IELTS Reading: Công nghệ Blockchain và Từ thiện Toàn cầu – Đề thi mẫu có đáp án chi tiết

Giới thiệu

Công nghệ blockchain đang tạo ra những thay đổi mang tính cách mạng trong nhiều lĩnh vực, và từ thiện toàn cầu không phải là ngoại lệ. Chủ đề về sự ảnh hưởng của công nghệ blockchain đối với hoạt động từ thiện đã xuất hiện ngày càng nhiều trong các đề thi IELTS Reading gần đây, đặc biệt trong bối cảnh chuyển đổi số và minh bạch tài chính đang được quan tâm toàn cầu.

Bài thi mẫu này được thiết kế theo đúng chuẩn Cambridge IELTS, giúp bạn làm quen với một chủ đề đương đại và thực tế. Qua ba passages với độ khó tăng dần từ Easy đến Hard, bạn sẽ được luyện tập:

• Đề thi đầy đủ 3 passages (2000+ từ) về blockchain trong từ thiện
• 40 câu hỏi đa dạng theo đúng format thi thật
• Đáp án chi tiết với giải thích từng câu
• Từ vựng chuyên ngành và kỹ thuật làm bài hiệu quả
• Phân tích paraphrase và cách xác định thông tin

Bài thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn rèn luyện kỹ năng đọc hiểu với văn bản học thuật, nâng cao vốn từ vựng về công nghệ và xã hội, đồng thời làm quen với các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading.

Hướng dẫn làm bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút cho 3 passages với tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Bài thi không có thời gian chuyển đáp án riêng, do đó bạn cần quản lý thời gian hiệu quả.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

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

Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được 1 điểm, không trừ điểm cho câu sai. Do đó, hãy luôn trả lời tất cả các câu hỏi dù không chắc chắn.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất:

1. Multiple Choice – Chọn đáp án đúng từ các phương án cho sẵn
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hoặc không được nhắc đến
3. Yes/No/Not Given – Đánh giá quan điểm tác giả
4. Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề với đoạn văn
5. Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu với từ trong bài
6. Summary Completion – Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
7. Matching Features – Nối thông tin với đối tượng tương ứng

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – The Blockchain Revolution in Charitable Giving

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

Charitable organizations worldwide have long faced a fundamental challenge: how to convince donors that their contributions are being used effectively and reaching the intended beneficiaries. Traditional charitable giving often involves multiple intermediaries, including banks, payment processors, and administrative bodies, each taking a portion of the donated funds. Additionally, donors typically have limited visibility into how their money is actually spent, leading to concerns about transparency and accountability.

Enter blockchain technology – a revolutionary digital ledger system that promises to transform the landscape of global philanthropy. Originally developed as the underlying technology for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, blockchain has evolved into a powerful tool with applications far beyond digital currency. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized database that records transactions across multiple computers in a way that makes the records virtually impossible to alter retroactively. This immutability and transparency make it particularly well-suited for charitable applications.

The fundamental appeal of blockchain in philanthropy lies in its ability to create trust through technology rather than through institutions. When a donation is made using blockchain, it is recorded as a permanent, transparent transaction that can be tracked from donor to recipient. This creates an unprecedented level of accountability that traditional systems simply cannot match. Donors can see exactly where their money goes, how much reaches the final beneficiary, and what impact it has – all without relying on intermediaries to provide this information.

Several pioneering organizations have already begun implementing blockchain-based charitable platforms. The United Nations World Food Programme, for instance, launched Building Blocks, a blockchain project that provides food assistance to refugees in Jordan. The system allows the organization to transfer funds directly to beneficiaries’ accounts without involving banks, reducing transaction costs by approximately 98%. Recipients can purchase food at participating stores by simply scanning their iris, with the transaction recorded on the blockchain.

Another compelling advantage of blockchain in philanthropy is the reduction of administrative overhead. Traditional charitable organizations often spend 15-30% of donations on administrative costs, including staff salaries, office expenses, and payment processing fees. Blockchain technology can dramatically reduce these costs by automating many administrative functions through smart contracts – self-executing contracts with the terms directly written into code. These smart contracts can automatically distribute funds when certain conditions are met, eliminating the need for manual processing and reducing the potential for human error or fraud.

The technology also enables microphilanthropy on an unprecedented scale. Because blockchain transactions can be processed quickly and cheaply, even very small donations become practical. A donor in Tokyo can send the equivalent of $0.50 directly to a farmer in Kenya with minimal transaction fees, something that would be prohibitively expensive using traditional banking systems. This democratization of giving allows people of modest means to participate in global philanthropy in ways that were previously impossible.

Cryptocurrency donations themselves have become increasingly popular, with many charities now accepting Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital currencies. In 2021, charitable cryptocurrency donations exceeded $69 million in the United States alone, representing a 1,558% increase from the previous year. These donations offer advantages for both donors and recipients: donors can potentially receive tax benefits while avoiding capital gains taxes on appreciated assets, while charities receive contributions that can be quickly converted to local currency or held as investments.

However, the blockchain revolution in philanthropy is not without its challenges. The technology remains relatively complex for average users, and many potential donors lack the technical literacy needed to make blockchain-based contributions confidently. Additionally, the volatile nature of cryptocurrencies can create uncertainty about the actual value of donations. A contribution worth $10,000 today might be worth significantly more or less by the time it’s converted to fiat currency and used for charitable purposes.

