Mở bài
Chủ đề về luật pháp và những thay đổi bạn mong muốn là một topic khá phổ biến trong IELTS Speaking, đặc biệt xuất hiện nhiều ở Part 2 và Part 3. Đây là chủ đề yêu cầu bạn không chỉ mô tả một đạo luật cụ thể mà còn phải phân tích, đánh giá tác động của nó và đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân có lý lẽ.
Theo thống kê từ các trung tâm thi IELTS, chủ đề liên quan đến luật pháp, quy định xã hội xuất hiện với tần suất trung bình cao trong các kỳ thi từ năm 2020 đến nay, đặc biệt tăng đột biến vào các quý đầu năm. Khả năng xuất hiện trong tương lai vẫn ở mức cao do tính thời sự và liên quan đến đời sống xã hội.
Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ học được cách tiếp cận topic này một cách tự nhiên và hiệu quả. Cụ thể, bài viết sẽ cung cấp cho bạn những câu hỏi thực tế từ các đề thi gần đây, bài mẫu chi tiết phân theo ba mức band điểm từ 6-7, 7.5-8 đến 8.5-9, kho từ vựng ăn điểm về chủ đề luật pháp, cùng với chiến lược trả lời từ góc nhìn của một examiner có kinh nghiệm. Đặc biệt, tôi sẽ chỉ ra những lỗi điển hình mà học viên Việt Nam thường mắc phải khi đối mặt với chủ đề này, giúp bạn tránh được những sai lầm không đáng có.
IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview
Tổng Quan Về Part 1
Part 1 kéo dài từ 4-5 phút với những câu hỏi ngắn về đời sống hàng ngày. Khi nói về luật pháp và quy định, examiner thường hỏi những câu hỏi general về tuân thủ luật lệ, ý thức cộng đồng trong xã hội. Chiến lược tốt nhất là trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, sau đó mở rộng với lý do hoặc ví dụ cụ thể trong 2-3 câu.
Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam trong Part 1:
- Trả lời quá ngắn chỉ Yes/No mà không giải thích
- Dùng từ vựng quá đơn giản như “good”, “bad”, “important”
- Thiếu ví dụ cụ thể từ kinh nghiệm bản thân
- Không sử dụng discourse markers để câu trả lời tự nhiên hơn
Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp
Question 1: Do you think laws are important in society?
Question 2: Have you ever broken any rules or laws?
Question 3: Do people in your country generally obey the law?
Question 4: Should traffic rules be stricter in your country?
Question 5: What do you think about laws related to the environment?
Question 6: Do you think young people respect laws as much as older people?
Question 7: Are there any rules in your workplace or school that you find unnecessary?
Question 8: How do you feel when you see someone breaking the law?
Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết
Question: Do you think laws are important in society?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Đưa ra câu trả lời trực tiếp (Yes/Absolutely)
- Giải thích tại sao luật pháp quan trọng
- Đưa ví dụ cụ thể về hậu quả khi không có luật
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
Yes, I think laws are very important. They help people live together peacefully and prevent crime. Without laws, society would be chaotic and dangerous for everyone.
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Trả lời trực tiếp, có lý do cơ bản, ngắn gọn rõ ràng
- Hạn chế: Từ vựng đơn giản (very important, chaotic), thiếu ví dụ cụ thể, cấu trúc câu đơn giản
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Đáp ứng yêu cầu cơ bản nhưng chưa thể hiện được lexical range hoặc grammatical complexity
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
Absolutely, I’d say laws are fundamental to any functioning society. They establish a framework for acceptable behavior and ensure social order. Without proper legislation, we’d likely see a breakdown of trust and security – imagine if there were no traffic regulations, the roads would be complete mayhem, wouldn’t they?
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Sử dụng discourse marker “Absolutely, I’d say”, từ vựng chính xác và academic (fundamental to, establish a framework, breakdown of trust), cấu trúc phức tạp với conditional và question tag, có ví dụ cụ thể về giao thông
- Tại sao Band 8-9: Fluency tự nhiên, vocabulary precise và sophisticated, grammar đa dạng với conditional sentence và rhetorical question, ideas được develop tốt
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- fundamental to: cơ bản, thiết yếu cho
- establish a framework: thiết lập một khuôn khổ
- ensure social order: đảm bảo trật tự xã hội
- breakdown of trust: sự sụp đổ của lòng tin
- complete mayhem: hỗn loạn hoàn toàn
Question: Have you ever broken any rules or laws?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Trả lời trung thực nhưng khôn ngoan (chọn minor rule, không phải serious law)
- Mô tả tình huống ngắn gọn
- Thể hiện awareness về việc không nên vi phạm
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
Well, I think everyone has broken small rules sometimes. I remember once I crossed the street when the light was red because I was in a hurry. I know it was wrong and I shouldn’t do that.
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Trung thực, có ví dụ cụ thể, thừa nhận sai lầm
- Hạn chế: Từ vựng basic (small rules, in a hurry), thiếu reflection sâu hơn về hành vi
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Đủ ý nhưng chưa sophisticated trong cách diễn đạt
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
To be honest, I’m not proud to admit this, but like most people, I’ve occasionally bent minor rules. Once, I jaywalked across a busy intersection because I was running late for an important meeting. In retrospect, it was quite reckless – I could have endangered not just myself but also drivers. It definitely taught me that no matter how pressed for time you are, safety should always come first.
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Discourse marker tự nhiên (To be honest), từ vựng precise (bent minor rules, jaywalked, in retrospect, reckless), grammar phức tạp (not just… but also), có reflection và lesson learned, thể hiện maturity
- Tại sao Band 8-9: Natural fluency với hedging language, vocabulary range cao, complex ideas với self-reflection, grammar accuracy hoàn hảo
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- bent minor rules: vi phạm nhẹ quy định
- jaywalked: sang đường không đúng nơi quy định
- in retrospect: nhìn lại
- reckless: liều lĩnh, bất cẩn
- pressed for time: gấp rút về thời gian
Question: Do people in your country generally obey the law?
🎯 Cách tiếp cận:
- Đưa ra general observation về người Việt Nam
- Acknowledge cả positive và negative aspects
- Đưa ví dụ cụ thể về loại luật nào được tuân thủ tốt, loại nào chưa
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
I think most people try to follow the law, but not everyone does. Some people break traffic rules like riding motorcycles without helmets or running red lights. But for serious crimes, people are usually very careful.
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Balanced view, có ví dụ về giao thông
- Hạn chế: Từ vựng repetitive (people, try to follow), thiếu analysis về reasons, cấu trúc đơn giản
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response nhưng lacks depth và sophistication
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:
Well, it’s a bit of a mixed bag, really. By and large, Vietnamese people are law-abiding citizens when it comes to serious offenses – you rarely hear about violent crimes or major fraud. However, there’s a tendency to be rather lax about certain regulations, particularly traffic laws. For instance, it’s quite common to see motorbike riders weaving through traffic or ignoring red lights when they think it’s safe. I suppose this stems from a combination of inadequate enforcement and the perception that minor infractions aren’t particularly harmful.
