IELTS Speaking, đặc biệt ở Part 2 và Part 3. Đây là dạng câu hỏi yêu cầu bạn không chỉ mô tả một luật pháp mới mà còn phải giải thích tầm quan trọng, lý do và tác động của nó đối với xã hội.
Tần suất xuất hiện và tầm quan trọng
Theo thống kê từ các đề thi thực tế, chủ đề về luật pháp, quy định và chính sách xã hội xuất hiện với tần suất trung bình đến cao trong các kỳ thi IELTS từ 2020 đến 2024. Đặc biệt, các biến thể của chủ đề này thường xuất hiện dưới nhiều hình thức khác nhau như: laws about environment, traffic regulations, social policies, workplace laws…
Dự đoán khả năng xuất hiện trong tương lai: Cao, vì đây là chủ đề có tính thời sự và liên quan đến nhiều vấn đề xã hội đương đại mà các quốc gia đang quan tâm.
Những gì bạn sẽ học được
Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ được trang bị:
- Câu hỏi thường gặp trong cả 3 Part về chủ đề luật pháp
- Bài mẫu chi tiết theo từng band điểm (6-7, 7.5-8, 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 từ góc nhìn của một examiner
- Các lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam và cách khắc phục
- Kỹ thuật mở rộng ý tưởng và phát triển câu trả lời tự nhiên
IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview
Tổng Quan Về Part 1
Part 1 của IELTS Speaking kéo dài khoảng 4-5 phút với các câu hỏi ngắn về cuộc sống hàng ngày. Với chủ đề luật pháp, examiner thường không hỏi trực tiếp mà sẽ dẫn dắt qua các góc độ liên quan như rules, regulations trong cuộc sống.
Đặc điểm chính:
- Câu hỏi ngắn gọn, tập trung vào kinh nghiệm cá nhân
- Yêu cầu trả lời tự nhiên, không quá dài dòng
- Nên mở rộng mỗi câu trả lời thành 2-3 câu
Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:
- Trả lời quá ngắn, chỉ Yes/No mà không giải thích
- Sử dụng từ vựng đơn giản, lặp đi lặp lại
- Không đưa ra ví dụ cụ thể từ kinh nghiệm bản thân
- Nói quá nhanh hoặc quá chậm, thiếu tự nhiên
Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp
Question 1: Do you think it’s important to follow rules?
Question 2: Are there any rules in your family?
Question 3: What kind of rules do you have at your workplace or school?
Question 4: Have you ever broken any rules?
Question 5: Do you think rules are the same in different countries?
Question 6: What do you think about people who break rules?
Question 7: Are there more rules now than in the past?
Question 8: Do you think young people follow rules as much as older people?
Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết
Question: Do you think it’s important to follow rules?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Đưa ra quan điểm rõ ràng (yes/no/depends)
- Giải thích lý do chính
- Thêm ví dụ cụ thể hoặc personal experience
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“Yes, I think it’s very important to follow rules. Rules help us live together peacefully and safely. For example, traffic rules prevent accidents on the road. Without rules, society would be chaotic.”
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, có lý do và ví dụ cụ thể
- Hạn chế: Từ vựng còn đơn giản (very important, chaotic), cấu trúc câu cơ bản, thiếu depth trong explanation
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate vocabulary, simple grammar structures, ideas are clear but not well-developed
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
“Absolutely, I believe following rules is fundamental to maintaining social order. Rules essentially serve as a framework that allows people to coexist harmoniously. Take traffic regulations, for instance – they’re not just arbitrary restrictions but vital safeguards that prevent chaos and casualties on our roads. Without such regulatory measures, we’d likely see society descend into anarchy, where individual interests clash constantly and public safety becomes severely compromised.”
Phân tích:
-
Điểm mạnh:
- Vocabulary tinh vi và chính xác: fundamental to, serve as a framework, vital safeguards, descend into anarchy
- Grammar đa dạng: present simple for general truths, conditional structure (without…, we’d likely see…)
- Ideas có depth: không chỉ nói rules quan trọng mà giải thích vai trò của rules trong xã hội
- Natural linking: for instance, essentially, not just…but
-
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Fluency: Mạch lạc, ý tưởng kết nối tốt
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated and precise (framework, regulatory measures, severely compromised)
- Grammar: Complex structures sử dụng chính xác
- Pronunciation: Assumed to be clear with appropriate stress on key words
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- fundamental to: thiết yếu cho, nền tảng của
- serve as a framework: đóng vai trò như một khung khổ
- vital safeguards: biện pháp bảo vệ quan trọng
- descend into anarchy: rơi vào tình trạng vô chính phủ
- severely compromised: bị ảnh hưởng nghiêm trọng
Question: Have you ever broken any rules?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Thành thật nhưng khôn khéo (chọn lỗi nhỏ, không nghiêm trọng)
- Giải thích ngữ cảnh
- Thể hiện sự nhận thức về consequences
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“Well, to be honest, yes, I have. Once I crossed the street when the traffic light was red because I was in a hurry. It was wrong and I felt guilty about it. Now I always wait for the green light.”
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Thành thật, có ví dụ cụ thể, thể hiện reflection
- Hạn chế: Vocabulary đơn giản (in a hurry, felt guilty), thiếu elaboration về consequences hoặc lesson learned
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Communicates effectively but with basic language, ideas could be more developed
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
“Well, I’d be lying if I said I’ve never bent the rules before. There was this one time when I jaywalked across a busy street because I was running late for an important meeting. In hindsight, it was quite reckless of me – I could have put myself in harm’s way. That experience actually taught me a valuable lesson about prioritizing safety over convenience, and I’ve been much more law-abiding since then, even when it means sacrificing a bit of time.”
Phân tích:
-
Điểm mạnh:
- Opening phrase tự nhiên: “I’d be lying if I said…”
- Topic-specific vocabulary: bent the rules, jaywalked, law-abiding
- Advanced expressions: reckless of me, put myself in harm’s way, taught me a valuable lesson
- Reflection và personal growth được thể hiện rõ
- Grammar: past perfect, present perfect, conditional thought (could have)
-
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Fluency: Very natural flow với appropriate hesitation device (Well)
- Vocabulary: Idiomatic (bent the rules) và precise (jaywalked, reckless)
- Grammar: Range of complex structures
- Ideas: Shows maturity and reflection
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- bend the rules: vi phạm nhẹ quy tắc, làm trái quy định
- jaywalk: băng qua đường không đúng chỗ
- reckless of me: liều lĩnh, thiếu suy nghĩ của tôi
- put myself in harm’s way: đặt bản thân vào tình huống nguy hiểm
- law-abiding: tuân thủ pháp luật
Question: What do you think about people who break rules?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Đưa ra quan điểm cân bằng
- Phân biệt giữa các mức độ vi phạm khác nhau
- Đề cập đến consequences và motivations
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“I think it depends on the situation. Some people break small rules because they don’t know about them, which is understandable. But people who break serious rules should be punished because they can harm others.”
