IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời "Describe A Time When You Disagreed With A Friend" - Bài Mẫu Band 6-9 » IELTS.NET

Chủ đề về bất đồng quan điểm với bạn bè là một trong những đề tài xuất hiện khá thường xuyên trong kỳ thi IELTS Speaking, đặc biệt ở Part 2 và Part 3. Theo thống kê từ các trung tâm luyện thi và diễn đàn IELTS uy tín như IELTS-Simon.com và ieltsliz.com, chủ đề này xuất hiện với tần suất trung bình-cao trong các kỳ thi từ 2022 đến nay, và được dự đoán sẽ tiếp tục là một topic phổ biến trong năm 2024-2025.

Mục lục nội dung

Đây là một chủ đề thực tế, gần gũi với cuộc sống hàng ngày của mọi người. Tuy nhiên, nhiều thí sinh Việt Nam thường gặp khó khăn khi trả lời vì không biết cách diễn đạt mâu thuẫn một cách khéo léo bằng tiếng Anh, hoặc lo sợ câu chuyện của mình nghe có vẻ tiêu cực. Thực tế, giám khảo đánh giá cao những câu trả lời thể hiện sự trưởng thành trong cách xử lý xung đột và khả năng nhìn nhận vấn đề từ nhiều góc độ.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ học được:

Các câu hỏi thường gặp trong cả 3 Part liên quan đến disagreement và friendship
Bài mẫu chi tiết theo ba mức band điểm khác nhau (6-7, 7.5-8, 8.5-9) với phân tích sâu
Hơn 50 từ vựng và cụm từ ăn điểm cho chủ đề này
Chiến lược trả lời hiệu quả từ góc nhìn của một Examiner
Những lỗi phổ biến cần tránh để không mất điểm

IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview

Tổng Quan Về Part 1

Part 1 của IELTS Speaking kéo dài khoảng 4-5 phút, trong đó giám khảo sẽ hỏi các câu hỏi ngắn về đời sống hàng ngày, sở thích cá nhân hoặc các chủ đề quen thuộc. Đối với chủ đề về bạn bè và bất đồng, câu hỏi thường xoay quanh mối quan hệ bạn bè, cách duy trì tình bạn, và quan điểm về xung đột.

Chiến lược quan trọng nhất cho Part 1 là trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, sau đó mở rộng thêm 1-2 câu với lý do hoặc ví dụ cụ thể. Tránh trả lời quá ngắn gọn chỉ với “Yes” hoặc “No”, nhưng cũng đừng nói quá dài dòng.

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

Trả lời quá ngắn, thiếu chi tiết (chỉ 1 câu)
Sử dụng từ vựng quá đơn giản hoặc lặp lại từ trong câu hỏi
Không đưa ra ví dụ cụ thể từ kinh nghiệm bản thân
Nói quá nhanh hoặc quá chậm do lo lắng

Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp

Question 1: Do you have many close friends?

Question 2: How often do you spend time with your friends?

Question 3: What do you usually do when you meet your friends?

Question 4: Do you prefer to have many friends or just a few close ones?

Question 5: Have you ever had an argument with a friend?

Question 6: Is it important to have friends with similar interests?

Question 7: How do you usually resolve conflicts with friends?

Question 8: Do you think it’s normal for friends to disagree sometimes?

Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết

Question: Do you think it’s normal for friends to disagree sometimes?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

Trả lời trực tiếp: Yes/No với quan điểm rõ ràng
Đưa ra lý do tại sao bạn nghĩ như vậy
Thêm ví dụ hoặc giải thích sâu hơn về tầm quan trọng của việc có quan điểm khác nhau

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

Yes, I think it’s very normal. Friends sometimes have different opinions about things. This is natural because everyone has different ideas and backgrounds. When my friends and I disagree, we usually talk about it and try to understand each other.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh: Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi, có lý do cơ bản và ví dụ từ bản thân
Hạn chế: Từ vựng khá đơn giản (normal, different, talk about it), cấu trúc câu không phức tạp
Tại sao Band 6-7: Câu trả lời rõ ràng và có mạch, nhưng thiếu từ vựng nâng cao và ý tưởng chưa được phát triển sâu. Sử dụng các từ cơ bản như “different opinions”, “natural” mà chưa có collocation hay idiom nào đặc biệt.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

Absolutely, I’d say it’s not only normal but actually quite healthy for friends to disagree occasionally. The thing is, each person has their own unique perspective shaped by their experiences and values, so it’s inevitable that we’ll see things differently sometimes. In fact, I believe these disagreements can actually strengthen the bond between friends if they’re handled with mutual respect and open-mindedness. What matters most isn’t avoiding conflict altogether, but rather having the maturity to navigate those differences constructively.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh:
- Vocabulary đa dạng và chính xác: “unique perspective shaped by”, “inevitable”, “strengthen the bond”, “mutual respect”, “maturity to navigate”
- Cấu trúc câu phức: sử dụng “not only… but also”, mệnh đề quan hệ, conditional ideas
- Ý tưởng sâu sắc: không chỉ nói là bình thường mà còn phân tích lợi ích của disagreement
- Discourse markers tự nhiên: “Absolutely”, “The thing is”, “In fact”, “What matters most”
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Fluency & Coherence: Câu trả lời trôi chảy, có sự liên kết logic giữa các ý (normal → healthy → why → benefits → what matters)
- Lexical Resource: Sử dụng collocation chính xác và sophisticated (“navigate differences”, “strengthen the bond”)
- Grammar: Cấu trúc đa dạng với passive voice, relative clauses, conditional structures
- Pronunciation: Các cụm từ được nhấn đúng trọng âm và intonation tự nhiên

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

quite healthy: khá lành mạnh, tích cực
unique perspective shaped by: góc nhìn độc đáo được hình thành bởi
it’s inevitable that: không thể tránh khỏi rằng
strengthen the bond: củng cố mối quan hệ
mutual respect: sự tôn trọng lẫn nhau
open-mindedness: tính cởi mở, sẵn sàng lắng nghe
maturity to navigate: sự trưởng thành để điều hướng/giải quyết