Phân tích:
- Điểm mạnh: Discourse markers xuất sắc (Well, really, By and large, However, For instance, I suppose), vocabulary sophisticated (mixed bag, law-abiding citizens, lax, weaving through traffic, stems from, infractions), grammar phức tạp với relative clauses và prepositional phrases, ideas nuanced với analysis về causes
- Tại sao Band 8-9: Shows excellent command of English với idiomatic expressions, balanced perspective với specific examples, analytical thinking về root causes
💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:
- mixed bag: tình hình lẫn lộn, không đồng nhất
- by and large: nhìn chung, đại thể
- law-abiding citizens: công dân tuân thủ pháp luật
- lax about: lỏng lẻo về
- weaving through traffic: len lỏi qua xe cộ
- stems from: bắt nguồn từ
- infractions: hành vi vi phạm
Người dân Việt Nam tuân thủ luật pháp giao thông trên đường phố đô thị với xe máy và ô tô
IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)
Tổng Quan Về Part 2
Part 2 là phần độc thoại kéo dài 2-3 phút, trong đó bạn có 1 phút chuẩn bị với giấy và bút. Đây là phần quan trọng nhất để thể hiện khả năng nói liên tục và develop ideas. Với chủ đề về luật pháp, bạn cần chọn một đạo luật thực tế mà bạn có đủ kiến thức để nói chi tiết.
Chiến lược hiệu quả:
- Sử dụng đầy đủ 1 phút để ghi chú keywords, không viết câu hoàn chỉnh
- Nói tối thiểu 1.5 phút, lý tưởng là 2 phút đầy đủ
- Trả lời đủ tất cả các bullet points trên cue card
- Sử dụng thì động từ phù hợp (thường là hiện tại khi nói về luật đang tồn tại)
- Dành nhiều thời gian cho phần “explain” vì đây là nơi bạn ghi điểm cao
Lỗi thường gặp:
- Chọn một luật quá phức tạp mà không đủ vocabulary để diễn tả
- Nói dưới 1.5 phút vì thiếu ideas
- Quên không giải thích tại sao muốn thay đổi luật đó
- Không đưa ra suggestions về cách thay đổi
Cue Card
Describe A Law That You Would Like To Change
You should say:
- What the law is
- How you first learned about this law
- What you would like to change about it
- And explain why you think this law should be changed
Phân Tích Đề Bài
- Dạng câu hỏi: Describe a law/rule (object – abstract concept)
- Thì động từ: Hiện tại đơn (khi nói về luật hiện tại), Quá khứ đơn (khi nói về việc học về luật), Điều kiện (khi nói về thay đổi mong muốn)
- Bullet points phải cover:
- What the law is: Mô tả rõ ràng luật gì, áp dụng cho ai, trong hoàn cảnh nào
- How you learned: Kể ngắn gọn về lần đầu biết đến luật này (qua trải nghiệm, tin tức, hay giáo dục)
- What to change: Cụ thể bạn muốn thay đổi điều gì trong luật đó
- Why should be changed: Giải thích lý do, tác động tiêu cực hiện tại và lợi ích khi thay đổi
- Câu “explain” quan trọng: Đây là phần chiếm 40-50% thời gian nói của bạn. Cần đưa ra nhiều lý do với examples và analysis để thể hiện critical thinking
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7
Thời lượng: Khoảng 1.5-2 phút
I’d like to talk about the traffic law regarding helmet usage for motorcycle passengers in Vietnam. This law requires all motorbike riders to wear helmets, but there are some exceptions for young children.
I first learned about this law when I was in high school. My teacher told us about it in a civic education class. I also see police officers enforcing this law on the streets every day.
What I would like to change is the exception for children. Currently, children under 6 years old don’t have to wear helmets when sitting on motorcycles. I think this should be changed so that everyone, including small children, must wear proper helmets.
I believe this law should be changed because safety is important for everyone, not just adults. Many children get injured in traffic accidents every year. When they don’t wear helmets, the injuries can be very serious. I’ve seen news reports about children getting hurt badly because they weren’t wearing helmets. Also, if we teach children to wear helmets from a young age, they will develop good habits for the future. Parents might say that children’s helmets are uncomfortable or expensive, but I think protecting children’s lives is more important than comfort or money. The government could also help by providing cheaper helmets for families who cannot afford them. So I really think this exception should be removed to make our roads safer for children.
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 6-7 | Nói liên tục được, có sequencing (First, Currently, Also) nhưng còn một số hesitation. Linking words cơ bản. |
| Lexical Resource | 6-7 | Từ vựng adequate cho topic (enforcing, civic education, exceptions, develop good habits) nhưng còn repetitive (important, children). Thiếu sophisticated expressions. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 6-7 | Mix của simple và complex sentences. Có conditional (if we teach), relative clause (who cannot afford). Một số lỗi nhỏ nhưng không ảnh hưởng communication. |
| Pronunciation | 6-7 | Rõ ràng, dễ hiểu, có intonation cơ bản. |
Điểm mạnh:
- ✅ Cover đủ tất cả bullet points
- ✅ Có structure rõ ràng theo cue card
- ✅ Đưa ra được lý do và ví dụ
- ✅ Thời lượng đủ khoảng 1.5 phút
Hạn chế:
- ⚠️ Từ vựng chưa đa dạng, lặp lại “children”, “important”
- ⚠️ Ideas chưa được develop sâu, thiếu critical analysis
- ⚠️ Chưa có idiomatic expressions hoặc advanced vocabulary
📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8
Thời lượng: Khoảng 2-2.5 phút
I’d like to talk about a law that’s been a source of debate in Vietnam – the regulation concerning helmet requirements for young children on motorcycles. Essentially, this law mandates that all motorbike users must wear helmets, but it includes an exemption for children under six years of age.
I first became aware of this law several years ago when I witnessed a traffic accident involving a young child. The child, who wasn’t wearing a helmet, sustained serious head injuries. This incident prompted me to research traffic safety regulations, and I discovered this controversial exemption. Since then, I’ve kept track of news reports and advocacy campaigns pushing for reform.
What I would specifically change is this age-based exemption. I believe the law should be amended to require proper protective gear for passengers of all ages, with perhaps different specifications for child-sized helmets to ensure both safety and comfort.
The rationale behind this proposed change is quite compelling. First and foremost, head trauma is the leading cause of fatalities in motorcycle accidents, regardless of age. Young children are actually more vulnerable than adults due to their developing skulls. Statistics show that countries with universal helmet laws have significantly lower rates of pediatric head injuries. Tương tự như describe a person who has a positive influence on others, chính sách an toàn này cũng có thể tạo ra ảnh hưởng tích cực lan tỏa trong cộng đồng khi mọi người thấy được tầm quan trọng của việc bảo vệ trẻ em.