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Có sự phân biệt giữa các loại vi phạm, quan điểm balanced
- Hạn chế: Từ vựng lặp lại (break rules x3), thiếu sophistication, ý tưởng chưa fully developed
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response but lacks depth and advanced vocabulary
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
“Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between different types of rule-breakers. Some people commit minor infractions simply out of ignorance or genuine emergency situations, which I find more forgivable. However, those who deliberately flout regulations – especially ones designed to protect public safety or welfare – are acting irresponsibly and should face appropriate consequences. That said, I also believe we need to examine the underlying reasons why people break rules. Sometimes it’s a sign that certain regulations are outdated or impractical, and perhaps they need revising rather than just enforcing more strictly.”
Phân tích:
-
Điểm mạnh:
- Nuanced approach: phân biệt các loại vi phạm khác nhau
- Advanced vocabulary: distinguish between, minor infractions, deliberately flout, underlying reasons
- Complex ideas: không chỉ condemn mà còn analyze deeper causes
- Balanced view: acknowledge complexity của issue
- Excellent discourse markers: However, That said, Sometimes
-
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Fluency: Very coherent với logical progression of ideas
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated legal terminology (infractions, flout regulations, face consequences)
- Grammar: Complex structures (relative clauses, passive voice, conditionals)
- Critical Thinking: Shows ability to analyze from multiple perspectives
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- distinguish between: phân biệt giữa
- commit minor infractions: vi phạm nhỏ
- deliberately flout regulations: cố tình phớt lờ quy định
- face appropriate consequences: đối mặt với hậu quả thích đáng
- underlying reasons: lý do sâu xa
Học viên IELTS Speaking luyện tập chủ đề luật pháp trong lớp học với giáo viên hướng dẫn chi tiết
IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)
Tổng Quan Về Part 2
Part 2 là phần quan trọng nhất của IELTS Speaking, kéo dài 3-4 phút (bao gồm 1 phút chuẩn bị và 2-3 phút nói). Đây là lúc bạn phải thể hiện khả năng nói liên tục về một chủ đề cụ thể mà không bị ngắt quãng.
Chiến lược hiệu quả:
- 1 phút chuẩn bị: Ghi chú keywords, không viết câu hoàn chỉnh. Lập outline nhanh theo các bullet points
- Thời gian nói: Nói tối thiểu 1.5 phút, lý tưởng là 2 phút đến hết giờ
- Cấu trúc: Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả các bullet points, đặc biệt chú ý bullet cuối cùng (usually “explain why/how”)
- Tenses: Chú ý sử dụng đúng thì (quá khứ cho sự kiện đã xảy ra, hiện tại/tương lai cho ý kiến)
Lỗi thường gặp:
- Không sử dụng hết 1 phút chuẩn bị hoặc viết quá nhiều
- Nói dưới 1.5 phút hoặc dừng giữa chừng
- Bỏ sót một hoặc nhiều bullet points
- Lạc đề, nói về chủ đề khác
- Sử dụng quá nhiều fillers (um, ah, well…)
Cue Card
Describe a new law you would like to have in your country
You should say:
- What law it is
- What changes this law will bring
- Whether this law will be popular
- And explain why you would like to have this law
Phân Tích Đề Bài
- Dạng câu hỏi: Describe a law (hypothetical situation – chưa tồn tại)
- Thì động từ: Chủ yếu sử dụng would/could (conditional), present simple (khi mô tả hiện trạng), future tenses (khi nói về impacts)
- Bullet points phải cover:
- Bullet 1: Giải thích rõ luật gì, nội dung chính là gì
- Bullet 2: Những thay đổi cụ thể mà luật này mang lại (social, economic, environmental impacts)
- Bullet 3: Đánh giá mức độ phổ biến, ai sẽ ủng hộ, ai sẽ phản đối
- Bullet 4: Lý do cá nhân tại sao bạn muốn có luật này (đây là phần quan trọng nhất)
- Câu “explain” quan trọng: Đây là phần ghi điểm cao nhất vì yêu cầu critical thinking và personal justification. Nên dành 30-40 giây cuối cho phần này.
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7
Thời lượng: Khoảng 1.5-2 phút
“I’d like to talk about a new law that I think should be introduced in my country, which is about reducing plastic waste.
This law would ban single-use plastic bags in all shops and supermarkets. Instead, people would have to use reusable bags or paper bags. Shops that continue to provide plastic bags would have to pay a fine.
If this law is introduced, I think it would bring many important changes. First, it would reduce the amount of plastic pollution in our environment. We would see fewer plastic bags in the streets, rivers, and oceans. Second, it would encourage people to develop better habits about shopping and waste management. People would start bringing their own bags when they go shopping.
I think this law would be quite popular with young people and environmental activists, but some older people and shop owners might not like it at first. They might find it inconvenient or costly to change their habits. However, I believe that over time, most people would get used to it and see the benefits.
The reason I would like to have this law is because I’m really concerned about environmental problems. I see a lot of plastic waste in my city, and I know it’s harmful to animals and the environment. This law would be a good step toward making our country cleaner and more sustainable. I think we have a responsibility to protect the environment for future generations.”
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 6-7 | Nói mạch lạc, có linking words cơ bản (first, second, however), nhưng còn một số pauses ngắn và repetition |
| Lexical Resource | 6-7 | Từ vựng adequate và relevant (single-use plastic, reusable bags, pollution), nhưng chủ yếu là common words, thiếu sophistication |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 6-7 | Có mix của simple và complex structures (relative clauses, conditional), nhưng chủ yếu là simple forms, một số lỗi nhỏ có thể xuất hiện |
| Pronunciation | 6-7 | Giả định rõ ràng, có thể hiểu được, stress patterns cơ bản đúng |
Điểm mạnh:
- ✅ Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả các bullet points
- ✅ Có structure rõ ràng, easy to follow
- ✅ Đưa ra examples cụ thể (plastic bags, rivers, oceans)
- ✅ Personal opinion được thể hiện ở cuối
Hạn chế:
- ⚠️ Vocabulary còn basic và repetitive (plastic bags, environment xuất hiện nhiều lần)
- ⚠️ Thiếu advanced phrases và idioms
- ⚠️ Ideas chưa fully developed, thiếu depth trong analysis
- ⚠️ Grammar structures đơn giản, ít variety
📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8
Thời lượng: Khoảng 2-2.5 phút
“I’d like to describe a law that I believe would be tremendously beneficial for my country, which is a comprehensive ban on single-use plastics in retail and food service industries.
This proposed legislation would prohibit the distribution of disposable plastic items such as shopping bags, straws, food containers, and cutlery across all commercial establishments. Businesses would be required to transition to eco-friendly alternatives like biodegradable materials, reusable containers, or paper products. There would be a grace period for businesses to adapt, followed by substantial fines for non-compliance.
The implementation of this law would trigger several significant changes. Most importantly, it would dramatically reduce the volume of plastic waste that currently pollutes our waterways and landfills. According to environmental reports, plastics account for a massive portion of our waste, and this law could cut that figure substantially. Additionally, it would shift consumer behavior toward more sustainable practices, as people would need to bring their own containers and bags when shopping. This could also stimulate innovation in the packaging industry, encouraging companies to develop more environmentally-friendly solutions.
As for popularity, I think it would be a divisive issue. Younger generations and environmentally-conscious citizens would likely embrace it wholeheartedly, seeing it as an essential step toward environmental protection. However, there might be initial resistance from business owners concerned about costs, and some consumers who value convenience might find it bothersome at first. Nevertheless, we’ve seen similar laws work successfully in other countries, so I believe people would gradually adapt.