Despite these challenges, the momentum behind blockchain adoption in philanthropy continues to grow. Industry experts predict that within the next decade, blockchain-based charitable giving will move from a novelty to a mainstream practice. As the technology matures and becomes more user-friendly, and as younger generations who are more comfortable with digital currencies become primary donors, blockchain is likely to play an increasingly central role in how we think about and practice charitable giving globally.

---

Questions 1-13

Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice

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

1. According to the passage, what is the main problem with traditional charitable giving?

• A) It takes too long to process donations
• B) Donors cannot see how their money is spent
• C) Charities refuse to accept small donations
• D) There are too many charitable organizations

2. What makes blockchain particularly suitable for charitable applications?

• A) It was originally designed for charities
• B) It only works with large donations
• C) Records cannot be easily changed after creation
• D) It eliminates the need for donors

3. The United Nations World Food Programme’s Building Blocks project reduced transaction costs by:

• A) 15-30%
• B) 50%
• C) 69%
• D) 98%

4. According to the passage, smart contracts are:

• A) Legal agreements between donors and charities
• B) Self-executing contracts with terms written in code
• C) Traditional contracts stored on blockchain
• D) Agreements that require manual processing

5. In 2021, cryptocurrency donations in the United States:

• A) Decreased compared to the previous year
• B) Remained stable at $69 million
• C) Increased by over 1,500%
• D) Were banned by the government

Questions 6-9: True/False/Not Given

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

Write:

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

6. Blockchain technology was initially created specifically for charitable purposes.

7. Recipients in the UN food assistance program use iris scanning to make purchases.

8. All charitable organizations spend between 15-30% of donations on administrative costs.

9. Blockchain technology makes it possible to send very small donations internationally with low fees.

Questions 10-13: Sentence Completion

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

10. Blockchain creates trust through __ rather than institutions.

11. Traditional charitable systems involve __ such as banks and payment processors.

12. The technology enables __ on a scale never seen before.

13. One challenge facing blockchain adoption is that many potential donors lack sufficient __.

---

PASSAGE 2 – Transparency, Accountability and the Future of Philanthropic Infrastructure

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The integration of blockchain technology into philanthropic systems represents far more than a mere technological upgrade; it signals a fundamental paradigm shift in how society conceptualizes charitable giving, accountability, and social impact measurement. While the previous generation of charitable infrastructure relied heavily on institutional trust and reputational mechanisms, blockchain-based systems substitute these with cryptographic verification and mathematical certainty. This transition, however, raises profound questions about the nature of trust itself and whether technological solutions can adequately address deeply human concerns about altruism, ethics, and social responsibility.

Traditional philanthropic models operate within what sociologists call “trust-based ecosystems.” Donors make contributions based on an organization’s reputation, third-party evaluations, or personal relationships with organizational leadership. This system has inherent vulnerabilities: information asymmetries between donors and recipients create opportunities for misrepresentation, while the lack of real-time accountability means that problems may go undetected for extended periods. The 2015 Kids Company scandal in the United Kingdom, where a prominent charity collapsed amid allegations of financial mismanagement despite receiving millions in government and private funding, exemplifies these systemic weaknesses.

Blockchain’s distributed ledger technology addresses these vulnerabilities through several mechanisms. First, it creates an immutable audit trail that documents every transaction from origin to destination. Unlike traditional accounting systems, where records can be altered or deleted by individuals with sufficient access privileges, blockchain entries are cryptographically sealed and distributed across multiple nodes, making unauthorized modifications computationally impractical. This technological feature transforms accountability from a periodic activity (annual reports, external audits) into a continuous, automatic process.

Second, blockchain enables what researchers term “granular transparency” – the ability to track not just aggregate funding flows but individual transactions and their specific outcomes. Consider a traditional disaster relief campaign: a donor contributing $100 knows their money entered the organization’s general fund, but cannot typically trace how their specific contribution was utilized. With blockchain-based systems, that same $100 can be tracked as it moves through the supply chain – converted to local currency, used to purchase specific supplies, delivered to particular distribution centers, and ultimately received by identified beneficiaries. This transaction-level visibility fundamentally alters the donor-charity relationship, transforming donors from passive contributors into informed stakeholders.

However, this enhanced transparency introduces paradoxical challenges. Privacy advocates raise concerns about the potential for “surveillance philanthropy” where beneficiaries’ personal information and circumstances become permanently recorded on public ledgers. The refugee assistance programs that utilize blockchain, for instance, must balance transparency about fund allocation with protecting vulnerable individuals’ identities and personal data. Some blockchain implementations use zero-knowledge proofs – cryptographic methods that verify transactions without revealing underlying data – but these technical solutions add complexity and may reduce the very transparency that blockchain promises.

The economic implications of blockchain adoption in philanthropy extend beyond simple cost reduction. Traditional charitable infrastructure represents a significant employment sector, with hundreds of thousands working in fund administration, grant management, and compliance roles. Smart contract automation threatens to displace many of these positions, raising questions about whether technological efficiency should supersede human employment considerations. Proponents argue that blockchain eliminates redundant administrative work, allowing charitable organizations to redirect resources toward mission-critical activities. Critics counter that this perspective devalues the expertise and judgment that human administrators bring to complex philanthropic decisions.