Moreover, I believe this exemption sends the wrong message. It suggests that children’s safety is somehow less of a priority, which contradicts the very purpose of protective legislation. From a behavioral perspective, requiring helmets from early childhood would instill lifelong safety habits. Children would grow up viewing helmet use as non-negotiable, much like wearing seatbelts.
I acknowledge that parents often cite practical concerns – child helmets can be expensive and uncomfortable. However, these issues could be addressed through government subsidies and improved helmet design. The long-term societal benefits of preventing childhood injuries far outweigh these short-term inconveniences.
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 7.5-8 | Nói trôi chảy, tự nhiên với minimal hesitation. Cohesive devices sophisticated (Essentially, First and foremost, Moreover, From a behavioral perspective). Ideas organized logically. |
| Lexical Resource | 7.5-8 | Wide range of vocabulary (mandates, exemption, sustained injuries, prompted me, advocacy campaigns, head trauma, pediatric, instill). Some collocations (source of debate, proper protective gear). Precise word choice. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 7.5-8 | Variety of complex structures (relative clauses, passive voice, conditionals). Mostly error-free. Mix of sentence types. |
| Pronunciation | 7.5-8 | Clear, natural stress and intonation. Easy to understand throughout. |
So Sánh Với Band 6-7
| Khía cạnh | Band 6-7 | Band 7.5-8 |
|---|---|---|
| Vocabulary | “traffic law”, “important”, “get injured” | “source of debate”, “mandates”, “sustained serious head injuries”, “compelling rationale” |
| Grammar | “I think this should be changed” | “I believe the law should be amended to require proper protective gear” |
| Ideas | “Many children get injured” | “Head trauma is the leading cause of fatalities… Statistics show that countries with universal helmet laws…” |
Luật đội mũ bảo hiểm cho trẻ em trên xe máy cần được thay đổi để đảm bảo an toàn giao thông
📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9
Thời lượng: 2.5-3 phút đầy đủ
I’d like to discuss what I consider to be a glaring loophole in Vietnamese traffic legislation – specifically, the exemption clause that permits children under six to ride on motorcycles without helmets. This well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed regulation has been a contentious issue among safety advocates for years.
My awareness of this law came about rather fortuitously during my university years. I was conducting research for a public health project when I came across some alarming statistics about pediatric road traffic injuries. What struck me most was that Vietnam has one of the highest rates of childhood head trauma in Southeast Asia, and this exemption was frequently cited as a contributing factor. This revelation compelled me to delve deeper into the issue, and I’ve since followed various advocacy initiatives and legislative debates surrounding potential reforms.
As for the specific amendments I’d propose, I envision a comprehensive overhaul rather than a simple tweak. The law should mandate age-appropriate protective headgear for all motorcycle passengers without exception, but with graduated requirements based on developmental stages. For instance, infants might use specialized protective devices rather than standard helmets, while toddlers would wear properly certified child helmets. This approach would balance safety imperatives with practical considerations about children’s physical development.
Now, why I believe this reform is not just desirable but actually imperative requires examining multiple dimensions. From a purely medical standpoint, the notion that young children somehow need less protection is utterly unfounded. On the contrary, their skulls are more fragile, their neck muscles less developed, making them disproportionately vulnerable to head and spinal injuries. Neurosurgeons consistently emphasize that traumatic brain injuries sustained in early childhood can have lifelong ramifications – affecting cognitive development, learning abilities, and overall quality of life.
Beyond the medical argument, there’s a broader societal dimension to consider. This exemption essentially institutionalizes the idea that children’s safety is somehow negotiable, which I find deeply troubling. It undermines decades of public health campaigns aimed at fostering a culture of road safety. What message are we sending when we legally sanction leaving the most vulnerable road users unprotected? Để hiểu rõ hơn về describe a person who is very talented in their profession, chúng ta có thể so sánh với các chuyên gia an toàn giao thông quốc tế, những người đã tận tâm nghiên cứu và chứng minh rằng luật bảo vệ toàn diện là chìa khóa giảm thiểu thương vong.
From a behavioral economics perspective, this policy represents a missed opportunity for positive habit formation. Research consistently shows that safety behaviors learned in early childhood become deeply ingrained. Children who grow up wearing helmets invariably become adults who automatically follow safety protocols. We’re essentially sacrificing long-term gains for short-term convenience.
I’m fully aware that implementing such changes wouldn’t be without challenges. Parents often cite logistical barriers – cost, comfort, availability of appropriate helmets. However, these are surmountable obstacles. The government could introduce subsidized helmet programs, collaborate with manufacturers to develop ergonomically designed children’s helmets, and launch comprehensive awareness campaigns. The initial investment would be far outweighed by the reduction in healthcare costs and, more importantly, the preservation of young lives.
What particularly frustrates me about this issue is that we already have compelling evidence from other nations. Countries like Thailand and Australia, which implemented universal helmet laws without age exemptions, saw dramatic decreases in child casualty rates within just a few years. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel – the blueprint for success already exists.
In essence, this law needs changing because it represents a false economy – prioritizing minor inconveniences over children’s welfare. Every year this exemption remains, we’re implicitly accepting that some children will suffer preventable injuries. That’s a moral compromise I don’t think we should be making.
Phân Tích Band Điểm
| Tiêu chí | Band | Nhận xét |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency & Coherence | 8.5-9 | Exceptionally fluent và coherent. Sophisticated discourse markers (As for, From a purely medical standpoint, Beyond the medical argument, In essence). Ideas flow naturally với clear progression. Zero hesitation. |
| Lexical Resource | 8.5-9 | Wide range of sophisticated vocabulary used naturally (glaring loophole, fortuitously, alarming statistics, disproportionately vulnerable, institutionalizes, surmountable obstacles). Precise collocations và idiomatic language. Paraphrasing skillful. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | 8.5-9 | Full range of structures used accurately và flexibly (cleft sentences, conditionals, passive constructions, relative clauses). Consistently error-free. Natural use of complex sentences. |
| Pronunciation | 8.5-9 | Effortless to understand. Natural stress, rhythm, intonation indistinguishable from proficient speaker. |
Tại Sao Bài Này Xuất Sắc
🎯 Fluency Hoàn Hảo:
Bài nói flow tự nhiên không có pause không cần thiết. Sử dụng discourse markers một cách tinh tế để guide listener qua các arguments khác nhau. Mỗi idea được connected logically với idea tiếp theo.