The reason I’m so passionate about this law is that I’ve witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of plastic pollution on our environment. Every time I visit the beach or go hiking, I’m dismayed by the amount of plastic litter strewn across natural areas. Moreover, I’ve read extensively about how plastic waste harms marine life and enters our food chain, which poses serious health risks. I firmly believe this law would be a crucial step in addressing this environmental crisis and safeguarding our ecosystem for future generations. It’s not just about cleaning up; it’s about fundamentally changing our relationship with disposable materials.”
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 7.5-8 | Very fluent với minimal hesitation, excellent use of cohesive devices (most importantly, additionally, moreover), logical sequencing |
| Lexical Resource | 7.5-8 | Wide range of vocabulary với good collocation (trigger significant changes, shift consumer behavior, embrace wholeheartedly, devastating impact), some less common items |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 7.5-8 | Wide range of structures với good control (complex sentences, passive voice, conditionals), very few errors |
| Pronunciation | 7.5-8 | Giả định clear và natural với appropriate intonation và stress |
So Sánh Với Band 6-7
| Khía cạnh | Band 6-7 | Band 7.5-8 |
|---|---|---|
| Vocabulary | reducing plastic waste, harmful to animals | comprehensive ban, devastating impact, strewn across, safeguarding ecosystem |
| Grammar | “it would reduce pollution” (simple) | “it would dramatically reduce the volume of plastic waste that currently pollutes our waterways” (complex với relative clause) |
| Ideas | “good for environment” (general) | “stimulate innovation in packaging industry, shift consumer behavior” (specific và insightful) |
| Cohesion | First, Second, However (basic) | Most importantly, Additionally, Moreover, Nevertheless (sophisticated) |
Thí sinh IELTS Speaking Part 2 đang trình bày về chủ đề luật mới trước giám khảo chuyên nghiệp
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9
Thời lượng: 2.5-3 phút đầy đủ
“I’d like to elaborate on a legislative proposal that I believe would be nothing short of transformative for my country – a comprehensive four-day workweek mandate that would redefine our approach to work-life balance.
This groundbreaking law would legally cap the working week at 32 hours across all sectors, requiring employers to condense the traditional five-day schedule into four days without reducing salaries. The legislation would include robust enforcement mechanisms, including labor inspections and penalties for non-compliant companies. Crucially, it would also mandate that employers maintain current salary levels, ensuring workers don’t bear the financial burden of this transition.
The ripple effects of such legislation would be far-reaching and multifaceted. From an economic standpoint, preliminary research suggests it could boost productivity significantly – counterintuitive as it may seem, studies from countries that have piloted similar schemes show that well-rested employees are substantially more efficient and creative. We’d likely see a surge in domestic tourism and leisure activities, injecting fresh capital into those sectors. Environmentally, reduced commuting would translate into lower carbon emissions. Perhaps most importantly, it would address the burnout epidemic that’s been plaguing our workforce, particularly in high-stress industries. Parents would have more time for childcare, potentially alleviating the demographic crisis we’re facing, and mental health outcomes would likely improve considerably.
As for its reception among the public, I anticipate it would be highly polarizing, at least initially. Progressive-minded individuals and labor unions would champion this reform, viewing it as long overdue recognition that our current work culture is unsustainable and counterproductive. The younger workforce, in particular, would be overwhelmingly in favor, as they increasingly prioritize quality of life over climbing the corporate ladder. However, staunch opposition would likely come from traditional business establishments who might see it as threatening profitability, despite evidence to the contrary. There’s also a cultural dimension to consider – in societies where long working hours are worn as a badge of honor, this shift might face ideological resistance.
The reason I’m so fervently advocating for this law is deeply personal and observational. I’ve witnessed countless friends and family members sacrificing their physical and mental wellbeing at the altar of productivity, only to achieve diminishing returns. The current paradigm where we equate longer hours with greater dedication is fundamentally flawed – it’s a relic of the industrial age that no longer serves us in our knowledge-based economy. More profoundly, I believe we’ve lost sight of what constitutes a meaningful life. Work should be a means to an end, not the end itself. By institutionalizing better work-life boundaries, this law would send a powerful message about our societal values. It would acknowledge that humans aren’t merely economic units but complex beings who need time for relationships, personal growth, and rest. In my view, a nation’s progress shouldn’t be measured solely by GDP growth, but by the holistic wellbeing of its citizens. This law would be a bold step toward recalibrating our priorities and creating a more humane society where people can actually live, not just exist.”
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 8.5-9 | Speaks fluently với minimal repetition or self-correction, sophisticated sequencing with excellent cohesive devices, develops topics fully and appropriately |
| Lexical Resource | 8.5-9 | Uses vocabulary with full flexibility and precision, skilful use of less common and idiomatic items (nothing short of transformative, bear the financial burden, ripple effects, worn as a badge of honor, at the altar of productivity), rare minor errors |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 8.5-9 | Uses full range of structures naturally and appropriately, produces error-free sentences with only rare inappropriacies |
| Pronunciation | 8.5-9 | Uses varied intonation to convey precise meaning, sustains flexible use of features with minimal lapses, easy to understand |
Tại Sao Bài Này Xuất Sắc
🎯 Fluency Hoàn Hảo:
- Speech flow tự nhiên như native speaker, không có hesitation đáng kể
- Sophisticated discourse markers: counterintuitive as it may seem, crucially, perhaps most importantly
- Ý tưởng phát triển logic từ description → impacts → reception → personal reasoning
📚 Vocabulary Tinh Vi:
- Idiomatic expressions: “nothing short of transformative”, “worn as a badge of honor”, “at the altar of productivity”
- Academic collocations: “robust enforcement mechanisms”, “preliminary research”, “ripple effects”, “demographic crisis”
- Precise topic-specific vocabulary: “labor inspections”, “burnout epidemic”, “work-life boundaries”
- Varied expressions để tránh repetition: law → legislative proposal → legislation → reform
📝 Grammar Đa Dạng:
- Complex conditional: “counterintuitive as it may seem” (inversion)
- Advanced relative clauses: “legislation would include robust enforcement mechanisms, including penalties for non-compliant companies”
- Participle clauses: “requiring employers to condense…”, “ensuring workers don’t…”
- Passive voice for sophistication: “long working hours are worn as a badge of honor”
- Perfect tenses: “I’ve witnessed countless friends”
💡 Ideas Sâu Sắc:
- Multi-dimensional analysis: economic, environmental, social, psychological perspectives
- Nuanced view của issue: acknowledges both supporters and opponents
- Personal reflection có depth: “Work should be a means to an end, not the end itself”
- Critical thinking: challenges conventional wisdom về work culture
- Philosophical dimension: “humans aren’t merely economic units”
Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)
Sau khi bạn kết thúc Part 2, examiner thường hỏi 1-2 câu ngắn để transition sang Part 3:
Question 1: Do you think this law will be implemented in the near future?
Band 6-7 Answer:
“I’m not sure. It depends on the government’s priorities. If they care about the environment, they might introduce it soon. But if they focus more on the economy, it might take longer.”