Furthermore, blockchain-based philanthropy may exacerbate existing inequalities in charitable giving. Access to cryptocurrency and blockchain platforms requires digital literacy, internet connectivity, and often smartphone ownership – resources not uniformly distributed globally. A 2022 study by the Digital Philanthropy Institute found that blockchain-based giving platforms had user demographics that were significantly younger, wealthier, and more technologically sophisticated than traditional charitable donors. This digital divide risks creating a two-tier philanthropic system where cutting-edge, efficient blockchain platforms serve privileged donors while traditional, less efficient systems remain the only option for others.

The regulatory landscape surrounding blockchain philanthropy remains fragmented and evolving. Different jurisdictions have adopted vastly different approaches to cryptocurrency regulation, creating compliance challenges for international charitable organizations. Some countries embrace blockchain innovation with favorable tax treatment for cryptocurrency donations, while others impose restrictive regulations or outright bans. This regulatory uncertainty complicates strategic planning for charities considering blockchain adoption and may deter organizations from implementing these technologies despite their potential benefits.

Perhaps most significantly, blockchain’s impact on philanthropy extends to impact measurement and evaluation – traditionally one of the sector’s most vexing challenges. By creating verifiable, timestamped records of inputs, activities, and outcomes, blockchain enables more rigorous assessment of charitable interventions’ effectiveness. Smart contracts can be programmed to release funding contingent on achievement of measurable milestones, creating incentive structures that promote results rather than merely rewarding good intentions. This outcomes-based approach represents a fundamental shift from traditional input-focused philanthropic models.

Yet critics warn against excessive quantification of social impact. Not all valuable outcomes are easily measurable, and an overemphasis on metrics-driven evaluation may redirect charitable resources away from important but difficult-to-quantify initiatives like community building, cultural preservation, or advocacy work. The challenge for blockchain-enabled philanthropy is developing systems sophisticated enough to capture meaningful impact while avoiding reductionist approaches that oversimplify complex social phenomena.

---

Questions 14-26

Questions 14-18: Yes/No/Not Given

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

Write:

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

14. Blockchain technology represents a complete solution to all problems in charitable giving.

15. The Kids Company scandal demonstrates weaknesses in traditional charitable systems.

16. Blockchain records are easier to modify than traditional accounting systems.

17. Enhanced transparency in blockchain systems creates some privacy concerns for beneficiaries.

18. All regulatory jurisdictions worldwide have adopted similar approaches to blockchain philanthropy.

Questions 19-22: Matching Headings

The passage has nine paragraphs. Choose the correct heading for paragraphs 3, 5, 7, and 9 from the list of headings below.

List of Headings:

• i. The problem of measuring social outcomes
• ii. Economic consequences for charitable sector workers
• iii. How blockchain creates permanent transaction records
• iv. Privacy risks in transparent systems
• v. Different global approaches to regulation
• vi. The demographics of blockchain donors
• vii. Benefits of smart contract technology
• viii. Traditional models of charitable trust

19. Paragraph 3 ____

20. Paragraph 5 ____

21. Paragraph 7 ____

22. Paragraph 9 ____

Questions 23-26: Summary Completion

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

Traditional philanthropy operates in (23) ____, where donors trust organizations based on reputation. Blockchain technology introduces (24) __, allowing donors to track individual transactions and outcomes. However, this creates challenges around (25) __ philanthropy, where beneficiaries’ data may be exposed. The technology may also create a (26) __ system** where wealthy, tech-savvy donors have access to better platforms than others.

---

PASSAGE 3 – Decentralized Autonomous Organizations and the Reconceptualization of Collective Altruism

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represents perhaps the most radical reimagining of philanthropic governance structures enabled by blockchain technology. Unlike traditional charitable entities, which operate through hierarchical management systems and centralized decision-making apparatus, DAOs function as algorithmic governance frameworks where stakeholders collectively determine resource allocation through tokenized voting mechanisms. This organizational innovation transcends mere technical refinement; it embodies a fundamentally different philosophy regarding the distribution of philanthropic power, the legitimacy of charitable decision-making, and the very ontology of institutional authority in the social sector.

Traditional philanthropic institutions, whether private foundations or public charities, concentrate decision-making authority in fiduciary boards or executive leadership who serve as gatekeepers determining which causes receive funding and which interventions merit support. This centralized governance model, while offering efficiency and expertise-driven decision-making, suffers from inherent limitations. The “principal-agent problem” – where those making decisions do not bear the full consequences of their choices – creates misalignment between institutional priorities and beneficiary needs. Furthermore, traditional philanthropic governance often reflects the preferences and biases of wealthy elites, potentially perpetuating rather than ameliorating structural inequalities.

DAOs attempt to address these limitations through radical democratization of philanthropic governance. In a DAO, participants hold governance tokens that confer voting rights proportional to their stake in the organization. Proposals for charitable initiatives are submitted to the community, debated openly on blockchain-based platforms, and approved or rejected through tokenized voting mechanisms. The results of these votes trigger smart contracts that automatically execute approved initiatives, eliminating the need for traditional administrative hierarchies. This model theoretically enables collective intelligence to guide philanthropic resource allocation while ensuring accountability through transparent, immutable voting records.