Question: How do you usually resolve conflicts with friends?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

Mô tả phương pháp cụ thể bạn thường dùng
Giải thích tại sao phương pháp đó hiệu quả
Có thể thêm một ví dụ ngắn gọn về một lần áp dụng thành công

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

When I have a conflict with friends, I usually try to talk to them directly. I think communication is very important. Sometimes I wait a little bit until both of us are calm, then we sit down and discuss the problem. Usually we can find a solution together if we listen to each other.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh: Có cấu trúc rõ ràng (phương pháp → tại sao → kết quả), câu trả lời logic
Hạn chế: Từ vựng cơ bản (“talk directly”, “communicate”, “discuss”), chưa có cụm từ hay idiom đặc biệt
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ý tưởng được trình bày đầy đủ nhưng thiếu sự tinh tế trong cách diễn đạt. Các động từ và danh từ chưa được paraphrase đa dạng.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

Well, my approach typically involves giving both parties some breathing space first. I’ve learned that trying to hash things out in the heat of the moment rarely leads to productive outcomes. Once emotions have settled down a bit, I prefer to have a heart-to-heart conversation where we can address the issue head-on but in a non-confrontational manner. I always try to see things from their point of view and encourage them to do the same. More often than not, we discover that the disagreement stemmed from a misunderstanding rather than any fundamental incompatibility.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh:
- Vocabulary tinh vi: “breathing space”, “hash things out”, “heat of the moment”, “heart-to-heart conversation”, “address the issue head-on”, “non-confrontational manner”
- Idiomatic expressions: “see things from their point of view”, “more often than not”, “stemmed from”
- Cấu trúc phức: mệnh đề quan hệ, gerunds, perfect tense
- Ý tưởng sâu sắc: nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của timing và empathy
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Fluency: Sử dụng discourse markers tự nhiên (“Well”, “Once”, “More often than not”)
- Vocabulary: Collocations chính xác và natural (“heat of the moment”, “settled down”)
- Grammar: Đa dạng thì (present perfect “I’ve learned”, present simple, conditionals)
- Ideas: Thể hiện emotional intelligence và practical wisdom

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

breathing space: không gian/thời gian để bình tĩnh
hash things out: thảo luận kỹ lưỡng để giải quyết vấn đề
in the heat of the moment: trong lúc nóng giận, xúc động
heart-to-heart conversation: cuộc trò chuyện thẳng thắn, chân thành
address the issue head-on: đối mặt trực tiếp với vấn đề
non-confrontational manner: cách tiếp cận không đối đầu, hòa nhã
see things from their point of view: nhìn nhận từ góc độ của họ
stemmed from: xuất phát từ, bắt nguồn từ

Question: Is it important to have friends with similar interests?

🎯 Cách tiếp cận:

Đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân (có thể balanced view)
Giải thích lợi ích của việc có/không có similar interests
Kết nối với kinh nghiệm bản thân nếu có thể

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

I think it’s nice to have friends with similar interests because we can do activities together. For example, if you both like sports, you can play together. But I also have some friends who have different hobbies from me, and we still get along well because we respect each other.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh: Có balanced view, đưa ra ví dụ cụ thể về sports
Hạn chế: Cấu trúc câu đơn giản, từ vựng cơ bản (“nice”, “do activities”, “get along well”)
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ý tưởng hợp lý và rõ ràng nhưng thiếu sự phức tạp trong cách diễn đạt và phân tích.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

I’d say it’s beneficial but not absolutely essential. Having shared interests certainly provides common ground and makes it easier to strike up conversations or plan activities together. However, some of my most enriching friendships have actually been with people whose interests differ vastly from mine. These relationships have broadened my horizons and introduced me to perspectives I wouldn’t have encountered otherwise. I think what really matters is having compatible values and personalities rather than identical hobbies. You can always learn to appreciate someone else’s passions, and that mutual curiosity about each other’s worlds can be quite bonding in itself.

Phân tích:

Điểm mạnh:
- Balanced argument được phát triển rõ ràng
- Vocabulary sophisticated: “common ground”, “strike up conversations”, “enriching friendships”, “differ vastly”, “broadened my horizons”, “compatible values”
- Ý tưởng mature: phân biệt giữa interests và values
- Natural expressions: “I’d say”, “not absolutely essential”, “in itself”
Tại sao Band 8-9:
- Coherence: Cấu trúc rõ ràng (beneficial but not essential → advantages → counter-example → conclusion)
- Lexical Resource: Precise collocations (“strike up conversations”, “broadened horizons”)
- Grammar: Complex structures với relative clauses, conditional ideas
- Critical Thinking: Thể hiện nuanced understanding của relationship dynamics

💡 Key Vocabulary & Expressions:

shared interests: sở thích chung
provides common ground: tạo ra điểm chung, nền tảng chung
strike up conversations: bắt đầu cuộc trò chuyện một cách tự nhiên
enriching friendships: những tình bạn làm phong phú cuộc sống
differ vastly from: khác biệt rất lớn so với
broadened my horizons: mở rộng tầm nhìn của tôi
compatible values and personalities: giá trị và tính cách tương thích
mutual curiosity: sự tò mò lẫn nhau

Học viên đang luyện tập IELTS Speaking Part 1 về chủ đề bất đồng với bạn bè cùng giáo viên

IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)

Tổng Quan Về Part 2

Part 2 là phần quan trọng nhất trong bài thi IELTS Speaking, nơi bạn có cơ hội thể hiện khả năng nói liên tục trong 2-3 phút mà không bị gián đoạn. Bạn sẽ có đúng 1 phút để chuẩn bị và ghi chú trước khi bắt đầu nói.