📚 Vocabulary Tinh Vi:
- Ví dụ 1: “glaring loophole” thay vì “big problem” – shows precise word choice
- Ví dụ 2: “fortuitously” thay vì “luckily” – demonstrates range of register
- Ví dụ 3: “disproportionately vulnerable” – sophisticated collocation showing academic vocabulary
- Ví dụ 4: “surmountable obstacles” – less common phrase showing vocabulary depth
📝 Grammar Đa Dạng:
- Cleft sentences: “What struck me most was…” – emphasis structure
- Rhetorical questions: “What message are we sending when…” – engagement technique
- Passive constructions: “This exemption was frequently cited as…” – formal register
- Conditional complexity: “Children who grow up wearing helmets invariably become adults who automatically follow…”
💡 Ideas Sâu Sắc:
Bài nói không chỉ describe the law mà còn analyze từ multiple perspectives: medical, societal, behavioral economics, comparative international policy. Shows critical thinking và ability to synthesize information from various domains. Đưa ra counter-arguments (parents’ concerns) và address them thoughtfully, demonstrating intellectual maturity.
Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)
Examiner có thể hỏi thêm 1-2 câu ngắn sau Part 2 để transition sang Part 3:
Question 1: Do you think this law will be changed in the near future?
Band 6-7 Answer:
I hope so, but I’m not sure. The government is quite slow at changing laws. Maybe if more people talk about it, they will consider changing it.
Band 8-9 Answer:
I’m cautiously optimistic, actually. There’s been growing momentum among safety advocacy groups, and I’ve noticed more media coverage of this issue lately. However, legislative change tends to be glacial in Vietnam, so I wouldn’t expect anything imminent. That said, if we can build sufficient public consensus, I think reform within the next five to ten years is feasible.
Question 2: Would it be difficult to enforce this change?
Band 6-7 Answer:
Yes, I think it would be difficult at first. Many parents don’t have money to buy helmets for children. Also, police would need to check everyone carefully.
Band 8-9 Answer:
Undoubtedly, there would be implementation challenges, particularly in the initial phase. You’d need a multi-pronged approach – combining enhanced enforcement with educational campaigns and subsidized helmet programs. The key would be gradual implementation with a grace period, allowing families to adapt. Experience from other countries suggests that once the law is in place, compliance rates improve organically as social norms shift.
IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion
Tổng Quan Về Part 3
Part 3 là phần thảo luận sâu nhất trong bài thi Speaking, kéo dài 4-5 phút. Examiner sẽ hỏi những câu hỏi trừu tượng và phức tạp hơn, yêu cầu bạn phân tích, đánh giá và so sánh các khía cạnh rộng hơn liên quan đến chủ đề Part 2. Đối với chủ đề về luật pháp, câu hỏi thường xoay quanh vai trò của luật trong xã hội, sự cân bằng giữa quyền tự do cá nhân và lợi ích chung, xu hướng lập pháp trong tương lai.
Chiến lược hiệu quả:
- Mở rộng câu trả lời đến 3-5 câu với structure rõ ràng
- Sử dụng discourse markers để organize ideas (Well, I think, On the one hand, However)
- Đưa ra examples từ xã hội, international context, không chỉ personal experience
- Acknowledge complexity và multiple perspectives của vấn đề
- Sử dụng tentative language khi appropriate (might, could, tend to, generally)
Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:
- Trả lời quá ngắn, chỉ 1-2 câu thiếu elaboration
- Không đưa ra lý lẽ hoặc evidence support ideas
- Thiếu từ vựng abstract và academic để discuss complex topics
- Chỉ nói về personal opinion mà không analyze broader implications
- Không show awareness của different viewpoints
Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu
Theme 1: The Role and Purpose of Laws
Question 1: Why do you think some people choose to break the law?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Cause-Effect (tìm reasons)
- Key words: people, choose to break, law
- Cách tiếp cận: Analyze multiple reasons – economic factors, social factors, psychological factors. Acknowledge complexity – not one-size-fits-all answer.
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
I think there are several reasons why people break laws. First, some people are poor and they steal things because they need money for their families. Second, some people don’t think the law is fair, so they ignore it. Also, sometimes people break small laws like traffic rules because they are in a hurry or they think it’s not important.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Có attempt to list multiple reasons (First, Second, Also) nhưng còn mechanical
- Vocabulary: Basic words (poor, steal, fair, ignore, in a hurry)
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Adequate response with some development nhưng lacks sophistication và depth of analysis
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
Well, I think the motivations behind lawbreaking are quite complex and multifaceted. At the most fundamental level, there are often socioeconomic factors at play – people living in dire poverty might resort to theft not out of moral deficiency but out of sheer desperation to meet basic needs. This doesn’t excuse the behavior, but it does provide context.
Beyond economic necessity, there’s also what sociologists call perceived legitimacy of laws. When people believe a law is unjust or arbitrarily enforced, they’re more likely to disregard it. We saw this during Prohibition in the United States, where widespread noncompliance reflected public disagreement with the legislation itself.
Additionally, for minor infractions like traffic violations, there’s often a cost-benefit calculation happening. People weigh the likelihood of getting caught against the convenience of breaking the rule. If enforcement is lax and penalties are minimal, deterrence becomes ineffective. Điều này có điểm tương đồng với describe an event that you are looking forward to khi con người có xu hướng đánh giá rủi ro và lợi ích trước khi đưa ra quyết định về hành vi của mình, đặc biệt trong những tình huống có tính toán được.
Psychological factors shouldn’t be overlooked either. Some individuals have impulse control issues, while others might rationalize their behavior through cognitive distortions – convincing themselves that their particular violation doesn’t really hurt anyone.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Excellently organized với clear discourse markers (At the most fundamental level, Beyond, Additionally, shouldn’t be overlooked). Each paragraph addresses one dimension.
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated và precise (multifaceted, dire poverty, moral deficiency, perceived legitimacy, arbitrarily enforced, cognitive distortions). Academic collocations used naturally.
- Grammar: Complex structures throughout (relative clauses, conditionals, passive voice). Variety in sentence length và structure.
- Critical Thinking: Multi-dimensional analysis covering economic, social, psychological factors. Shows awareness of research (sociologists call). Nuanced view (doesn’t excuse but provides context). International example (Prohibition).
💡 Key Language Features:
- Discourse markers: Well, At the most fundamental level, Beyond, Additionally
- Tentative language: might, often, tend to (showing academic caution)
- Abstract nouns: motivations, socioeconomic factors, perceived legitimacy, deterrence, cognitive distortions
Question 2: Do you think laws should be the same for everyone, or should there be different laws for different groups of people?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Opinion với comparison
- Key words: same for everyone vs. different laws, different groups
- Cách tiếp cận: Present both perspectives (equality vs. equity), then give balanced opinion. Consider age, circumstances, special needs.