Several experimental philanthropic DAOs have demonstrated both the potential and the pitfalls of this model. GitcoinDAO, which funds open-source software development and digital public goods, has distributed millions of dollars through quadratic funding mechanisms – an innovative voting system that amplifies small donors’ influence by matching contributions based on the number of supporters rather than total dollar amounts. This approach addresses the plutocratic tendencies inherent in traditional one-dollar-one-vote systems while maintaining the efficiency of algorithmic fund distribution. VitaDAO, focused on funding longevity research, exemplifies another DAO innovation: contributors receive intellectual property rights to resulting research discoveries, creating novel incentive structures that blur traditional boundaries between philanthropy and investment.

However, DAO governance faces significant epistemological and practical challenges. The assumption that decentralized decision-making necessarily produces superior outcomes rests on questionable premises about collective wisdom and stakeholder incentives. Voting participation rates in many DAOs hover below 5%, with governance effectively controlled by a small number of large token holders – a phenomenon researchers term “decentralization theater” where democratic rhetoric masks de facto oligarchy. The technical complexity of participating in DAO governance creates participation barriers that may exclude precisely those populations most affected by charitable initiatives: the poor, elderly, and marginalized communities with limited digital literacy or technological access.

The legal status of DAOs remains profoundly ambiguous across jurisdictions, creating regulatory uncertainty that complicates their philanthropic applications. Traditional charitable organizations receive tax-exempt status and enjoy legal protections in exchange for adhering to governance standards and transparency requirements designed to protect public interests. DAOs’ pseudonymous participation, jurisdictional ambiguity, and algorithmic governance challenge existing regulatory frameworks’ fundamental assumptions. The 2022 Ooki DAO enforcement action by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission – which held individual DAO participants personally liable for organizational violations – highlighted the legal risks inherent in these novel structures and raised questions about whether DAOs can operate within existing charitable regulatory paradigms.

From a philosophical perspective, DAO-based philanthropy raises profound questions about the nature of altruism and moral responsibility in algorithmic systems. Traditional charitable giving involves personal judgment about worthy causes and moral deliberation about competing priorities. When these decisions are algorithmically mediated through smart contracts and tokenized voting, does the ethical character of charitable action change? Some theorists argue that DAOs represent an “ethics of automation” that substitutes procedural fairness for substantive moral judgment, potentially reducing rich ethical considerations to simple voting calculations. Others contend that transparent, democratic decision-making embodies ethical principles more fully than traditional philanthropic models controlled by self-appointed elites.

The scalability challenges facing philanthropic DAOs should not be underestimated. While blockchain technology theoretically enables global coordination at minimal cost, practical limitations of network throughput, transaction costs, and governance complexity constrain DAOs’ operational capacity. Major blockchain networks can process only dozens of transactions per second – orders of magnitude fewer than required for truly global-scale philanthropic platforms serving millions of beneficiaries. Layer-2 solutions and alternative blockchain architectures promise improved performance, but these technical developments remain nascent and unproven at the scale required for mass philanthropic adoption.

Perhaps most significantly, the DAO model’s applicability varies dramatically across philanthropic contexts. Emergency disaster relief requires rapid, centralized decision-making ill-suited to consensus-building governance mechanisms. Long-term development projects need sustained commitment and institutional memory that ephemeral online communities may struggle to provide. Politically sensitive human rights work may require confidentiality incompatible with transparent blockchain systems. Rather than representing a universal philanthropic solution, DAOs may be best understood as a complementary organizational form appropriate for specific contexts where decentralized coordination, transparent accountability, and stakeholder participation provide distinctive advantages over traditional institutional structures.

The broader impact of blockchain technology on global philanthropy ultimately depends less on specific technical features than on how these tools reshape power relationships, incentive structures, and normative frameworks within the social sector. Whether blockchain-enabled innovations like DAOs herald a democratization of philanthropy or merely reproduce existing inequalities through technological means remains an open question. What seems certain is that these developments force a fundamental reexamination of assumptions about charitable governance, accountability, and impact – a rethinking that may prove more valuable than any particular technological implementation.

---

Questions 27-40

Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice

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

27. According to the passage, DAOs differ from traditional charities primarily in their:

• A) Ability to accept cryptocurrency donations
• B) Use of algorithmic governance and decentralized decision-making
• C) Focus on international rather than local causes
• D) Rejection of all forms of accountability

28. The “principal-agent problem” in traditional philanthropy refers to:

• A) The difficulty of hiring qualified staff
• B) Conflicts between donors and recipients
• C) Misalignment when decision-makers don’t bear consequences
• D) Legal disputes about organizational authority

29. GitcoinDAO uses quadratic funding mechanisms to:

• A) Maximize donations from wealthy individuals
• B) Amplify the influence of small donors
• C) Eliminate all voting from the funding process
• D) Ensure only experts make funding decisions

30. The term “decentralization theater” describes:

• A) Public events where DAOs discuss their work
• B) Situations where democratic rhetoric masks oligarchy
• C) Theater productions funded by DAOs
• D) Training programs for DAO participants

31. According to the passage, DAO-based philanthropy is:

• A) Suitable for all types of charitable work
• B) Only effective for technology-related causes
• C) Appropriate for specific contexts but not universal
• D) A complete replacement for traditional charities

Questions 32-36: Matching Features

Match each challenge (32-36) with the correct aspect of DAO philanthropy (A-G).