Thời gian chuẩn bị: 1 phút (sử dụng hiệu quả bằng cách ghi chú keywords, không viết câu hoàn chỉnh)

Thời gian nói: 2-3 phút (tối thiểu phải đạt 1.5 phút để không mất điểm)

Đặc điểm: Đây là phần độc thoại nên bạn cần nói liên tục, trả lời đầy đủ tất cả bullet points trong cue card, và đặc biệt chú ý đến phần “explain” ở cuối vì đây là nơi bạn có thể ghi điểm cao nhất.

Chiến lược quan trọng:

Sử dụng đủ 1 phút chuẩn bị để brainstorm ý tưởng và note down keywords theo từng bullet point
Không viết câu hoàn chỉnh vì không đủ thời gian và sẽ khiến bạn đọc thay vì nói tự nhiên
Chia câu chuyện theo structure rõ ràng: Introduction → Body (theo bullet points) → Conclusion
Đối với chủ đề disagreement, chọn một câu chuyện có kết thúc tích cực để thể hiện maturity
Sử dụng thì quá khứ vì đây là câu chuyện đã xảy ra

Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:

Không sử dụng hết 1 phút chuẩn bị, vội vàng bắt đầu nói
Nói dưới 1.5 phút hoặc dừng giữa chừng vì hết ý
Bỏ sót một hoặc nhiều bullet points
Kể câu chuyện quá đơn giản, thiếu chi tiết cụ thể
Lo sợ câu chuyện của mình “không hay” nên nói một cách do dự

Cue Card

Describe A Time When You Disagreed With A Friend

You should say:

When and where this happened

What you disagreed about

How you resolved the disagreement

And explain how you felt about this experience

Phân Tích Đề Bài

Dạng câu hỏi: Describe an experience/event (Kể về một trải nghiệm cụ thể)

Thì động từ: Quá khứ (Past tenses) vì đây là sự kiện đã xảy ra trong quá khứ. Tuy nhiên, ở phần “explain how you felt” bạn có thể sử dụng hiện tại để nói về cảm xúc/suy nghĩ hiện tại về sự việc đó.

Bullet points phải cover:

When and where: Cần nêu rõ thời gian (cụ thể hoặc tương đối như “last summer”, “a few months ago”) và địa điểm (không cần quá chi tiết, có thể là “at a coffee shop”, “during a trip”)
What you disagreed about: Đây là phần quan trọng – giải thích rõ chủ đề bất đồng và lý do tại sao hai bên có quan điểm khác nhau
How you resolved: Mô tả quá trình giải quyết, không chỉ kết quả
How you felt: Cảm xúc trong quá trình và bài học rút ra

Câu “explain” quan trọng: Đây là phần ghi điểm cao nhất vì yêu cầu bạn reflection và critical thinking. Đừng chỉ nói “I felt good” mà hãy phân tích tại sao bạn cảm thấy như vậy, bạn học được gì, và sự việc này ảnh hưởng đến quan hệ của bạn với người bạn như thế nào.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7

Thời lượng: Khoảng 1.5-2 phút

I’d like to talk about a time when I disagreed with my close friend, Nam. This happened about six months ago when we were planning a trip together.

We disagreed about where to go for our vacation. I wanted to go to Da Lat because I like cool weather and peaceful places. However, Nam wanted to go to Nha Trang because he loves the beach and water sports. We both had different ideas and we couldn’t agree on one destination.

At first, we discussed it many times but we still couldn’t decide. I thought Da Lat was better because it’s not too expensive and we could relax in nature. Nam thought Nha Trang was more fun because we could do many activities there. We talked about this for a few days and it made me feel a bit frustrated.

Finally, we decided to find a compromise. We looked at the map and found a place between Da Lat and Nha Trang. We also talked about what we both wanted from the trip. In the end, we agreed to go to Da Lat first for two days, then travel to Nha Trang for the rest of the trip. This way, both of us could enjoy what we wanted.

I felt quite happy about this experience. At first, I was worried that our friendship might be affected by this disagreement. But after we solved the problem together, I realized that disagreements are normal in any relationship. The important thing is to listen to each other and find a solution that makes both people happy. This experience taught me that communication and compromise are very important in friendship.

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	6-7	Câu chuyện có cấu trúc rõ ràng, theo đúng bullet points. Sử dụng một số linking words như “At first”, “However”, “Finally”, “In the end”. Tuy nhiên còn một số pause và repetition (“we talked”, “we discussed”).
Lexical Resource	6-7	Từ vựng adequate và appropriate cho topic. Có một số collocations tốt như “find a compromise”, “affected by”, nhưng còn nhiều từ cơ bản được lặp lại như “decided”, “talked about”. Thiếu idiomatic expressions.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	6-7	Sử dụng đúng past tenses. Có một số complex sentences với “because”, “that”. Tuy nhiên cấu trúc câu chưa đa dạng, chủ yếu là simple và compound sentences.
Pronunciation	6-7	Phát âm rõ ràng, dễ hiểu. Stress pattern cơ bản đúng nhưng có thể thiếu intonation tự nhiên ở một số chỗ.

Điểm mạnh:

✅ Trả lời đầy đủ tất cả bullet points theo đúng trình tự logic
✅ Câu chuyện có beginning, middle, và end rõ ràng
✅ Đưa ra được solution và reflection về experience
✅ Thời lượng đạt yêu cầu (khoảng 1.5-2 phút)

Hạn chế:

⚠️ Từ vựng còn cơ bản, lặp lại nhiều từ như “wanted”, “thought”, “decided”
⚠️ Thiếu descriptive details để câu chuyện sinh động hơn
⚠️ Cấu trúc câu chưa đa dạng, chủ yếu dùng simple past
⚠️ Phần “explain feelings” chưa đủ sâu sắc

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8

Thời lượng: Khoảng 2-2.5 phút

I’d like to share an experience about a significant disagreement I had with my best friend, Minh, which happened roughly eight months ago during our final year at university.