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
I think laws should be mostly the same for everyone because that’s fair. If we have different laws for different people, it’s not equal. However, sometimes we need different rules for children because they are young and don’t understand everything. For example, children can’t drive cars or drink alcohol. So I think most laws should be the same, but some special cases are okay.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Basic introduction of viewpoint, one example, simple conclusion
- Vocabulary: Simple words (fair, equal, young, special cases)
- Ideas: Surface-level treatment of equality vs. special circumstances
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Addresses the question but lacks depth and nuanced analysis
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
This is actually one of the most fundamental debates in jurisprudence – the tension between formal equality and substantive justice. On the surface, the principle of equal treatment under the law seems straightforward and morally compelling. After all, justice should be blind, right? Everyone should be held to the same standards regardless of wealth, status, or background.
However, in practice, absolute uniformity can sometimes perpetuate injustice rather than prevent it. Let me explain what I mean. Take juvenile offenders, for instance. Most legal systems rightfully distinguish between adult and youth criminals, recognizing that children have less developed judgment and greater capacity for rehabilitation. Treating a 14-year-old identically to a 40-year-old for the same offense would be fundamentally unjust because it ignores crucial developmental differences.
Similarly, many jurisdictions have special provisions for people with mental health conditions or cognitive disabilities. Someone experiencing a psychotic episode can’t be held to the same standard of criminal responsibility as someone in full control of their faculties. This isn’t about creating loopholes – it’s about ensuring that punishment is proportionate to actual culpability.
That said, we need to be extremely careful about where we draw these lines. History is littered with examples of discriminatory legal systems that created separate rules based on race, gender, or social class, always to the detriment of marginalized groups. The key distinction is between arbitrary categories like race or wealth, and relevant differences like age or mental capacity that genuinely affect moral responsibility.
So to directly answer your question, I believe the foundational principles of law – prohibitions against violence, theft, fraud – should absolutely apply universally. However, the application and consequences can and should be modulated based on legitimate factors like age, mental capacity, and circumstances, provided these distinctions are made transparently and equitably.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Sophisticated organization – introduce dilemma, present principle, acknowledge limitations with examples, warn against dangers, conclude with nuanced position
- Vocabulary: Legal terminology used precisely (jurisprudence, substantive justice, juvenile offenders, culpability, marginalized groups, modulated)
- Grammar: Full range of complex structures (cleft sentences, conditionals, passive voice, relative clauses). Rhetorical question for engagement.
- Critical Thinking: Shows deep understanding of philosophical tension. Multiple examples across different domains. Acknowledges historical context. Nuanced conclusion avoiding simplistic either/or.
💡 Key Language Features:
- Discourse markers: On the surface, However, Similarly, That said, So to directly answer
- Tentative language: can sometimes, tend to, might (academic hedging)
- Emphatic structures: “This isn’t about… it’s about…”, “The key distinction is…”
Sự cân bằng giữa công bằng hình thức và công lý thực chất trong hệ thống pháp luật
Theme 2: Law Enforcement and Punishment
Question 3: What do you think is the most effective way to prevent crime – stricter laws or better education?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Compare two approaches (punishment vs. prevention)
- Key words: most effective, prevent crime, stricter laws vs. better education
- Cách tiếp cận: Analyze effectiveness của cả hai approaches, consider different types of crimes, acknowledge both have roles
📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:
I think both are important, but education is probably better. When people have good education, they can get good jobs and don’t need to steal. Stricter laws can scare people, but they don’t fix the real problem. If someone is poor and hungry, even strict punishment won’t stop them. So I believe education is more effective for preventing crime in the long term.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Có comparison basic giữa hai approaches
- Vocabulary: Simple language (good education, scare people, real problem)
- Tại sao Band 6-7: Answers the question với basic reasoning nhưng lacks depth và sophisticated analysis
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
I’d argue that this presents a somewhat false dichotomy because the most effective crime prevention strategies actually integrate both elements, but if I had to prioritize, I’d say education and broader social interventions have far greater preventative power than punitive measures alone.
Let me break down my reasoning. Harsher penalties operate on a deterrence model – the idea that fear of consequences will discourage criminal behavior. And to some extent, this works for premeditated, rational crimes where perpetrators carefully weigh risks. However, extensive criminological research shows that the certainty of punishment matters far more than its severity. A guaranteed moderate penalty deters more effectively than an unlikely harsh one.
More fundamentally, punitive approaches are essentially reactive – they address symptoms rather than root causes. They do nothing about the underlying conditions that breed criminality: systemic poverty, lack of opportunity, family dysfunction, substance abuse, mental health issues. It’s like treating a fever without addressing the infection.
Education, by contrast, is inherently preventative. Quality education doesn’t just impart knowledge – it develops critical thinking, builds empathy, creates economic opportunities, and fosters social cohesion. When you look at crime statistics globally, there’s a striking inverse correlation between educational attainment and criminal involvement. Nghiên cứu về describe a public figure you respect cho thấy nhiều nhân vật công chúng thành công đã xuất phát từ hoàn cảnh khó khăn nhưng được cứu vãn nhờ giáo dục tốt, điều này minh chứng rõ ràng cho sức mạnh của giáo dục trong việc định hình con người và ngăn chặn con đường phạm tội.
That’s not to say enforcement doesn’t matter – it absolutely does. You need functioning law enforcement and appropriate consequences to maintain order and protect victims. But if you’re looking at which intervention yields the greatest long-term reduction in crime rates, the evidence overwhelmingly supports investment in education, particularly early childhood education, vocational training, and rehabilitation programs even for those already in the criminal justice system.
A comprehensive approach would combine fair but certain enforcement with robust educational and social programs that address the socioeconomic factors driving crime. But given finite resources, investing in prevention through education provides substantially better returns than continuously expanding the punitive system.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Exceptionally well-organized – challenge false dichotomy, present prioritization, analyze both approaches systematically, acknowledge need for balance, conclude with evidence-based position
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated academic language (false dichotomy, punitive measures, deterrence model, premeditated, criminological research, inverse correlation, finite resources)
- Grammar: Full range used flexibly (conditionals, cleft sentences, comparative structures). Sentence variety creates natural rhythm.
- Critical Thinking: Shows understanding of research evidence. Challenges premise of question. Multi-dimensional analysis. Nuanced conclusion avoiding absolutism. Considers implementation realities (finite resources).
💡 Key Language Features:
- Discourse markers: Let me break down, More fundamentally, By contrast, That’s not to say, But given
- Tentative language: I’d argue, to some extent, essentially (showing academic caution)
- Emphatic structures: “It’s not just… it’s…”, “It’s like…”, “The evidence overwhelmingly supports”
Question 4: Should people who break minor laws still be punished severely to set an example?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Opinion về punishment philosophy
- Key words: minor laws, punished severely, set an example
- Cách tiếp cận: Discuss proportionality principle, deterrence theory, unintended consequences of harsh punishment for minor offenses
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
I strongly disagree with this approach, and I think it fundamentally misunderstands both effective deterrence and principles of justice. The idea you’re describing – making an example of someone through disproportionately harsh punishment – is sometimes called exemplary sentencing, and while it might seem intuitive, it’s actually deeply problematic on multiple levels.