Challenges:

32. Low voter participation rates

33. Unclear legal status across different countries

34. Limited processing capacity of blockchain networks

35. Difficulty for marginalized communities to participate

36. Incompatibility with confidential human rights work

Aspects:

• A) Regulatory uncertainty
• B) Epistemological challenges
• C) Scalability limitations
• D) Digital literacy barriers
• E) Philosophical concerns
• F) Context-specific limitations
• G) Technical complexity

Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions

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

37. What type of rights do VitaDAO contributors receive for funded research discoveries?

38. What did the 2022 Ooki DAO enforcement action establish about individual DAO participants?

39. What do some theorists call the ethical approach that substitutes procedural fairness for moral judgment?

40. According to the passage, what two things alongside normative frameworks do blockchain tools reshape in the social sector?

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. B
2. C
3. D
4. B
5. C
6. FALSE
7. TRUE
8. NOT GIVEN
9. TRUE
10. technology
11. multiple intermediaries
12. microphilanthropy
13. technical literacy

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. NO
15. YES
16. NO
17. YES
18. NO
19. iii
20. iv
21. v
22. i
23. trust-based ecosystems
24. granular transparency
25. surveillance
26. two-tier philanthropic

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. C
29. B
30. B
31. C
32. B
33. A
34. C
35. D
36. F
37. intellectual property rights
38. personally liable
39. ethics of automation
40. power relationships, incentive structures

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: main problem, traditional charitable giving
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 1-4
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nêu rõ “donors typically have limited visibility into how their money is actually spent” (người quyên góp có tầm nhìn hạn chế về cách tiền của họ được sử dụng). Đây là paraphrase của đáp án B “Donors cannot see how their money is spent”. Các đáp án khác không phải vấn đề chính được nhắc đến.

Câu 2: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: makes blockchain particularly suitable, charitable applications
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: Đoạn văn chỉ ra “blockchain is a decentralized database that records transactions… in a way that makes the records virtually impossible to alter retroactively. This immutability and transparency make it particularly well-suited for charitable applications.” Từ “immutability” (tính bất biến) được paraphrase thành “records cannot be easily changed after creation” ở đáp án C.

Câu 3: D

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: UN World Food Programme, Building Blocks, transaction costs
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Thông tin cụ thể: “reducing transaction costs by approximately 98%”. Đây là thông tin số liệu trực tiếp, không cần paraphrase.

Câu 4: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: smart contracts
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: Định nghĩa rõ ràng: “smart contracts – self-executing contracts with the terms directly written into code”. Đáp án B lặp lại chính xác định nghĩa này.

Câu 5: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: 2021, cryptocurrency donations, United States
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “charitable cryptocurrency donations exceeded $69 million… representing a 1,558% increase”. Đáp án C paraphrase “increased by over 1,500%” từ con số 1,558%.

Câu 6: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: blockchain, initially created, charitable purposes
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ “Originally developed as the underlying technology for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin” – blockchain được phát triển cho tiền điện tử, không phải từ thiện. Câu phát biểu mâu thuẫn với thông tin này nên là FALSE.

Câu 7: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: recipients, UN food assistance, iris scanning
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: “Recipients can purchase food at participating stores by simply scanning their iris”. Thông tin trùng khớp hoàn toàn với câu phát biểu.

Câu 8: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all charitable organizations, 15-30%, administrative costs
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói “Traditional charitable organizations often spend 15-30%…” – từ “often” (thường xuyên) không có nghĩa là “all” (tất cả). Không có thông tin xác nhận tất cả tổ chức đều như vậy.

Câu 9: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: very small donations, internationally, low fees
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: “blockchain transactions can be processed quickly and cheaply, even very small donations become practical… A donor in Tokyo can send the equivalent of $0.50 directly to a farmer in Kenya with minimal transaction fees”. Thông tin phù hợp với câu phát biểu.

Câu 10: technology

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: creates trust through
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “blockchain’s fundamental appeal… lies in its ability to create trust through technology rather than through institutions”. Từ cần điền là “technology”.

Câu 11: multiple intermediaries

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Traditional charitable systems involve
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “Traditional charitable giving often involves multiple intermediaries, including banks, payment processors…” Cụm từ cần điền là “multiple intermediaries”.

Câu 12: microphilanthropy

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: enables, unprecedented scale
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “The technology also enables microphilanthropy on an unprecedented scale”. Từ cần điền là “microphilanthropy”.

Câu 13: technical literacy

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: potential donors lack
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: “many potential donors lack the technical literacy needed to make blockchain-based contributions confidently”. Cụm từ cần điền là “technical literacy”.

---

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: complete solution, all problems
• Vị trí trong bài: Toàn bài, đặc biệt đoạn 5, 6, 7, 8
• Giải thích: Tác giả liên tục chỉ ra các vấn đề và thách thức của blockchain (privacy concerns, employment displacement, digital divide, regulatory uncertainty). Điều này mâu thuẫn với việc blockchain là “complete solution to all problems”.