The bone of contention was actually about our career choices after graduation. I had decided to accept a job offer from a well-established company in Hanoi, which meant stable income and good prospects for advancement. Minh, on the other hand, was absolutely convinced that I should join his startup venture instead. He’d been passionately working on this business idea for months and really wanted me to be his co-founder. We’d always talked about working together, so he felt quite let down when I chose the corporate route.

What made the situation more complicated was that we both had valid points. Minh argued that the startup would give us creative freedom and the chance to be our own bosses. He kept saying I was playing it too safe and missing out on a potentially amazing opportunity. I, however, was more concerned about financial security, especially since I needed to support my family. I also worried about the high failure rate of startups and didn’t want to put all my eggs in one basket.

The disagreement actually went on for weeks, and honestly, it put a strain on our friendship. We’d have these intense discussions that sometimes turned into arguments. What eventually helped was when we sat down with a mutual friend who offered a fresh perspective. She suggested that I could work at the company first while helping Minh with his startup part-time. This way, I’d have the best of both worlds – financial stability and the chance to be involved in something entrepreneurial.

After cooling off and thinking it through, we realized we’d both been quite stubborn and weren’t really listening to each other. We agreed to try the compromise, and more importantly, we acknowledged that we needed to respect each other’s choices even if we didn’t fully agree with them.

Looking back, I’m actually grateful for this experience. It was quite eye-opening because it taught me that even the closest friendships can face serious disagreements, and that’s completely normal. What matters is how you handle those conflicts. The experience made our friendship stronger because we learned to communicate more openly and appreciate our differences. It also taught me that friendship isn’t about always agreeing with each other, but about supporting each other’s decisions even when you might have chosen differently yourself.

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	7.5-8	Trôi chảy với minimal hesitation. Sử dụng discourse markers tự nhiên (“on the other hand”, “What made the situation more complicated”, “Looking back”). Câu chuyện được phát triển logic với clear progression.
Lexical Resource	7.5-8	Vocabulary range rộng và precise. Có nhiều collocations tốt (“bone of contention”, “put a strain on”, “best of both worlds”, “put all my eggs in one basket”). Sử dụng less common vocabulary phù hợp (“let down”, “eye-opening”, “cooling off”).
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	7.5-8	Đa dạng cấu trúc: past perfect (“he’d been working”), conditionals, relative clauses, passive voice. Minimal errors và không ảnh hưởng đến communication.
Pronunciation	7.5-8	Clear pronunciation với natural word stress và intonation. Sử dụng tốt sentence stress để emphasize key points.

So Sánh Với Band 6-7

Khía cạnh	Band 6-7	Band 7.5-8
Vocabulary	“disagreed about where to go”, “different ideas”	“bone of contention”, “put a strain on friendship”, “offered a fresh perspective”
Grammar	“We talked about this for a few days”	“The disagreement went on for weeks”, “What eventually helped was when…” (cleft sentence)
Ideas	Mô tả sự việc một cách straightforward	Phân tích deeper reasons, acknowledge complexity của tình huống, reflection sâu sắc hơn
Details	Basic details về địa điểm và thời gian	Rich contextual details (final year, supporting family, startup failure rate)

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9

Thời lượng: 2.5-3 phút đầy đủ

I’d like to recount a particularly memorable disagreement I had with one of my closest friends, Lan, which took place about a year ago and really put our friendship to the test.

The crux of the matter was her decision to drop out of her master’s program, which I felt quite strongly was a mistake. Lan had been struggling with her research for several months and was feeling overwhelmed by the academic pressure. She’d reached a breaking point and announced she was going to quit. I, perhaps rather heavy-handedly, tried to talk her out of it, arguing that she was so close to finishing and that she’d regret throwing away two years of hard work. I genuinely believed she was making an impulsive decision during a moment of weakness.

What made this disagreement particularly thorny was that it wasn’t just a simple difference of opinion – it touched on something much deeper. Lan felt I was being patronizing and not truly understanding the toll the program had been taking on her mental health. She said I was prioritizing her degree over her wellbeing, which really struck a chord with me because I’d never intended to come across that way. From my perspective, I was trying to be a supportive friend by encouraging her not to give up, but she perceived it as pressure and judgment.

The situation escalated when we had what I can only describe as quite a heated exchange over dinner. We both said things that were a bit harsher than intended, and there was definitely tension in the air. What really turned things around was when we both took a few days of radio silence – not out of anger, but to genuinely reflect on what the other person had said. During that time, I did some soul-searching and realized I’d been projecting my own values onto her situation rather than empathizing with her struggles.

When we finally met up again, I swallowed my pride and apologized for being dismissive of her feelings. I explained that my concern stemmed from caring about her future, but I acknowledged that ultimately, it was her life and her decision to make. Lan, in turn, appreciated that my intentions had been good even if my execution was flawed. We agreed that she’d take a semester’s leave of absence rather than dropping out completely, which would give her time to recharge and gain some clarity about what she truly wanted.

What I found most profound about this experience was how it fundamentally shifted my understanding of what it means to be a good friend. I used to think being supportive meant steering people toward what I perceived as the right path, but I’ve since learned that sometimes the best support is simply validating someone’s feelings and trusting their judgment, even when you might do things differently. This disagreement was uncomfortable and humbling, but it ultimately deepened our friendship because we emerged from it with a more nuanced appreciation of each other’s perspectives.

In retrospect, I’m genuinely thankful for this challenging episode. It taught me about the delicate balance between offering advice and overstepping boundaries, and it reinforced that true friendship isn’t measured by how often you agree, but by your ability to weather disagreements with grace and understanding. The fact that we could navigate such a sensitive issue and come out stronger on the other side speaks to the resilience of our bond.