Band 8-9 Answer:
“That’s a pertinent question. Honestly, I think we’re still a considerable way off from seeing this implemented, primarily because there are entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo. However, I’m cautiously optimistic that as public awareness grows and we see more tangible evidence of the benefits from countries that have already adopted it, there’ll be mounting pressure on policymakers to take the plunge. I’d say we’re looking at a 5-10 year timeframe realistically.”
Question 2: Have you personally done anything to support this idea?
Band 6-7 Answer:
“Well, I try to use less plastic in my daily life. I always bring a reusable bag when I go shopping, and I avoid buying products with too much plastic packaging.”
Band 8-9 Answer:
“Indeed, I try to practice what I preach. Beyond adjusting my personal habits – like carrying reusable bags and containers – I’ve been fairly active in raising awareness through social media. I’ve also signed several petitions advocating for stricter environmental regulations and occasionally participate in community clean-up initiatives. I believe that while individual actions may seem like a drop in the ocean, collective effort can galvanize change and demonstrate to policymakers that there’s genuine public support for such measures.”
Giám khảo IELTS Speaking đang đánh giá và ghi chú câu trả lời của thí sinh trong Part 3
IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion
Tổng Quan Về Part 3
Part 3 là phần khó nhất của IELTS Speaking, kéo dài 4-5 phút với các câu hỏi thảo luận sâu và trừu tượng hơn Part 2. Đây là nơi bạn phải thể hiện khả năng phân tích, đánh giá và discuss ở level cao hơn.
Yêu cầu chính:
- Phân tích vấn đề từ nhiều góc độ
- So sánh và đối chiếu các quan điểm
- Đưa ra ý kiến cá nhân có lý lẽ chặt chẽ
- Sử dụng examples từ society, không chỉ personal experience
Chiến lược hiệu quả:
- Mở rộng mỗi câu trả lời thành 4-6 câu
- Sử dụng discourse markers để structure ideas (Firstly, Moreover, On the other hand)
- Acknowledge complexity của issues (It depends, There are pros and cons)
- Provide balanced views trước khi state personal opinion
- Use tentative language (I would say, It seems to me, To some extent)
Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:
- Trả lời quá ngắn, thiếu elaboration
- Không đưa ra reasoning rõ ràng
- Thiếu từ vựng trừu tượng và academic
- Chỉ nói về personal experience thay vì societal perspectives
- Không acknowledge complexity của issues
Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu
Theme 1: Law Enforcement and Effectiveness
Question 1: What makes a law effective in a society?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Analytical question yêu cầu identify factors
- Key words: effective, society (not individual)
- Cách tiếp cận: Đưa ra multiple factors, explain each với examples, có thể prioritize factors
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“I think several things make a law effective. First, the law needs to be clear so everyone can understand it easily. Second, there should be good enforcement – the government needs to check if people follow the law and punish those who don’t. Also, the law should be fair and suitable for the society. If people think a law is unfair, they won’t follow it. Finally, education is important – people need to understand why the law exists.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Listed multiple factors với first, second, also, finally
- Vocabulary: Clear, enforcement, fair, suitable – adequate nhưng basic
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Covers main points nhưng thiếu depth, sophistication trong language và ideas
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
“Well, that’s quite a multifaceted question. I’d say the effectiveness of legislation hinges on several interconnected factors. First and foremost, there needs to be robust enforcement mechanisms – a law is only as good as its implementation. Without adequate resources for monitoring compliance and meaningful penalties for violations, even well-intentioned laws become toothless.
Equally crucial is public buy-in. Laws that align with societal values and are perceived as just and reasonable tend to enjoy higher compliance rates. This is where public education campaigns play a vital role – when people understand the rationale behind legislation and see its benefits, they’re more likely to comply voluntarily rather than out of fear of punishment.
Furthermore, I’d argue that adaptability is key. Rigid laws that fail to evolve with changing social norms often become obsolete and counterproductive. The most effective legal frameworks are those that can be amended in response to emerging challenges while maintaining their core principles. Take environmental regulations, for instance – they need to keep pace with scientific discoveries and technological advances to remain relevant.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Well-organized: Direct answer → Factor 1 (enforcement) + elaboration → Factor 2 (public support) + explanation → Factor 3 (adaptability) + example
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated and precise – multifaceted, hinges on, robust enforcement mechanisms, toothless, public buy-in, rationale behind
- Grammar: Complex structures perfectly executed – relative clauses, conditionals, passive constructions
- Critical Thinking: Shows nuanced understanding với interconnected factors, acknowledges complexity
💡 Key Language Features:
- Discourse markers: First and foremost, Equally crucial, Furthermore, For instance
- Tentative language: I’d say, I’d argue, tend to
- Abstract nouns: effectiveness, compliance, implementation, adaptability
- Academic collocations: robust enforcement mechanisms, public buy-in, align with societal values
Question 2: Why do some people choose to break the law?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Cause-Effect question, yêu cầu explain motivations
- Key words: choose, break (implies intentional action)
- Cách tiếp cận: Categorize different types of law-breakers và their motivations, acknowledge complexity
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“There are different reasons why people break laws. Some people do it because they need money and are desperate. For example, someone who has no job might steal food. Other people break laws because they don’t think the law is important or they don’t know about it. Young people sometimes break rules because of peer pressure from their friends. Also, some people are just selfish and don’t care about society.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Lists reasons với examples
- Vocabulary: Adequate với basic words (desperate, peer pressure, selfish)
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Covers several reasons nhưng analysis thiếu depth, không acknowledge societal factors
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
“This is quite a complex issue that warrants careful consideration. I think we need to differentiate between various categories of law-breakers and their motivations.
At one end of the spectrum, you have people who engage in criminal behavior out of sheer desperation or socioeconomic necessity. When individuals are pushed to the margins of society and face dire circumstances – such as poverty, homelessness, or unemployment – they might resort to illegal means simply to survive. This isn’t to condone their actions, but rather to acknowledge the systemic factors that contribute to criminality.
On the other hand, some people violate laws due to moral disagreement. They might consciously disobey regulations they perceive as unjust or outdated – what we call civil disobedience. Historically, many social reforms came about precisely because people were willing to challenge unjust laws.
Then there’s the category of opportunistic offenders who break laws when they believe they can get away with it. This often stems from a lack of moral compass or insufficient deterrence. Some people weigh the potential benefits against the likelihood of getting caught, and if they think the risk is low, they might take their chances.
Lastly, we shouldn’t overlook the role of ignorance – sometimes people transgress simply because they’re unaware of specific regulations or haven’t fully understood the legal implications of their actions.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Highly sophisticated – categorizes types with clear signposting (At one end, On the other hand, Then there’s, Lastly)
- Vocabulary: Advanced and precise – warrants careful consideration, pushed to the margins, resort to illegal means, moral compass, transgress
- Grammar: Full range – relative clauses, conditionals, passive voice, participle clauses
- Critical Thinking: Nuanced analysis acknowledging multiple factors including systemic issues, không chỉ blame individuals
💡 Key Language Features:
- Categorization language: At one end of the spectrum, On the other hand, Then there’s
- Academic phrases: warrants careful consideration, differentiate between, stems from
- Hedging: I think we need to, might, often, sometimes
- Sophisticated vocabulary: sheer desperation, civil disobedience, opportunistic offenders
Theme 2: Laws and Social Change
Question 3: How have laws changed in your country over the past few decades?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Describe changes over time (comparison past vs present)
- Key words: changed, past few decades (time frame)
- Cách tiếp cận: Identify specific areas where laws changed, explain driving forces, provide examples
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“Laws in my country have changed a lot in recent years. In the past, the laws were stricter and more traditional. Now we have more laws about protecting the environment and workers’ rights. For example, we now have laws about pollution control and minimum wage. Also, traffic laws have become stricter because of more accidents. Technology has also brought new laws about internet use and data protection.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Past vs present comparison với examples
- Vocabulary: Basic (stricter, traditional, pollution control)
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response với clear examples nhưng thiếu analysis về why changes happened
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:
“There’s been quite a dramatic evolution in our legal landscape over the past few decades, largely reflective of broader socioeconomic transformations.