Câu 15: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Kids Company scandal, weaknesses, traditional charitable systems
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 5-8
• Giải thích: Tác giả sử dụng vụ scandal này làm ví dụ (“exemplifies these systemic weaknesses”) để chứng minh các điểm yếu của hệ thống từ thiện truyền thống. Đây rõ ràng là quan điểm của tác giả.

Câu 16: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: blockchain records, easier to modify
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: Tác giả nói rõ blockchain records “cryptographically sealed… making unauthorized modifications computationally impractical”, ngược lại với “easier to modify”. Quan điểm tác giả hoàn toàn trái ngược.

Câu 17: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: enhanced transparency, privacy concerns
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-4
• Giải thích: Tác giả chỉ ra “this enhanced transparency introduces paradoxical challenges” và đề cập cụ thể đến “surveillance philanthropy” concerns. Đây là quan điểm của tác giả về vấn đề privacy.

Câu 18: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all regulatory jurisdictions, similar approaches
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: Tác giả nói “regulatory landscape… remains fragmented and evolving. Different jurisdictions have adopted vastly different approaches”. Điều này mâu thuẫn trực tiếp với “similar approaches”.

Câu 19: iii (How blockchain creates permanent transaction records)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Đoạn 3
• Giải thích: Đoạn này tập trung vào cách blockchain tạo ra “immutable audit trail” và “cryptographically sealed” records. Nội dung chính là về việc tạo hồ sơ giao dịch vĩnh viễn.

Câu 20: iv (Privacy risks in transparent systems)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Đoạn 5
• Giải thích: Đoạn này thảo luận về “paradoxical challenges” của transparency, đặc biệt là “surveillance philanthropy” và privacy concerns cho beneficiaries.

Câu 21: v (Different global approaches to regulation)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Đoạn 7
• Giải thích: Đoạn này nói về “regulatory landscape” với “vastly different approaches” across jurisdictions, rõ ràng về các cách tiếp cận khác nhau về regulation.

Câu 22: i (The problem of measuring social outcomes)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Vị trí: Đoạn 9
• Giải thích: Đoạn cuối thảo luận về “impact measurement and evaluation” và cảnh báo về “excessive quantification of social impact” – vấn đề đo lường kết quả xã hội.

Câu 23: trust-based ecosystems

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: traditional philanthropy operates
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “Traditional philanthropic models operate within what sociologists call ‘trust-based ecosystems'”. Đây là cụm từ chính xác từ bài.

Câu 24: granular transparency

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: blockchain introduces, track individual transactions
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “blockchain enables what researchers term ‘granular transparency’ – the ability to track not just aggregate funding flows but individual transactions”. Đây là term chính xác mô tả khả năng theo dõi chi tiết.

Câu 25: surveillance

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: challenges, beneficiaries’ data exposed
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 2
• Giải thích: Bài viết đề cập “surveillance philanthropy” như một concern về việc thông tin cá nhân bị ghi lại công khai. Từ cần điền là “surveillance”.

Câu 26: two-tier philanthropic

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: wealthy tech-savvy donors, better platforms
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 6-7
• Giải thích: “This digital divide risks creating a two-tier philanthropic system where cutting-edge… platforms serve privileged donors”. Cụm từ chính xác là “two-tier philanthropic”.

---

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: DAOs differ, traditional charities, primarily
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-6
• Giải thích: Đoạn mở đầu chỉ rõ DAOs “function as algorithmic governance frameworks where stakeholders collectively determine resource allocation through tokenized voting mechanisms”, khác biệt với “hierarchical management systems and centralized decision-making apparatus” của tổ chức truyền thống. Đáp án B tóm tắt chính xác sự khác biệt này.

Câu 28: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: principal-agent problem, refers to
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: Bài viết định nghĩa rõ: “The ‘principal-agent problem’ – where those making decisions do not bear the full consequences of their choices – creates misalignment”. Đáp án C paraphrase chính xác định nghĩa này.

Câu 29: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: GitcoinDAO, quadratic funding mechanisms
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: “quadratic funding mechanisms – an innovative voting system that amplifies small donors’ influence by matching contributions based on the number of supporters”. Đáp án B nêu chính xác mục đích này.

Câu 30: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: decentralization theater, describes
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: Thuật ngữ được giải thích: “a phenomenon researchers term ‘decentralization theater’ where democratic rhetoric masks de facto oligarchy”. Đáp án B paraphrase chính xác ý nghĩa này.

Câu 31: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: DAO-based philanthropy, according to passage
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 5-9
• Giải thích: Kết luận của tác giả: “Rather than representing a universal philanthropic solution, DAOs may be best understood as a complementary organizational form appropriate for specific contexts”. Đáp án C phản ánh chính xác quan điểm này.

Câu 32: B (Epistemological challenges)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-4
• Giải thích: Low voter participation và de facto oligarchy được thảo luận trong phần “epistemological and practical challenges” – thách thức về nhận thức luận.

Câu 33: A (Regulatory uncertainty)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 1
• Giải thích: “The legal status of DAOs remains profoundly ambiguous across jurisdictions, creating regulatory uncertainty” – trực tiếp về vấn đề pháp lý và quy định.