Phân Tích Band Điểm

Tiêu chí	Band	Nhận xét
Fluency & Coherence	8.5-9	Completely fluent với sophisticated connectors (“What made this particularly thorny”, “In retrospect”, “The fact that”). Ideas flow naturally với complex argument development. Shows ability to develop abstract ideas seamlessly.
Lexical Resource	8.5-9	Extensive vocabulary với precise usage. Nhiều sophisticated collocations (“put friendship to test”, “breaking point”, “struck a chord”, “soul-searching”, “weather disagreements”). Idiomatic và natural. Paraphrasing excellent.
Grammatical Range & Accuracy	8.5-9	Wide range của structures: cleft sentences, inversion, conditionals, perfect tenses, gerunds, complex relative clauses. Virtually error-free. Natural use của advanced grammar for effect.
Pronunciation	8.5-9	Native-like pronunciation với excellent intonation and stress patterns. Uses pronunciation features to enhance meaning. Clear articulation của complex vocabulary.

Tại Sao Bài Này Xuất Sắc

🎯 Fluency Hoàn Hảo:
Câu trả lời flows naturally như một câu chuyện được kể, không có hesitation hay filler words. Speaker có khả năng maintain continuous speech trong gần 3 phút với sophisticated ideas.

📚 Vocabulary Tinh Vi:

“put our friendship to the test” – idiomatic expression thể hiện mức độ nghiêm trọng của disagreement
“the crux of the matter” – cách nói formal và sophisticated thay vì “the main problem”
“struck a chord” – idiom meaning “resonated emotionally”
“soul-searching” – compound noun thể hiện deep reflection
“weather disagreements” – metaphorical use của “weather” như một verb

📝 Grammar Đa Dạng:

“I’d like to recount a particularly memorable disagreement I had…” – cleft structure với embedded relative clause
“What made this disagreement particularly thorny was that…” – wh-cleft emphasizing the complexity
“she perceived it as pressure and judgment” – perception verb với object complement
“The fact that we could navigate such a sensitive issue and come out stronger speaks to the resilience” – complex noun clause as subject

💡 Ideas Sâu Sắc:
Bài nói không chỉ describe sự việc mà còn analyze deeply về:

The psychological aspects (mental health vs achievement)
The evolution của speaker’s understanding về friendship
The nuanced difference giữa support và pressure
Personal growth và shift in perspective
Universal truth về friendship dynamics

The speaker demonstrates emotional intelligence và self-awareness bằng cách acknowledge own mistakes và show genuine empathy.

Giám khảo IELTS đang chấm điểm phần thi Speaking Part 2 về chủ đề bất đồng quan điểm với bạn bè

Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)

Sau khi bạn hoàn thành phần nói 2 phút trong Part 2, giám khảo thường sẽ hỏi thêm 1-2 câu hỏi ngắn gọn liên quan trực tiếp đến câu chuyện bạn vừa kể. Đây là những câu hỏi “rounding off” để transition sang Part 3. Câu trả lời nên ngắn gọn, khoảng 2-3 câu là đủ.

Question 1: Do you still keep in touch with that friend now?

Band 6-7 Answer:
Yes, we are still very close friends. After that experience, our friendship became even stronger because we learned how to communicate better with each other.

Band 8-9 Answer:
Absolutely, we’re still incredibly close actually. If anything, that whole experience brought us closer together because it taught us both the importance of honest communication and mutual understanding. We now have this unspoken agreement to be more open about our concerns and to approach disagreements more constructively.

Question 2: Would you handle a similar situation differently now?

Band 6-7 Answer:
Yes, I think I would be more careful about giving advice. I learned that sometimes people just need support, not someone telling them what to do.

Band 8-9 Answer:
I’d definitely take a more measured approach now. The experience taught me to lead with empathy rather than immediately offering solutions. I think I’d be more conscious of reading the room first – understanding whether someone wants advice or just needs a sounding board. I’ve learned that sometimes the most valuable thing you can do is simply be present and validate someone’s feelings before weighing in with your perspective.

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion

Tổng Quan Về Part 3

Part 3 là phần cuối của IELTS Speaking test, kéo dài 4-5 phút. Đây là phần thảo luận hai chiều (two-way discussion) giữa bạn và giám khảo về các vấn đề trừu tượng và mang tính xã hội liên quan đến chủ đề của Part 2.

Yêu cầu của Part 3:

Phân tích, so sánh, đánh giá các vấn đề một cách sâu sắc
Đưa ra quan điểm cá nhân có lý lẽ và evidence
Xem xét nhiều góc độ của vấn đề (balanced view)
Sử dụng abstract vocabulary và sophisticated language
Thể hiện critical thinking skills

Chiến lược hiệu quả:

Mở rộng câu trả lời thành 3-5 câu (không quá ngắn như Part 1)
Sử dụng discourse markers để organize ideas (“Well”, “Actually”, “On the one hand”, “From a broader perspective”)
Đưa ra examples từ xã hội, trends, hoặc broader context, không chỉ personal experience
Thừa nhận complexity của vấn đề khi appropriate (“It’s a complex issue”, “There’s no simple answer”)
Show flexibility in thinking bằng cách consider different perspectives

Lỗi thường gặp của học viên Việt Nam:

Trả lời quá ngắn, thiếu phân tích sâu (chỉ 1-2 câu)
Chỉ dựa vào personal experience, không mở rộng ra societal level
Không đưa ra lý lẽ rõ ràng để support quan điểm
Thiếu từ vựng trừu tượng (abstract nouns, academic vocabulary)
Không structure câu trả lời một cách logic
Afraid to give honest opinions hoặc disagree with implied viewpoint trong câu hỏi

Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu

Các câu hỏi Part 3 về chủ đề disagreement và friendship thường được chia thành các themes sau:

Theme 1: Conflict Resolution and Communication

Question 1: Why do you think some people find it difficult to express disagreement politely?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Cause and Effect (Why question) – yêu cầu phân tích nguyên nhân
Key words: “find it difficult”, “express disagreement politely”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Give direct answer về main reason
2. Explain với 2-3 reasons cụ thể
3. Provide examples hoặc elaborate
4. Có thể add nuance hoặc mention cultural factors

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

I think there are several reasons for this. First, many people worry about hurting other people’s feelings. They don’t want to create conflict, so they choose to stay silent. Second, some people don’t have good communication skills, so they don’t know how to express their disagreement in a nice way. In some cultures, especially in Asian countries, people are taught to avoid direct confrontation, which makes it even harder to disagree politely.