Most notably, we’ve witnessed a significant shift toward progressive social legislation. Laws concerning gender equality, labor rights, and consumer protection have been substantially strengthened. For instance, we now have comprehensive anti-discrimination statutes that were virtually non-existent a generation ago. This mirrors a broader societal awakening to issues of fairness and human rights.
The environmental legislative framework has also undergone a radical overhaul. What were once lax or poorly enforced regulations have been replaced by stringent environmental protection laws with serious penalties for violations. This shift was precipitated by growing awareness of ecological crises and mounting public pressure for sustainability.
Perhaps most striking is how the digital revolution has necessitated entirely new categories of legislation. We now have intricate laws governing data privacy, cybersecurity, and digital commerce that simply didn’t exist twenty years ago. The legal system has had to scramble to keep pace with breakneck technological advancement.
However, I should note that while we’ve made considerable strides in some areas, there are still glaring gaps in others. Some laws remain frustratingly outdated, particularly around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and biotechnology. The legislative apparatus often lags behind the pace of social and technological change, which creates legal grey areas that can be problematic.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Thematic organization with clear progression, balanced view acknowledging both progress and gaps
- Vocabulary: Highly sophisticated – dramatic evolution, mirrors a broader societal awakening, precipitated by, scramble to keep pace, legislative apparatus
- Grammar: Complex structures flawlessly executed – passive voice, relative clauses, perfect tenses
- Critical Thinking: Deep analysis linking legal changes to social forces, acknowledges limitations
💡 Key Language Features:
- Change vocabulary: dramatic evolution, significant shift, undergone a radical overhaul, precipitated by
- Time markers: over the past few decades, a generation ago, twenty years ago
- Contrast language: While we’ve made considerable strides, However, still
- Cause-effect language: reflective of, necessitated, precipitated by
Question 4: Do you think stricter laws lead to a better society?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Opinion question với element of cause-effect
- Key words: stricter laws, better society (need to define what “better” means)
- Cách tiếp cận: Present balanced view, acknowledge it depends on context, give examples supporting both sides
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
“I think it depends on the situation. Stricter laws can be good because they prevent crime and make people follow rules. For example, strict traffic laws reduce accidents. However, if laws are too strict, people might feel their freedom is limited. Also, very strict punishment might not always work – it’s better to educate people about why laws are important. So I believe we need balanced laws that are strict enough to be effective but not so strict that they harm freedom.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Balanced view với both sides
- Vocabulary: Adequate nhưng repetitive (strict/stricter appears nhiều lần)
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Presents both views với example nhưng analysis chưa deep, thiếu sophisticated vocabulary
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:
“This is a deceptively simple question that actually touches on fundamental questions about the nature of governance and social order. My view is that it’s not quite that straightforward – the relationship between legal severity and societal wellbeing is far more nuanced and context-dependent.
On the one hand, there’s compelling evidence that robust enforcement of certain laws can yield tangible benefits. Take traffic regulations, for instance – countries with stringent traffic laws and rigorous enforcement generally see lower accident rates and fewer fatalities. Similarly, tough penalties for violent crimes can serve as an effective deterrent and help maintain public safety.
However, I’d argue that blanket application of stricter laws is neither effective nor desirable. Overly punitive measures can backfire spectacularly. We’ve seen this with draconian drug laws in various countries that led to mass incarceration without meaningfully addressing substance abuse issues. What they created instead was a vicious cycle where marginalized communities were disproportionately targeted, and rehabilitation was sacrificed in favor of punishment.
More fundamentally, I believe a genuinely better society is built not just through coercion and fear of punishment, but through fostering a culture of civic responsibility and shared values. Laws should ideally be internalized as social norms rather than externally imposed constraints. This requires investment in education, addressing root causes of criminal behavior like poverty and inequality, and creating laws that people perceive as legitimate and just.
To put it succinctly, stricter laws might be necessary and beneficial in specific contexts, but they’re certainly not a panacea. What we need is smart legislation that’s appropriately calibrated to the specific challenge at hand, coupled with holistic social policies that address underlying issues. A truly better society emerges from a combination of fair laws, effective enforcement, and societal conditions that don’t push people toward criminality in the first place.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Exemplary organization – addresses complexity upfront → argument for → counterargument with examples → deeper philosophical point → conclusion that synthesizes views
- Vocabulary: Exceptional – deceptively simple, nuanced and context-dependent, backfire spectacularly, draconian, vicious cycle, panacea, appropriately calibrated
- Grammar: Full mastery – complex conditionals, relative clauses, passive constructions, advanced subordination
- Critical Thinking: Exceptional depth – challenges premise of question, examines both empirical evidence and philosophical dimensions, provides concrete examples, offers sophisticated conclusion
💡 Key Language Features:
- Opening strategy: Questions the premise (deceptively simple, not quite that straightforward)
- Balanced discussion: On the one hand, However, More fundamentally
- Evidence language: compelling evidence, We’ve seen this, Take…for instance
- Sophisticated hedging: I’d argue, I believe, ideally, might be
- Powerful conclusions: To put it succinctly, A truly better society emerges from
Minh họa bản luật mới về môi trường và tác động tích cực đến xã hội Việt Nam
Theme 3: International Law and Global Issues
Question 5: Should countries have similar laws, or should each country have its own laws based on its culture?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Compare/Contrast question với element of opinion
- Key words: similar laws vs own laws, culture (cultural relativism)
- Cách tiếp cận: Acknowledge merit của both approaches, provide examples, discuss when uniformity is needed vs when diversity is appropriate
📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:
“I think this is a complex issue and the answer depends on the type of law. For some issues, like human rights and environmental protection, I believe countries should have similar laws because these are universal concerns. For example, all countries should prohibit child labor or protect endangered species. However, other laws can reflect local culture and traditions. Family laws or religious practices might be different in different countries because cultures have different values. The challenge is finding the right balance between respecting cultural diversity and maintaining universal standards for important issues.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Balanced với clear distinction between universal vs cultural-specific laws
- Vocabulary: Good range (universal concerns, cultural diversity, endangered species)
- Tại sao Band 7-8: Well-developed response với relevant examples, shows nuanced thinking
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:
“This question really gets to the heart of one of the most contentious debates in international relations – the tension between universalism and cultural relativism.
I’d argue we need a more sophisticated framework that distinguishes between different categories of legislation. For certain fundamental issues – particularly those concerning inalienable human rights – I’m firmly in the universalist camp. Laws prohibiting torture, slavery, genocide, and other egregious violations of human dignity should be non-negotiable and internationally enforced, regardless of cultural context. The argument that such practices are culturally acceptable simply doesn’t hold water – there are certain moral baselines that transcend cultural boundaries.