First, there’s the basic principle of proportionality that underpins most modern legal systems. Punishment should fit the crime – not be calibrated based on how spectacular an example you want to make. When someone receives a draconian sentence for a relatively trivial offense, it violates this fundamental fairness principle. It essentially sacrifices individual justice for perceived collective benefit, treating the person as a means rather than an end – something most ethical frameworks find troubling.
From a practical deterrence standpoint, the evidence is surprisingly weak for harsh exemplary sentences. What actually deters crime isn’t severity of punishment but certainty and swiftness. If people believe they’ll definitely be caught and punished promptly, even moderate penalties work. But if enforcement is sporadic, even extreme punishments won’t significantly alter behavior because people discount unlikely outcomes. The research consistently shows that increasing the certainty of consequences by 10% deters more effectively than increasing severity by 100%.
Moreover, there are serious unintended consequences to consider. Disproportionately harsh penalties for minor offenses can erode public trust in the justice system. When people perceive punishment as arbitrary or excessive, they lose respect for the law itself. We’ve seen this with “three strikes” laws in the United States, where people received life sentences for non-violent offenses, generating widespread criticism and demands for reform.
There’s also the issue of who bears the brunt of such policies. Harsh exemplary sentencing often disproportionately affects marginalized communities who already face heightened scrutiny from law enforcement. It can perpetuate cycles of incarceration that devastate families and communities over what were originally minor infractions.
A more effective and just approach would be graduated responses matched to offense severity. For minor violations, warnings, community service, fines, or restorative justice programs often achieve better outcomes – both for rehabilitation and for maintaining respect for the legal system. Save substantial penalties for substantial harms. That creates a system that’s both more proportionate and, paradoxically, more effective at promoting compliance.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Clear position stated immediately, then systematic analysis of philosophical, practical, and social dimensions. Each paragraph tackles one aspect. Concludes with alternative approach.
- Vocabulary: Sophisticated legal and philosophical terminology (proportionality, exemplary sentencing, draconian sentence, calibrated, sporadic, discount unlikely outcomes, erode public trust, restorative justice)
- Grammar: Complex structures with perfect accuracy. Uses passive voice appropriately for academic tone. Varied sentence structures maintain engagement.
- Critical Thinking: Multi-dimensional critique – ethical, empirical, social justice perspectives. Cites research evidence. Acknowledges complexity. Proposes constructive alternative rather than just criticizing.
Theme 3: Future of Laws and Changing Society
Question 5: How do you think technology will change the way laws are enforced in the future?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Future prediction với cause-effect
- Key words: technology, change, laws are enforced, future
- Cách tiếp cận: Discuss specific technologies (AI, surveillance, data analytics), consider both benefits và concerns (privacy, bias)
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
I think we’re already seeing the beginnings of what will be a profound transformation in law enforcement, driven by several converging technologies, and it’s a development that’s both exciting and somewhat concerning.
On the promising side, artificial intelligence and data analytics are enabling far more efficient resource allocation. Predictive policing algorithms can identify patterns in crime data, allowing departments to deploy officers where they’re most likely to prevent incidents. Facial recognition technology has already dramatically improved the speed at which suspects can be identified. Automated traffic enforcement – cameras that detect violations and issue citations – has proven highly effective at reducing dangerous driving while requiring minimal human oversight.
Blockchain technology could revolutionize everything from property records to contract enforcement, making certain types of fraud virtually impossible and dramatically reducing the administrative burden on courts. Smart contracts that automatically execute when conditions are met could handle routine legal matters without human intervention.
However – and this is crucial – these same technologies raise profound concerns about privacy, bias, and accountability. Facial recognition systems have shown disturbing rates of misidentification, particularly for people of color and women, potentially leading to wrongful arrests or harassment. Predictive policing algorithms, when trained on historically biased data, can perpetuate and amplify existing discriminatory patterns, sending more police to minority neighborhoods not because more crime occurs there but because that’s where enforcement has historically focused.
There’s also the specter of mass surveillance. When every public space has cameras, every transaction leaves a digital footprint, and algorithms track our movements, we’re moving toward a level of monitoring that would have seemed dystopian a generation ago. The question becomes: how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice for enhanced security and enforcement efficiency?
I think the future will require very careful regulation of these technologies – ensuring transparency in how algorithms make decisions, regular auditing for bias, strong data protection standards, and meaningful human oversight of automated systems. We need to harness the efficiency gains technology offers while guarding against the creation of an overly invasive surveillance state.
Ideally, technology should make law enforcement more fair and effective – catching actual wrongdoers more reliably while reducing false accusations and discriminatory practices. But achieving that ideal will require thoughtful governance, not just unbridled technological adoption.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Balanced analysis – benefits first, then concerns, concluding with need for careful governance. Clear signposting (On the promising side, However, Ideally).
- Vocabulary: Technology-specific and legal terminology (predictive policing, facial recognition, blockchain, smart contracts, digital footprint, dystopian, surveillance state)
- Grammar: Sophisticated structures including conditionals, relative clauses, gerunds, present participles. Questions used rhetorically for engagement.
- Critical Thinking: Balanced view acknowledging both opportunities and dangers. Specific examples across multiple domains. Considers unintended consequences (bias amplification). Proposes governance solutions. Shows awareness of ethical dimensions.
Question 6: Do you think international laws are as important as national laws?
🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:
- Dạng: Compare và evaluate
- Key words: international laws vs. national laws, as important
- Cách tiếp cận: Define both types, discuss areas where each is crucial, consider enforcement challenges with international law
📝 Câu trả lời mẫu – Band 8-9:
This is a fascinating question because it touches on fundamental tensions in how we organize global governance. I’d argue that international and national laws serve different but complementary functions, and their relative importance depends entirely on the issue at hand.
National laws are obviously essential for day-to-day governance – regulating everything from traffic to taxes to criminal justice within a country’s borders. They have the advantage of legitimate democratic mandate from citizens and, crucially, effective enforcement mechanisms. When you break a national law, there are police, courts, and prisons ready to respond.
International law operates quite differently. It governs relations between states and addresses challenges that transcend national boundaries – things like climate change, nuclear proliferation, war crimes, human trafficking, and global trade. For these issues, international cooperation isn’t just helpful; it’s absolutely essential. Climate change doesn’t respect borders – one country can’t solve it alone. Similarly, regulating the global financial system or preventing the spread of pandemics requires coordinated international frameworks.
Where international law becomes arguably MORE important than national law is when we’re dealing with fundamental human rights. The post-World War II establishment of international humanitarian law and human rights conventions created universal standards that theoretically supersede national sovereignty. The idea is that certain things – genocide, torture, slavery – are universally wrong regardless of what any particular country’s laws say.