Phân tích:

Structure: Clear với reasons được list ra (First, Second)
Vocabulary: Adequate nhưng basic (“hurting feelings”, “create conflict”, “good communication skills”)
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ý tưởng relevant và clear, nhưng thiếu sophistication trong language và analysis chưa đủ sâu. Chưa có concrete examples hoặc nuanced understanding.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8-9:

Well, I think this difficulty stems from multiple factors, both psychological and cultural. From a psychological standpoint, many people have what psychologists call conflict avoidance tendencies – they’re hardwired to prioritize social harmony over honest expression, partly due to fear of rejection or damaging relationships. There’s also the challenge of striking the right balance between being assertive and being respectful, which requires quite sophisticated social skills that not everyone develops naturally.

Culturally speaking, this issue is particularly pronounced in collectivist societies like many Asian cultures, where preserving face and maintaining group cohesion are deeply ingrained values. People from these backgrounds are often socialized from a young age to avoid direct confrontation, which means they may lack the linguistic tools and social scripts for polite disagreement. On top of that, there’s often ambiguity about what constitutes “polite” disagreement – what’s considered acceptable in one context might be seen as offensive or inappropriate in another.

I’d also add that the power dynamics at play significantly influence how comfortable people feel expressing disagreement. For instance, disagreeing with a boss or elder requires a completely different approach than disagreeing with a peer, and navigating those hierarchical sensitivities can be quite daunting for many people.

Phân tích:

Structure: Highly organized (psychological → cultural → power dynamics), với clear signposting (“From a psychological standpoint”, “Culturally speaking”, “I’d also add”)
Vocabulary: Sophisticated và precise (“stems from”, “conflict avoidance tendencies”, “hardwired”, “striking the right balance”, “preserving face”, “social scripts”, “power dynamics”, “hierarchical sensitivities”)
Grammar: Complex structures với relative clauses, passive voice, gerunds, noun clauses
Critical Thinking: Multi-faceted analysis showing deep understanding của human behavior, cultural factors, và social contexts. Acknowledges complexity và considers different perspectives.

💡 Key Language Features:

Discourse markers: “Well”, “From a psychological standpoint”, “Culturally speaking”, “On top of that”, “For instance”
Tentative language: “I think”, “often”, “may lack”, “can be quite”
Abstract nouns: “conflict avoidance tendencies”, “social harmony”, “group cohesion”, “power dynamics”, “hierarchical sensitivities”
Academic vocabulary: “stems from”, “pronounced”, “socialized”, “ingrained”, “ambiguity”, “navigating”

Question 2: Do you think technology has changed the way people handle disagreements?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Opinion + Change/Comparison (comparing past and present)
Key words: “technology”, “changed”, “handle disagreements”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Give clear opinion (Yes/No/To some extent)
2. Explain how technology has changed things (positive and/or negative)
3. Provide specific examples
4. Consider implications hoặc future trends if appropriate

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

Yes, I believe technology has changed this a lot. Nowadays, many people prefer to have difficult conversations through text messages or social media instead of face-to-face. This can be both good and bad. On one hand, it gives people time to think about what they want to say. On the other hand, it’s easier to misunderstand someone’s tone in a text message, which can make disagreements worse. Also, some people might say things online that they wouldn’t say in person because they feel braver behind a screen.

Phân tích:

Structure: Clear balanced argument (advantages và disadvantages)
Vocabulary: Simple và straightforward (“difficult conversations”, “face-to-face”, “easier to misunderstand”)
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ideas are relevant và well-organized, nhưng analysis lacks depth. Language is clear nhưng không sophisticated. Examples are generic rather than specific.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9:

Absolutely, technology has fundamentally transformed the landscape of interpersonal conflict, and I’d argue the effects are quite double-edged. On one level, digital communication platforms have made disagreements more manageable for some people. They offer what I’d call asynchronous communication – the ability to craft responses thoughtfully rather than having to react in the moment. This can be particularly beneficial for people who are more reflective and need time to articulate their thoughts clearly.

However, there’s a significant downside to this digital mediation of conflict. Text-based communication inherently lacks the nuanced emotional cues we rely on in face-to-face interaction – things like tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. This absence of context often leads to what researchers call the “negativity bias” in digital communication, where neutral messages are frequently interpreted as hostile or dismissive. I think we’ve all experienced how a simple text can be misconstrued in ways that escalate rather than resolve tensions.

What’s particularly concerning is how technology has enabled a kind of “performative disagreement” on social media, where conflicts become public spectacles rather than private matters to be worked through. People seem more inclined to take hardline stances and engage in virtue signaling when there’s an audience watching, which makes genuine reconciliation much harder to achieve.

On the flip side, I do think technology has democratized access to conflict resolution resources. There are countless online tutorials, forums, and even apps designed to help people navigate difficult conversations. So while technology has complicated the mechanics of handling disagreements, it’s also provided us with more tools to develop these skills. The key is using technology mindfully rather than letting it become a crutch for avoiding difficult but necessary face-to-face conversations.

Phân tích:

Structure: Sophisticated organization (positive aspects → negative aspects → concerning trend → balancing positive → conclusion), showing ability to develop complex argument progressively
Vocabulary: Highly sophisticated (“fundamentally transformed”, “double-edged”, “asynchronous communication”, “nuanced emotional cues”, “performative disagreement”, “virtue signaling”, “democratized access”)
Grammar: Wide range including cleft sentences (“What’s particularly concerning”), relative clauses, conditionals, gerunds used flexibly
Critical Thinking: Shows deep understanding của both psychological và social implications. References research (“negativity bias”) demonstrating broader knowledge. Considers multiple perspectives and acknowledges complexity.