Similarly, transnational challenges like climate change, terrorism, and pandemics necessitate coordinated legal frameworks. Environmental regulations, for instance, can’t be purely domestic affairs when pollution knows no borders. We need harmonized international standards to tackle these global threats effectively.
That said, I absolutely believe there’s legitimate space for legal diversity in matters that are genuinely culture-specific and don’t impinge on fundamental rights. Legal frameworks around marriage, inheritance, certain business practices, or local governance structures can reasonably vary to reflect diverse cultural values and historical contexts. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach in such areas would be both impractical and ethnocentric.
The real challenge lies in delineating the boundaries between these categories – determining which issues warrant universal standards and which can accommodate cultural variation. This requires ongoing dialogue, mutual respect, and recognition that legal pluralism and core universal principles aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. We can uphold essential human rights while still respecting cultural diversity in other spheres.
Ultimately, I envision an international legal order that has a solid foundation of non-negotiable universal norms regarding fundamental rights and existential global challenges, while allowing sufficient flexibility for countries to craft legislation that resonates with their particular cultural contexts in other areas. It’s about finding that delicate equilibrium between global solidarity and respect for sovereignty and diversity.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Exceptional sophistication – introduces philosophical tension → establishes position on universal laws with justification → discusses when diversity appropriate → acknowledges complexity of boundary-setting → synthesized conclusion with vision
- Vocabulary: Outstanding – gets to the heart of, contentious debates, inalienable human rights, egregious violations, doesn’t hold water, impinge on, delineating boundaries, mutually exclusive
- Grammar: Full command – complex conditionals, passive constructions, advanced subordination, perfect use of articles
- Critical Thinking: Exceptional intellectual engagement – addresses philosophical dimensions, provides nuanced categorization, acknowledges practical challenges, offers sophisticated synthesis
💡 Key Language Features:
- Philosophical framing: gets to the heart of, tension between, universalism vs cultural relativism
- Strong positioning: I’m firmly in the camp, simply doesn’t hold water, absolutely believe
- Nuance markers: That said, The real challenge lies, Ultimately
- Academic discourse: necessitate, legitimate space, delineating boundaries, legal pluralism
- Sophisticated conclusion: envision, delicate equilibrium, global solidarity
Question 6: What role should technology play in law enforcement?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Opinion question about role/function
- Key words: technology, law enforcement (need to consider both benefits and risks)
- Cách tiếp cận: Discuss potential benefits, address concerns about privacy/misuse, offer balanced recommendation
📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:
“Technology can definitely help law enforcement in many ways. For example, CCTV cameras can help prevent crime and catch criminals. DNA testing and forensic technology make investigations more accurate. Also, databases can help police track criminals across different areas. However, we need to be careful about privacy issues. Too much surveillance might make people feel uncomfortable and could be misused by authorities. So I think technology should be used, but with proper regulations and oversight to protect citizens’ rights.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Benefits → concerns → balanced conclusion
- Vocabulary: Appropriate technical terms (CCTV, DNA testing, forensic, surveillance)
- Tại sao Band 7-8: Clear response với relevant examples, acknowledges both sides, but could develop ideas further
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8.5-9:
“Technology’s role in law enforcement is increasingly pivotal, but it’s also fraught with ethical implications that demand careful consideration.
On the positive side, technological advances have revolutionized investigative capabilities. Forensic technologies like DNA analysis and digital forensics have made solving crimes more scientific and precise, reducing wrongful convictions while enhancing accuracy. Surveillance systems, when deployed judiciously, can serve as both deterrents and invaluable investigative tools. Predictive policing algorithms, despite their controversies, can help optimize resource allocation and potentially prevent crimes before they occur. During emergencies, technologies like facial recognition can help locate missing persons or identify suspects rapidly.
However – and this is crucial – we’re treading into extremely murky ethical territory here. The same technologies that enhance security can morph into instruments of oppression if left unchecked. Mass surveillance infrastructures pose profound threats to privacy and civil liberties. We’ve already seen instances where facial recognition systems exhibit racial biases, leading to disproportionate targeting of minority communities. Data breaches could expose sensitive information, and there’s always the specter of authoritarian governments weaponizing these tools to suppress dissent.
What’s particularly troubling is the opacity of many of these systems. Algorithmic decision-making in law enforcement often operates as a ‘black box’, making it difficult to scrutinize for bias or challenge erroneous conclusions. This fundamentally undermines principles of transparency and accountability that should be bedrock in any justice system.
So where does that leave us? I believe technology should play a carefully circumscribed role in law enforcement. We need robust regulatory frameworks that establish clear guardrails. This means mandatory transparency requirements for algorithms, rigorous auditing for bias, strict data protection protocols, and meaningful oversight mechanisms – ideally involving independent bodies, not just internal police reviews.
Technology should be viewed as a tool to augment – not replace – human judgment in law enforcement. We should harness its potential for improving investigative accuracy and operational efficiency while establishing stringent safeguards against abuse. The goal should be striking a balance between leveraging technological capabilities and preserving fundamental rights that define free societies. Err on the side of privacy when in doubt, because freedoms once surrendered are notoriously difficult to reclaim.”
Phân tích:
- Structure: Masterful organization – benefits with examples → substantial concerns with evidence → deeper critique of systemic issues → comprehensive recommendations with specific measures → philosophical conclusion
- Vocabulary: Exceptional sophistication – fraught with ethical implications, deployed judiciously, treading into murky territory, morph into instruments of oppression, specter of, opacity, circumscribed role
- Grammar: Full mastery of complex structures – participle clauses, advanced conditionals, passive constructions
- Critical Thinking: Outstanding intellectual depth – examines technical, ethical, and philosophical dimensions; provides concrete examples of risks; offers nuanced policy recommendations
💡 Key Language Features:
- Balanced structure: On the positive side, However (and this is crucial), What’s particularly troubling, So where does that leave us?