Câu 34: C (Scalability limitations)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1-5
• Giải thích: “practical limitations of network throughput, transaction costs” và “Major blockchain networks can process only dozens of transactions per second” – đây là về khả năng mở rộng quy mô.

Câu 35: D (Digital literacy barriers)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: “The technical complexity of participating in DAO governance creates participation barriers… populations… with limited digital literacy” – rõ ràng về rào cản về trình độ công nghệ số.

Câu 36: F (Context-specific limitations)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: “Politically sensitive human rights work may require confidentiality incompatible with transparent blockchain systems” – đây là hạn chế theo ngữ cảnh cụ thể.

Câu 37: intellectual property rights

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: VitaDAO contributors receive
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 6-7
• Giải thích: “VitaDAO… contributors receive intellectual property rights to resulting research discoveries”. Đây là cụm từ chính xác từ bài.

Câu 38: personally liable

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: 2022 Ooki DAO, establish, individual participants
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: “The 2022 Ooki DAO enforcement action… which held individual DAO participants personally liable for organizational violations”. Cụm từ cần thiết là “personally liable”.

Câu 39: ethics of automation

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: theorists call, substitutes procedural fairness
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: “Some theorists argue that DAOs represent an ‘ethics of automation’ that substitutes procedural fairness for substantive moral judgment”. Term chính xác là “ethics of automation”.

Câu 40: power relationships, incentive structures

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: blockchain tools reshape, alongside normative frameworks
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “how these tools reshape power relationships, incentive structures, and normative frameworks”. Hai yếu tố trước “normative frameworks” là “power relationships” và “incentive structures”.

---

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
intermediaries	n	/ˌɪntərˈmiːdiəriz/	trung gian, người/tổ chức trung gian	Traditional charitable giving often involves multiple intermediaries	financial intermediaries, eliminate intermediaries
transparency	n	/trænsˈpærənsi/	tính minh bạch, rõ ràng	concerns about transparency and accountability	lack of transparency, ensure transparency
decentralized	adj	/diːˈsentrəlaɪzd/	phi tập trung	blockchain is a decentralized database	decentralized system, decentralized network
immutability	n	/ɪˌmjuːtəˈbɪləti/	tính bất biến, không thể thay đổi	This immutability and transparency make it well-suited	data immutability, blockchain immutability
accountability	n	/əˌkaʊntəˈbɪləti/	trách nhiệm giải trình	unprecedented level of accountability	ensure accountability, lack accountability
overhead	n	/ˈəʊvəhed/	chi phí quản lý, chi phí gián tiếp	reduction of administrative overhead	administrative overhead, reduce overhead
automate	v	/ˈɔːtəmeɪt/	tự động hóa	automating many administrative functions	fully automate, automate processes
smart contracts	n	/smɑːrt ˈkɒntrækt/	hợp đồng thông minh	smart contracts can automatically distribute funds	execute smart contracts, blockchain smart contracts
microphilanthropy	n	/ˌmaɪkrəʊfɪˈlænθrəpi/	từ thiện quy mô nhỏ	enables microphilanthropy on unprecedented scale	promote microphilanthropy, microphilanthropy platform
democratization	n	/dɪˌmɒkrətaɪˈzeɪʃən/	dân chủ hóa	democratization of giving	financial democratization, technology democratization
volatile	adj	/ˈvɒlətaɪl/	biến động mạnh, không ổn định	volatile nature of cryptocurrencies	highly volatile, volatile market
literacy	n	/ˈlɪtərəsi/	trình độ hiểu biết	lack the technical literacy	digital literacy, financial literacy

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
paradigm shift	n	/ˈpærədaɪm ʃɪft/	sự thay đổi mô hình/quan điểm căn bản	signals a fundamental paradigm shift	major paradigm shift, paradigm shift in thinking
cryptographic	adj	/ˌkrɪptəˈɡræfɪk/	mã hóa	substitute with cryptographic verification	cryptographic security, cryptographic methods
asymmetries	n	/eɪˈsɪmɪtriz/	sự bất cân xứng	information asymmetries between donors	reduce asymmetries, information asymmetries
immutable	adj	/ɪˈmjuːtəbl/	bất biến, không thay đổi được	creates an immutable audit trail	immutable records, immutable ledger
granular	adj	/ˈɡrænjələr/	chi tiết, rất cụ thể	enables granular transparency	granular data, granular level
paradoxical	adj	/ˌpærəˈdɒksɪkəl/	nghịch lý	introduces paradoxical challenges	paradoxical situation, paradoxical effect
surveillance	n	/sərˈveɪləns/	sự giám sát	potential for surveillance philanthropy	under surveillance, surveillance system
displace	v	/dɪsˈpleɪs/	thay thế, loại bỏ	threatens to displace many positions	displace workers, displace traditional methods
exacerbate	v	/ɪɡˈzæsərbeɪt/	làm trầm trọng thêm	may exacerbate existing inequalities	exacerbate problems, significantly exacerbate
fragmented	adj	/ˈfræɡmentɪd/	phân mảnh, rời rạc	regulatory landscape remains fragmented	highly fragmented, fragmented market
milestones	n	/ˈmaɪlstəʊnz/	cột mốc quan trọng	achievement of measurable milestones	key milestones, reach milestones
quantification	n	/ˌkwɒntɪfɪˈkeɪʃən/	sự định lượng hóa	excessive quantification of social impact	require quantification, quantification methods
reductionist	adj	/rɪˈdʌkʃənɪst/	giản lược hóa, đơn giản hóa	avoiding reductionist approaches	reductionist thinking, reductionist view