The challenge, of course, is enforcement. National governments have coercive power within their territories. International law largely relies on voluntary compliance, diplomatic pressure, and occasionally sanctions or military intervention. The International Criminal Court can issue warrants, but it depends on states to arrest suspects. The Paris Climate Agreement sets targets, but has limited mechanisms to compel compliance.
I think both are crucial, but they need to work in tandem. Strong international frameworks provide overarching principles and facilitate cooperation on transnational issues. National laws translate these into concrete, enforceable regulations within specific contexts. The most effective legal systems are those where national laws align with and reinforce international commitments.
Increasingly, in our globalized world, I’d say we need MORE robust international law, particularly around technology regulation, climate action, and corporate accountability for multinational companies that operate across dozens of countries. National laws alone simply can’t address these 21st-century challenges effectively.
Phân tích:
- Structure: Sophisticated comparative analysis that avoids simplistic ranking. Defines both types, examines different domains where each matters, discusses enforcement realities, concludes with need for integration.
- Vocabulary: International relations and legal terminology (global governance, legitimate democratic mandate, transcend boundaries, nuclear proliferation, humanitarian law, coercive power, diplomatic pressure, multinational companies)
- Grammar: Full range of complex structures. Uses contrast effectively (whereas, while, however). Conditional and hypothetical structures for abstract discussion.
- Critical Thinking: Nuanced view that rejects false either/or framing. Historical context (post-WWII). Practical considerations (enforcement challenges). Forward-looking perspective on emerging needs. Shows understanding of political philosophy (sovereignty vs. universal rights).
Sự kết hợp giữa luật pháp quốc tế và quốc gia trong việc quản trị toàn cầu
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 | /ˌledʒ.ɪˈsleɪ.ʃən/ | luật pháp, pháp luật | New legislation on data protection was passed last year. | draft legislation, environmental legislation, implement legislation, pending legislation |
| mandate | v, n | /ˈmæn.deɪt/ | yêu cầu bắt buộc, ủy nhiệm | The law mandates that all buildings have fire exits. | legal mandate, electoral mandate, clear mandate, mandate change |
| exemption | n | /ɪɡˈzemp.ʃən/ | miễn trừ, ngoại lệ | Children under six have an exemption from helmet laws. | tax exemption, claim exemption, exemption clause, qualify for exemption |
| enforce | v | /ɪnˈfɔːs/ | thi hành, thực thi | Police officers enforce traffic regulations. | strictly enforce, enforce the law, enforce compliance, difficult to enforce |
| compliance | n | /kəmˈplaɪ.əns/ | sự tuân thủ | Compliance with safety regulations is mandatory. | ensure compliance, full compliance, regulatory compliance, compliance rate |
| loophole | n | /ˈluːp.həʊl/ | kẽ hở pháp luật | Tax lawyers often exploit loopholes in the system. | legal loophole, close a loophole, glaring loophole, loophole in the law |
| deterrence | n | /dɪˈter.əns/ | sự răn đe | Harsh penalties serve as a deterrence to crime. | criminal deterrence, deterrence effect, nuclear deterrence, act as deterrence |
| proportionality | n | /prəˌpɔː.ʃənˈæl.ə.ti/ | tính tương xứng | The punishment should respect proportionality to the crime. | principle of proportionality, test of proportionality, proportionality review |
| jurisprudence | n | /ˌdʒʊə.rɪsˈpruː.dəns/ | pháp lý học | This case represents an important development in jurisprudence. | legal jurisprudence, medical jurisprudence, comparative jurisprudence |
| culpability | n | /ˌkʌl.pəˈbɪl.ə.ti/ | tính có tội, có lỗi | The defendant’s culpability was proven beyond doubt. | criminal culpability, degree of culpability, establish culpability, moral culpability |
| infraction | n | /ɪnˈfræk.ʃən/ | hành vi vi phạm | Minor infractions result in fines rather than imprisonment. | traffic infraction, minor infraction, commit an infraction, infraction of the rules |
| lax | adj | /læks/ | lỏng lẻo, thiếu nghiêm ngặt | Enforcement has been rather lax in recent years. | lax regulations, lax enforcement, lax attitude, lax security |
| amendment | n | /əˈmend.mənt/ | sửa đổi (luật) | The proposed amendment would strengthen consumer protection. | constitutional amendment, propose an amendment, pass an amendment, amendment to the law |
| rationale | n | /ˌræʃ.əˈnɑːl/ | lý do, cơ sở lý luận | The rationale behind this policy is public safety. | provide rationale, compelling rationale, underlying rationale, rationale for change |
| arbitrary | adj | /ˈɑː.bɪ.trər.i/ | tùy tiện, độc đoán | The rule seemed arbitrary with no clear justification. | arbitrary decision, arbitrary enforcement, arbitrary detention, seem arbitrary |
| institutionalize | v | /ˌɪn.stɪˈtʃuː.ʃən.əl.aɪz/ | thể chế hóa | This law essentially institutionalizes discrimination. | institutionalize practices, institutionalize reforms, fully institutionalized |
| recidivism | n | /rɪˈsɪd.ɪ.vɪ.zəm/ | tái phạm | Education programs aim to reduce recidivism rates. | recidivism rate, reduce recidivism, prevent recidivism, high recidivism |
| punitive | adj | /ˈpjuː.nə.tɪv/ | mang tính trừng phạt | Punitive measures alone rarely solve social problems. | punitive action, punitive damages, punitive approach, punitive sanctions |
| rehabilitate | v | /ˌriː.əˈbɪl.ɪ.teɪt/ | cải tạo, phục hồi | The program aims to rehabilitate young offenders. | rehabilitate criminals, rehabilitate reputation, fully rehabilitated |
| premeditated | adj | /priˈmed.ɪ.teɪ.tɪd/ | có chủ đích trước | The crime was clearly premeditated, not impulsive. | premeditated murder, premeditated attack, premeditated crime |
Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases
| Cụm từ | Nghĩa | Ví dụ sử dụng | Band điểm |
|---|---|---|---|