💡 Key Language Features:

Academic vocabulary: “fundamentally transformed”, “asynchronous”, “inherently lacks”, “misconstrued”, “performative”, “democratized”
Hedging/Tentative language: “I’d argue”, “can be”, “often leads to”, “seem more inclined”
Discourse markers: “On one level”, “However”, “What’s particularly concerning”, “On the flip side”
Collocations: “craft responses thoughtfully”, “articulate thoughts clearly”, “take hardline stances”, “genuine reconciliation”

Nếu bạn quan tâm đến việc cải thiện khả năng lãnh đạo và làm việc nhóm, điều này rất hữu ích khi bạn cần giải quyết disagreements trong team setting, hãy tham khảo thêm về describe a time when you led a team to success để hiểu rõ hơn về cách xử lý conflicts trong môi trường làm việc nhóm.

Theme 2: Friendship Dynamics

Question 1: What qualities do you think are most important in maintaining long-term friendships?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Opinion + Ranking/Prioritizing (asking for most important qualities)
Key words: “qualities”, “most important”, “maintaining”, “long-term friendships”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Identify 2-3 key qualities
2. Explain why each is important
3. Show relationships giữa các qualities nếu có
4. Support with reasoning hoặc examples

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

I believe trust is the most important quality for long-term friendships. When you trust someone, you can share your problems with them and feel comfortable being yourself. Communication is also very important because friends need to talk openly about their feelings and any issues that come up. Finally, I think loyalty matters because true friends should support each other even during difficult times. These qualities help friendships last for many years.

Phân tích:

Structure: Clear list of qualities with brief explanation
Vocabulary: Basic và repetitive (“important”, “true friends”, “support each other”)
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ideas are relevant nhưng explanations lack depth. Chưa có sophisticated analysis về how these qualities interact hoặc why they’re fundamental. Examples would strengthen the answer.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9:

I’d say that genuine reciprocity probably tops the list, though it’s closely followed by several other crucial qualities. By reciprocity, I mean that sense of balanced give-and-take where both parties feel they’re investing equally in the relationship. Long-term friendships simply can’t sustain themselves if one person is constantly shouldering the burden of maintaining contact or providing emotional support.

Closely tied to that is what I’d call authentic vulnerability – the willingness to let your guard down and show your true self, flaws and all. Friendships that last decades are built on this foundation of mutual authenticity, where you don’t feel the need to put on a facade. This creates a space where genuine intimacy can develop, which is really what distinguishes close friendships from mere acquaintanceships.

I’d also argue that adaptability is criminally underrated as a friendship quality. People inevitably change as they go through different life stages – they develop new interests, priorities shift, circumstances evolve. Long-term friendships require the capacity to evolve alongside your friend, to embrace rather than resist the changes they undergo. Some of my longest friendships have weathered pretty significant transformations in both parties, and they’ve survived precisely because we were willing to redefine what the friendship looked like at different points.

Underpinning all of this, though, is consistent effort. Friendships, like any relationship, require ongoing investment – whether that’s regular check-ins, making time despite busy schedules, or showing up during critical moments. The proximity and frequency of interaction we had as children or university students naturally diminishes in adulthood, so maintaining friendships becomes more intentional and requires genuine commitment.

Phân tích:

Structure: Sophisticated progression (reciprocity → vulnerability → adaptability → effort), với each quality được developed thoroughly trước khi moving to next
Vocabulary: Highly sophisticated (“genuine reciprocity”, “shouldering the burden”, “authentic vulnerability”, “let your guard down”, “mutual authenticity”, “criminally underrated”, “evolve alongside”, “underpinning”)
Grammar: Complex structures bao gồm relative clauses, conditionals, cleft sentences, gerunds, perfect tenses used flexibly
Critical Thinking: Demonstrates nuanced understanding. Shows ability to prioritize, explain relationships giữa concepts, và provide sophisticated reasoning. Acknowledges complexity (“criminally underrated”) và uses abstract thinking.

💡 Key Language Features:

Sophisticated vocabulary: “reciprocity”, “balanced give-and-take”, “authentic vulnerability”, “mere acquaintanceships”, “criminally underrated”, “underpinning”
Discourse markers: “Closely tied to that”, “I’d also argue that”, “Underpinning all of this”
Hedging: “I’d say”, “probably”, “I’d call”, “I’d also argue”
Collocations: “shoulder the burden”, “let your guard down”, “put on a facade”, “weather transformations”, “show up”

Question 2: How do friendships differ between childhood, adolescence, and adulthood?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Compare and Contrast (across different life stages)
Key words: “friendships differ”, “childhood, adolescence, adulthood”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Structure theo life stages hoặc theo aspects of friendship
2. Compare characteristics of friendships at each stage
3. Explain reasons cho differences
4. Consider what remains constant if relevant

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:

Friendships change quite significantly as we move through different life stages. In childhood, friendships are mainly based on proximity and shared activities. Children become friends simply because they’re in the same class or live nearby, and they bond through play. These friendships tend to be quite simple and straightforward.

During adolescence, friendships become much more intense and emotionally deep. Teenagers place huge importance on their peer relationships and often share everything with their close friends. There’s also more emphasis on loyalty and having similar interests or values. Peer pressure becomes a factor, and friendship groups can be quite exclusive.

In adulthood, friendships become more selective and practical. Adults have less free time due to work and family responsibilities, so they can’t maintain as many close friendships. Adult friendships often revolve around shared circumstances like having children the same age or working together. There’s also more appreciation for quality over quantity – adults tend to value a few deep friendships rather than having many casual friends.