- Sophisticated hedging: can help, potentially, I believe, should be viewed as
- Critical language: fraught with, profound threats, fundamentally undermines, notoriously difficult
- Policy recommendations: robust regulatory frameworks, clear guardrails, stringent safeguards
- Powerful metaphors: black box, bedrock, specter of
Công nghệ giám sát trong thi hành pháp luật và vấn đề quyền riêng tư cần được cân bằng
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 | /ˌledʒɪsˈleɪʃn/ | luật pháp, pháp luật | The new legislation aims to protect consumers. | propose legislation, pass legislation, draft legislation, environmental legislation |
| enforce | v | /ɪnˈfɔːrs/ | thi hành, thực thi | Police are responsible for enforcing traffic laws. | strictly enforce, effectively enforce, enforce regulations, enforce compliance |
| comply with | v phrase | /kəmˈplaɪ wɪð/ | tuân thủ, chấp hành | Companies must comply with safety regulations. | fully comply, comply strictly, fail to comply, comply with requirements |
| regulation | n | /ˌreɡjuˈleɪʃn/ | quy định, luật lệ | Environmental regulations have become stricter. | government regulation, strict regulation, comply with regulations, impose regulations |
| penalty | n | /ˈpenəlti/ | hình phạt, lệ phạt | The penalty for drunk driving is severe. | impose a penalty, face a penalty, heavy penalty, financial penalty |
| deterrent | n | /dɪˈterənt/ | biện pháp răn đe | Harsh punishments serve as a deterrent to crime. | act as a deterrent, effective deterrent, strong deterrent, serve as a deterrent |
| violation | n | /ˌvaɪəˈleɪʃn/ | sự vi phạm | Traffic violations can result in fines. | serious violation, commit a violation, traffic violation, human rights violation |
| amendment | n | /əˈmendmənt/ | sửa đổi (luật) | The government proposed an amendment to the law. | constitutional amendment, propose an amendment, pass an amendment, draft an amendment |
| jurisdiction | n | /ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃn/ | thẩm quyền, quyền tài phán | This matter falls under federal jurisdiction. | legal jurisdiction, under jurisdiction, within jurisdiction, have jurisdiction |
| mandate | n/v | /ˈmændeɪt/ | quy định bắt buộc, ủy quyền | The law mandates annual safety inspections. | government mandate, legal mandate, mandate requires, mandate compliance |
| implement | v | /ˈɪmplɪment/ | thực hiện, thi hành | The government will implement new policies next year. | successfully implement, effectively implement, implement measures, implement reforms |
| loophole | n | /ˈluːphəʊl/ | sơ hở (trong luật) | Companies exploit loopholes in tax laws. | legal loophole, tax loophole, close a loophole, exploit a loophole |
| stipulate | v | /ˈstɪpjuleɪt/ | quy định rõ ràng | The contract stipulates payment terms. | clearly stipulate, stipulate conditions, stipulate requirements, law stipulates |
| litigation | n | /ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃn/ | kiện tụng, tranh chấp pháp lý | The company is involved in lengthy litigation. | civil litigation, costly litigation, avoid litigation, engage in litigation |
| precedent | n | /ˈpresɪdənt/ | tiền lệ, án lệ | This case sets a legal precedent. | set a precedent, legal precedent, establish a precedent, follow precedent |
| accountability | n | /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪləti/ | trách nhiệm giải trình | There must be greater accountability in law enforcement. | ensure accountability, demand accountability, lack of accountability, public accountability |
| compliance | n | /kəmˈplaɪəns/ | sự tuân thủ | Compliance with regulations is mandatory. | ensure compliance, full compliance, regulatory compliance, compliance with laws |
| prosecute | v | /ˈprɒsɪkjuːt/ | truy tố, khởi tố | The authorities will prosecute offenders. | successfully prosecute, prosecute criminals, prosecute cases, fully prosecute |
| safeguard | n/v | /ˈseɪfɡɑːrd/ | biện pháp bảo vệ, bảo vệ | Laws safeguard citizens’ rights. | legal safeguard, provide safeguards, important safeguard, safeguard interests |
| statute | n | /ˈstætʃuːt/ | đạo luật, quy chế | This statute has been in effect for decades. | federal statute, enact a statute, statute requires, statute prohibits |
Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases
| Cụm từ | Nghĩa | Ví dụ sử dụng | Band điểm |
|---|---|---|---|
| bend the rules | vi phạm nhẹ quy tắc, làm trái quy định một chút | Sometimes people bend the rules when they think nobody is watching. | 7.5-8 |
| above the law | không bị ràng buộc bởi pháp luật, cao hơn pháp luật | No one should consider themselves above the law. | 7.5-8 |
| the letter of the law | nghĩa đen của pháp luật (không linh hoạt) | While technically following the letter of the law, their actions violated its spirit. | 8-9 |
| a legal grey area | khu vực pháp lý mơ hồ, chưa rõ ràng | Cryptocurrency regulation is still a legal grey area in many countries. | 8-9 |
| take the law into one’s own hands | tự xử, không qua pháp luật | Vigilante justice occurs when people take the law into their own hands. | 7.5-8 |
| come down hard on | xử phạt nghiêm khắc | The government has come down hard on tax evaders. | 7.5-8 |
| turn a blind eye | làm ngơ, bỏ qua (vi phạm) | Authorities shouldn’t turn a blind eye to minor offenses. | 7-8 |
| toothless legislation | luật không có hiệu lực, không răn đe | Without proper enforcement, laws become toothless legislation. | 8-9 |
| a slap on the wrist | hình phạt nhẹ, không đáng kể | The fine was merely a slap on the wrist for such a serious violation. | 7.5-8 |
| run afoul of the law | vi phạm pháp luật, đụng độ với pháp luật | Many businesses inadvertently run afoul of complex regulations. | 8-9 |
| uphold the law | duy trì, bảo vệ pháp luật | It’s the duty of law enforcement to uphold the law impartially. | 7-8 |
| flout the rules | cố tình vi phạm, phớt lờ quy tắc | Some drivers openly flout traffic regulations. | 8-9 |
Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)
Để bắt đầu câu trả lời:
- 📝 Well,… – Dùng khi cần thời gian suy nghĩ ngắn, rất tự nhiên
- 📝 Actually,… – Khi đưa ra góc nhìn khác hoặc thông tin surprising
- 📝 To be honest,… – Khi muốn nói thật, thể hiện sincerity
- 📝 I’d say that… – Cách lịch sự đưa ra quan điểm
- 📝 That’s an interesting question,… – Mua thời gian và thể hiện engagement
Để bổ sung ý:
- 📝 On top of that,… – Thêm vào đó, hơn thế nữa
- 📝 What’s more,… – Hơn nữa, quan trọng hơn
- 📝 Not to mention… – Chưa kể đến
- 📝 Furthermore,… – Hơn nữa (formal hơn)
- 📝 In addition to that,… – Thêm vào đó
Để đưa ra quan điểm cân bằng:
- 📝 On the one hand,… On the other hand,… – Một mặt… mặt khác
- 📝 While it’s true that…, we also need to consider… – Mặc dù đúng là… nhưng cũng cần xem xét
- 📝 That said,… – Tuy nhiên, dù vậy
- 📝 Having said that,… – Sau khi nói điều đó
- 📝 By the same token,… – Tương tự như vậy
Để kết luận:
- 📝 All in all,… – Tóm lại, xét cho cùng
- 📝 At the end of the day,… – Cuối cùng thì, xét đến cùng
- 📝 To sum up,… – Tóm lại
- 📝 Ultimately,… – Cuối cùng, sau cùng
- 📝 In the final analysis,… – Xét cho cùng
Để thể hiện sự do dự hoặc nuance:
- 📝 To some extent,… – Ở một mức độ nào đó
- 📝 It depends on… – Nó phụ thuộc vào
- 📝 In certain circumstances,… – Trong những hoàn cảnh nhất định
- 📝 To a certain degree,… – Ở một mức độ nhất định
Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng
1. Conditional Sentences (Câu điều kiện):
Mixed conditional:
- Formula: If + past perfect, would/could + infinitive
- Ví dụ: “If we had introduced stricter environmental laws earlier, we wouldn’t be facing such severe pollution now.”
Inversion for emphasis:
- Formula: Should/Were/Had + subject + verb
- Ví dụ: “Were the government to implement this law, we would see significant improvements.” / “Had they enforced regulations properly, this crisis could have been avoided.”