| a slippery slope | con đường dẫn đến hậu quả xấu | Allowing minor exceptions could be a slippery slope toward complete disregard. | 8-9 |
| bend the rules | vi phạm nhẹ quy định | Most people occasionally bend the rules when they think it’s harmless. | 7.5-8 |
| in the gray area | trong vùng mơ hồ, không rõ ràng | This situation falls in a gray area where the law isn’t entirely clear. | 7.5-8 |
| the letter of the law | đúng theo văn bản pháp luật | They followed the letter of the law but violated its spirit. | 8-9 |
| turn a blind eye | làm ngơ, phớt lờ | Authorities sometimes turn a blind eye to minor violations. | 7-8 |
| set a precedent | tạo tiền lệ | This court decision could set a precedent for future cases. | 7.5-8 |
| strike a balance | đạt được sự cân bằng | We need to strike a balance between freedom and security. | 7-8 |
| a double-edged sword | con dao hai lưỡi | Technology in law enforcement is a double-edged sword. | 7.5-8 |
| littered with examples | đầy rẫy các ví dụ | History is littered with examples of unjust laws. | 8-9 |
| teething problems | vấn đề ban đầu (khi triển khai) | New legislation often has teething problems during implementation. | 7.5-8 |
| fall through the cracks | bị bỏ sót, lọt qua khe hở | Vulnerable people often fall through the cracks of the system. | 7.5-8 |
| at the end of the day | cuối cùng thì, rốt cuộc | At the end of the day, laws should serve the public interest. | 7-8 |
Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)
Để bắt đầu câu trả lời:
- 📝 Well,… – Sử dụng khi cần một chút thời gian suy nghĩ hoặc khi câu trả lời phức tạp
- 📝 Actually,… – Khi đưa ra góc nhìn có thể hơi bất ngờ hoặc khác với expectation
- 📝 To be honest,… – Khi đưa ra quan điểm thật lòng, có thể controversial
- 📝 I’d say that… – Cách mềm mại để đưa ra opinion
- 📝 In my view,… – Formal cách để present personal perspective
Để bổ sung ý:
- 📝 On top of that,… – Thêm vào đó, hơn nữa
- 📝 What’s more,… – Hơn thế nữa
- 📝 Not to mention… – Chưa kể đến
- 📝 Beyond that,… – Ngoài ra, vượt xa điều đó
- 📝 Additionally,… – Thêm vào đó (formal)
Để đưa ra quan điểm cân bằng:
- 📝 On the one hand,… On the other hand,… – Một mặt… mặt khác
- 📝 While it’s true that…, we also need to consider… – Mặc dù đúng là… nhưng cũng cần xem xét
- 📝 That said,… – Dù vậy
- 📝 Having said that,… – Mặc dù đã nói như vậy
- 📝 Admittedly,… – Phải thừa nhận rằng
Để kết luận:
- 📝 All in all,… – Tóm lại
- 📝 At the end of the day,… – Cuối cùng thì
- 📝 In essence,… – Về bản chất
- 📝 Ultimately,… – Cuối cùng
- 📝 To sum up,… – Tóm lại
Để làm rõ hoặc nhấn mạnh:
- 📝 What I mean is… – Ý tôi là
- 📝 In other words,… – Nói cách khác
- 📝 To put it simply,… – Nói đơn giản
- 📝 The key point is… – Điểm chính là
- 📝 What’s crucial here is… – Điều quan trọng ở đây là
Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng
1. Conditional Sentences (Câu điều kiện):
-
Mixed conditional: “If we had implemented universal helmet laws years ago, we would have fewer casualties today.”
- Nếu chúng ta đã thực hiện luật đội mũ bảo hiểm toàn diện từ nhiều năm trước, hôm nay sẽ có ít thương vong hơn.
-
Inversion for emphasis: “Were the law to be changed tomorrow, we’d still face implementation challenges.”
- Nếu luật được thay đổi ngay ngày mai, chúng ta vẫn sẽ đối mặt với thách thức triển khai.
2. Relative Clauses (Mệnh đề quan hệ):
-
Non-defining: “This law, which was passed in 2007, has proven highly controversial.”
- Đạo luật này, được thông qua năm 2007, đã tỏ ra vô cùng gây tranh cãi.
-
Reduced relative clause: “People living in rural areas often face different challenges regarding law enforcement.”
- Người dân sống ở vùng nông thôn thường đối mặt với những thách thức khác nhau về thực thi pháp luật.
3. Passive Voice (Câu bị động):
-
Impersonal passive: “It is widely believed that stricter enforcement would reduce violations.”
- Người ta tin rộng rãi rằng việc thực thi nghiêm ngặt hơn sẽ giảm vi phạm.
-
Reporting structures: “The law is said to have reduced accidents by 30 percent.”
- Người ta nói rằng luật này đã giảm tai nạn 30 phần trăm.
4. Cleft Sentences (Câu chẻ):
-
What-cleft: “What I find most problematic about this law is its lack of clear enforcement mechanisms.”
- Điều tôi thấy có vấn đề nhất về luật này là sự thiếu cơ chế thực thi rõ ràng.
-
It-cleft: “It was only after the accident that people started questioning this exemption.”
- Chỉ sau vụ tai nạn, mọi người mới bắt đầu đặt câu hỏi về sự miễn trừ này.
5. Advanced Conjunctions:
-
Concessive: “Much as I understand the practical concerns, safety must come first.”
- Dù tôi hiểu những lo ngại thực tế, an toàn phải được đặt lên hàng đầu.
-
Purpose: “The law was amended in order that vulnerable groups might receive better protection.”
- Luật được sửa đổi để các nhóm dễ bị tổn thương có thể nhận được sự bảo vệ tốt hơn.
Tôi hy vọng bài viết này đã cung cấp cho bạn cái nhìn toàn diện và thực tế nhất về cách tiếp cận chủ đề “Describe a law that you would like to change” trong IELTS Speaking. Từ góc nhìn của một examiner có kinh nghiệm, tôi muốn nhấn mạnh rằng điều quan trọng nhất không phải là học thuộc lòng những câu trả lời mẫu, mà là hiểu rõ cách phát triển ý tưởng một cách logic, sử dụng từ vựng chính xác và tự nhiên, đồng thời thể hiện khả năng tư duy phản biện.
Hãy nhớ rằng, examiner không mong đợi bạn là chuyên gia pháp luật. Họ đánh giá khả năng sử dụng tiếng Anh của bạn để thảo luận về các vấn đề phức tạp một cách rõ ràng và có cấu trúc. Điều này có liên quan đến cách describe a piece of furniture in your home cũng yêu cầu bạn mô tả chi tiết và có tổ chức, dù đó chỉ là một đồ vật đơn giản trong cuộc sống hàng ngày.
Chủ đề về luật pháp thực sự là cơ hội tuyệt vời để bạn thể hiện vocabulary range, grammatical complexity và critical thinking skills. Đừng ngại đưa ra những quan điểm cá nhân có lý lẽ, miễn là bạn có thể support chúng bằng examples và reasoning hợp lý.
Cuối cùng, hãy practice thường xuyên với các chủ đề tương tự, record lại câu trả lời của mình để tự đánh giá, và luôn tìm cách mở rộng ideas thay vì chỉ trả lời ngắn gọn. Với sự chuẩn bị kỹ lưỡng và mindset đúng đắn, bạn hoàn toàn có thể đạt được band điểm mục tiêu trong phần Speaking. Chúc bạn thành công!