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
autonomous	adj	/ɔːˈtɒnəməs/	tự trị, tự chủ	Decentralized Autonomous Organizations	autonomous systems, autonomous decision
algorithmic	adj	/ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk/	thuật toán	function as algorithmic governance frameworks	algorithmic trading, algorithmic processes
tokenized	adj	/ˈtəʊkənaɪzd/	token hóa	through tokenized voting mechanisms	tokenized assets, tokenized system
ontology	n	/ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/	bản thể luận	very ontology of institutional authority	social ontology, ontology of concepts
fiduciary	adj	/fɪˈdjuːʃəri/	ủy thác, tin cậy	concentrate authority in fiduciary boards	fiduciary duty, fiduciary responsibility
gatekeepers	n	/ˈɡeɪtkiːpərz/	người kiểm soát, giữ cổng	serve as gatekeepers determining funding	cultural gatekeepers, act as gatekeepers
misalignment	n	/ˌmɪsəˈlaɪnmənt/	sự không phù hợp, lệch lạc	creates misalignment between priorities	strategic misalignment, organizational misalignment
democratization	n	/dɪˌmɒkrətaɪˈzeɪʃən/	dân chủ hóa	radical democratization of governance	democratization of access, financial democratization
quadratic	adj	/kwɒˈdrætɪk/	bậc hai	through quadratic funding mechanisms	quadratic formula, quadratic voting
plutocratic	adj	/pluːtəˈkrætɪk/	đẩu phú, quyền lực của giới giàu có	addresses plutocratic tendencies	plutocratic system, plutocratic control
epistemological	adj	/ɪˌpɪstɪməˈlɒdʒɪkəl/	nhận thức luận	epistemological and practical challenges	epistemological questions, epistemological framework
oligarchy	n	/ˈɒlɪɡɑːki/	chế độ đầu phú, thiểu số cầm quyền	democratic rhetoric masks de facto oligarchy	ruling oligarchy, political oligarchy
pseudonymous	adj	/sjuːˈdɒnɪməs/	giả danh, bút danh	pseudonymous participation challenges frameworks	pseudonymous accounts, pseudonymous users
jurisdictional	adj	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃənəl/	thuộc thẩm quyền tài phán	jurisdictional ambiguity complicates applications	jurisdictional issues, cross-jurisdictional
altruism	n	/ˈæltruɪzəm/	lòng vị tha, chủ nghĩa vị tha	questions about nature of altruism	pure altruism, motivate altruism
substantive	adj	/səbˈstæntɪv/	cơ bản, thực chất	substitutes for substantive moral judgment	substantive changes, substantive issues
throughput	n	/ˈθruːpʊt/	thông lượng, năng suất xử lý	practical limitations of network throughput	high throughput, maximum throughput
nascent	adj	/ˈnæsənt/	mới nổi, sơ khai	these developments remain nascent	nascent industry, nascent technology
ephemeral	adj	/ɪˈfemərəl/	phù du, tạm thời	ephemeral online communities struggle	ephemeral nature, ephemeral content

---

Kết bài

Qua bài thi mẫu IELTS Reading về chủ đề “How Is Blockchain Technology Influencing Global Philanthropy?”, bạn đã được trải nghiệm một đề thi hoàn chỉnh với ba passages có độ khó tăng dần, từ những khái niệm cơ bản về blockchain trong từ thiện đến những phân tích sâu sắc về DAOs và tác động triết học của công nghệ này.

Ba passages tổng cộng hơn 2,500 từ đã cung cấp cho bạn cái nhìn toàn diện về một chủ đề đương đại quan trọng, đồng thời rèn luyện kỹ năng đọc hiểu với các văn bản học thuật đa dạng. Các dạng câu hỏi phong phú – từ Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given đến Matching Headings và Summary Completion – đã giúp bạn làm quen với mọi format có thể xuất hiện trong kỳ thi thật.

Phần đáp án chi tiết với giải thích cụ thể về vị trí thông tin, cách paraphrase và lý do tại sao các đáp án đúng/sai sẽ giúp bạn tự đánh giá chính xác năng lực hiện tại và hiểu rõ logic làm bài của IELTS Reading. Đặc biệt, phần từ vựng được phân loại theo từng passage với phiên âm, nghĩa, ví dụ và collocations sẽ là tài liệu quý giá để bạn nâng cao vốn từ học thuật.

Hãy thực hành bài test này trong điều kiện giống thi thật (60 phút không gián đoạn), sau đó dành thời gian phân tích kỹ những câu trả lời sai để hiểu rõ nguyên nhân. Blockchain và công nghệ số đang là xu hướng toàn cầu, nên việc nắm vững từ vựng và ý tưởng trong chủ đề này không chỉ giúp bạn trong IELTS mà còn mở rộng hiểu biết về thế giới đương đại. Chúc bạn ôn tập hiệu quả và đạt band điểm mục tiêu!