2. Relative Clauses (Mệnh đề quan hệ):
Non-defining relative clauses:
- Formula: , which/who/where + clause,
- Ví dụ: “The new legislation, which was passed last month, aims to reduce plastic consumption.” / “Environmental activists, who have been campaigning for years, finally saw their efforts rewarded.”
3. Passive Voice (Câu bị động) – Formal và Academic:
Impersonal passive:
- It is thought/believed/said/argued that…
- Ví dụ: “It is widely believed that stricter laws would reduce crime rates.” / “It has been argued that current penalties are insufficient.”
Modal passive:
- Formula: Modal + be + past participle
- Ví dụ: “Such violations should be prosecuted more vigorously.” / “The law must be enforced consistently.”
4. Cleft Sentences (Câu chẻ) – Để nhấn mạnh:
What-clefts:
- Formula: What + clause + is/was…
- Ví dụ: “What I find most concerning is the lack of enforcement.” / “What we really need is comprehensive reform.”
It-clefts:
- Formula: It is/was + focus + that/who…
- Ví dụ: “It’s the lack of education that leads people to break laws.” / “It was this incident that prompted the government to act.”
5. Advanced Subordination:
Participle clauses:
- Formula: -ing/-ed phrase + main clause
- Ví dụ: “Having witnessed the impact of plastic pollution firsthand, I strongly support this legislation.” / “Faced with mounting public pressure, the government had no choice but to act.”
Concessive clauses:
- Formula: While/Although/Despite + clause
- Ví dụ: “While some oppose stricter regulations, the environmental benefits are undeniable.” / “Despite initial resistance, the law proved highly effective.”
Chiến lược trả lời hiệu quả các câu hỏi IELTS Speaking về luật pháp và chính sách
Chiến Lược Tổng Thể Để Đạt Band 8+
Chuẩn Bị Trước Khi Thi
1. Xây Dựng Idea Bank:
- Nghĩ trước về 5-6 loại luật khác nhau (environmental, social, technological, traffic, workplace)
- Chuẩn bị arguments ủng hộ và phản đối mỗi loại
- Note down personal experiences có thể sử dụng
2. Vocabulary Building System:
- Học từ vựng theo themes, không học lẻ tẻ
- Practice sử dụng trong câu context, không chỉ học nghĩa
- Record yourself using new vocabulary để check pronunciation
- Tạo collocation lists (không chỉ học single words)
3. Grammar Expansion:
- Có ý thức practice 2-3 advanced structures mỗi ngày
- Mix simple và complex sentences (không phải tất cả đều phức tạp)
- Self-correct recordings của mình để identify patterns of errors
Trong Phòng Thi
Part 1 Strategy:
- Extend answers đến 2-3 câu (không quá dài)
- Use personal examples để make answers authentic
- Vary sentence structures (don’t start every sentence với “I think”)
- Show enthusiasm in voice – intonation matters!
Part 2 Strategy:
- Sử dụng đủ 1 phút chuẩn bị – ghi keywords theo bullet points
- Aim for 2 phút full (practice timing trước)
- Address tất cả bullet points, especially phần “explain”
- Use discourse markers để signal transitions giữa các points
- Nếu hết ý trước 2 phút, elaborate on “explain” part thêm
Part 3 Strategy:
- Take a moment để think before answering (perfectly acceptable)
- Structure longer answers: Direct answer → Reason 1 + example → Reason 2 + example → Conclusion/Nuance
- Show critical thinking bằng cách acknowledge complexity
- Use tentative language (I would say, It seems to me) để sound more academic
- If you don’t understand question, ask for clarification (Can you clarify what you mean by…?)
Common Pitfalls To Avoid
❌ Những Điều Cần Tránh:
- Học thuộc templates: Examiners nhận ra ngay và điểm sẽ bị giảm dramatically
- Sử dụng từ vựng quá phức tạp không tự nhiên: Better to use simpler words correctly hơn là big words sai
- Nói quá nhanh: Speed không equal fluency. Natural pace with appropriate pausing is better
- Không trả lời đúng câu hỏi: Listen carefully và address exactly what’s asked
- Memorized answers: Sound robotic và không match với follow-up questions
- Quá general: Provide specific examples và details
- Contradicting yourself: Keep track of what you’ve said
- Over-using fillers: Occasional “well” or “actually” is fine, but excessive “um, ah, you know” reduces fluency score
Recovery Strategies Khi Gặp Khó Khăn
Nếu không biết từ vựng:
- Paraphrase: “I’m not sure of the exact word, but what I mean is…”
- Use simpler words: Don’t panic and freeze
- Describe it: “It’s a kind of law that deals with…”
Nếu không hiểu câu hỏi:
- Ask politely: “Could you rephrase that?” or “Do you mean…?”
- Better to clarify than answer wrong question
Nếu blank mind:
- Use thinking time phrases: “That’s an interesting question, let me think…”
- Bridge to something related you do know: “I’m not entirely sure about that specific aspect, but what I do know is…”
Nếu nói sai:
- Self-correct naturally: “Sorry, what I meant to say was…”
- Don’t dwell on mistakes – move forward
Timeline Học Tập Hiệu Quả
3 tháng trước thi:
- Focus on building vocabulary bank (20-30 từ/tuần)
- Practice recording và listening to yourself
- Study sample answers để absorb natural expressions
2 tháng trước thi:
- Practice với partners hoặc tutors (2-3 lần/tuần)
- Work on pronunciation và intonation
- Expand grammar structures
1 tháng trước thi:
- Full mock tests (ít nhất 2 lần/tuần)
- Review recordings và identify weaknesses
- Fine-tune timing cho Part 2
1 tuần trước thi:
- Light practice, don’t cram
- Review key vocabulary và structures
- Practice relaxation techniques
- Get good sleep
Lời Khuyên Cuối Từ Examiner
Sau 20 năm chấm thi IELTS Speaking, tôi nhận thấy học viên Việt Nam thường có nền tảng ngữ pháp rất tốt nhưng gặp khó khăn với fluency và natural expression. Đây là những điều tôi muốn nhấn mạnh:
1. Authenticity trumps complexity: Một câu trả lời đơn giản nhưng genuine và well-developed tốt hơn một câu sophisticated nhưng sound memorized.
2. It’s a conversation, not a test: Examiners muốn engage với bạn. Show personality, enthusiasm, và genuine interest trong topic.
3. Mistakes are okay: Native speakers make mistakes too. Don’t let fear of errors paralyze you. Fluency với occasional errors beats hesitant perfect speech.
4. Cultural context matters: Khi discuss laws và policies, it’s perfectly fine to reference Vietnamese context. Examiners appreciate cultural insights.
5. Practice doesn’t make perfect, practice makes permanent: Practice correctly từ đầu. Recording yourself và getting feedback critical để avoid reinforcing bad habits.
6. Band 8-9 isn’t about perfection: Nó về demonstrating range, flexibility, và ability to discuss complex ideas naturally. Focus on communicative competence, not perfection.
Chủ đề “Describe a new law you would like to have in your country” là excellent opportunity để showcase critical thinking và social awareness. Hãy chọn một law bạn genuinely care about – passion của bạn sẽ make answer more compelling và authentic.
Chúc bạn thành công trong kỳ thi IELTS Speaking. Hãy nhớ rằng confidence và preparation là chìa khóa. You’ve got this!