Phân tích:

Structure: Well-organized by life stages, clear progression
Vocabulary: Good range (“proximity”, “bond”, “peer pressure”, “selective”, “quality over quantity”)
Tại sao Band 7-8: Clear comparison với relevant points for each stage. Good explanations. Có thể improve bằng more sophisticated vocabulary và deeper psychological insights.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9:

The trajectory of friendships across the lifespan is really quite fascinating and reflects broader patterns of cognitive and social development. In childhood, friendships are characterized by what developmental psychologists call “proximity-based bonding” – essentially, kids become friends with whoever happens to be around. These relationships are relatively superficial in the sense that they’re built primarily around shared activities and immediate gratification. There’s a certain beautiful spontaneity to childhood friendships, but they often lack the psychological depth we associate with later friendships.

The adolescent years mark a dramatic shift in the nature and function of friendship. During this developmental stage, friendships serve crucial identity formation purposes – teenagers are essentially figuring out who they are partly through their peer relationships. This explains why adolescent friendships can be so intensely emotional and why peer acceptance feels life-or-death important. There’s also much more complexity in terms of group dynamics, social hierarchies, and the emergence of more abstract qualities like shared values and worldviews as bonding factors.

Where adult friendships diverge significantly is in what I’d call their intentionality and selectivity. The default social structures of school and university that facilitate friendship formation disappear, so maintaining friendships requires deliberate effort. Adults also tend to apply more stringent criteria in choosing friends – we’re looking for people who align with our values, who enhance our lives in meaningful ways, and with whom we share genuine compatibility rather than just circumstantial proximity.

What’s interesting is that adult friendships often take on a more instrumental quality – not in a negative sense, but in that they serve specific needs like career networking, parenting support, or pursuing shared hobbies. There’s also what researchers call “friendship churn” – the natural ebb and flow of relationships as life circumstances change. Adults become more comfortable with the fact that some friendships are meant to be season-specific rather than lifelong, which actually represents a more mature understanding of relationship dynamics.

That said, I do think there’s a through-line across all these stages – the core human need for connection and belonging remains constant. What changes is how that need manifests and what we’re capable of offering and receiving from friendships at different points in our development.

Phân tích:

Structure: Exceptionally well-organized với clear stage-by-stage analysis và sophisticated transitions. Ends với insightful reflection về what remains constant.
Vocabulary: Highly sophisticated và precise (“trajectory across the lifespan”, “proximity-based bonding”, “immediate gratification”, “identity formation purposes”, “stringent criteria”, “instrumental quality”, “friendship churn”, “ebb and flow”)
Grammar: Wide range bao gồm relative clauses, cleft sentences, passive voice, gerunds, present participles, conditionals – all used naturally và flexibly
Critical Thinking: Demonstrates exceptional understanding bằng cách reference psychological theories, use academic terminology appropriately, analyze causes and effects, và show nuanced thinking về relationship dynamics. Acknowledges complexity và considers both differences và commonalities.

💡 Key Language Features:

Academic/sophisticated vocabulary: “trajectory”, “cognitive development”, “proximity-based bonding”, “identity formation”, “intentionality and selectivity”, “instrumental quality”, “friendship churn”
Discourse markers: “The adolescent years mark”, “Where adult friendships diverge”, “What’s interesting”, “That said”
Reference to research: “developmental psychologists call”, “what researchers call”
Complex noun phrases: “the natural ebb and flow of relationships”, “a more mature understanding of relationship dynamics”

Sinh viên Việt Nam thảo luận và luyện tập IELTS Speaking Part 3 về chủ đề tình bạn và bất đồng

Theme 3: Cultural and Social Perspectives

Question 1: Do you think social media has made people more or less willing to express disagreement publicly?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Opinion + Compare (more or less)
Key words: “social media”, “more or less willing”, “express disagreement publicly”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Take a position (more/less/depends)
2. Explain the mechanisms through which social media affects this
3. Consider different contexts hoặc demographics if relevant
4. Acknowledge complexity of the issue

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7:

I think social media has made people more willing to express disagreement publicly. On platforms like Facebook or Twitter, people often argue about many topics, from politics to entertainment. The reason is that they can hide behind their screens and don’t have to face the other person directly. Some people also feel braver online because they’re in their own environment. However, this can lead to very aggressive arguments because people say things they wouldn’t say in person. So while social media encourages more public disagreement, it’s not always done in a constructive way.

Phân tích:

Structure: Clear với position stated early và supporting reasons
Vocabulary: Adequate (“hide behind screens”, “face directly”, “feel braver”, “aggressive arguments”)
Tại sao Band 6-7: Ideas are relevant và explained reasonably, nhưng analysis lacks sophistication. Could benefit from more specific examples và deeper exploration of social psychology. Language is clear nhưng straightforward.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9:

I’d argue that social media has created a rather paradoxical situation – it’s simultaneously made people both more willing to express disagreement and more polarized in how they do so. On one hand, the relative anonymity and physical distance of online platforms have lowered the barriers to voicing dissent. People who might be quite conflict-averse in face-to-face settings often feel emboldened to speak up online, which can be genuinely empowering, particularly for marginalized voices who’ve historically been silenced in traditional public forums.

However, and this is where it gets problematic, social media has also fostered what I’d call an “outrage culture” where disagreement becomes performative rather than productive. The algorithmic architecture of these platforms is designed to amplify content that generates strong emotional reactions, which means measured, nuanced disagreement gets drowned out by inflammatory statements. People aren’t just expressing disagreement for the sake of genuine dialogue – they’re often doing it to signal their group identity, accumulate social capital in the form of likes and shares, or simply because the platform’s design incentivizes controversial takes.

What’s particularly troubling is the echo chamber effect, where people primarily engage with those who share their viewpoints and treat disagreement as a threat rather than an opportunity for dialogue. This has led to what researchers call “tribal epistemology” – the idea that truth itself becomes group-specific, and disagreement isn’t just about different interpretations of facts but about fundamentally incompatible realities.

I’d also point out that there’s a significant generational divide in how people approach public disagreement on social media. Younger digital natives who’ve grown up with these platforms seem more comfortable with ongoing public debate and may even see it as a normal form of social interaction. In contrast, older generations often find this constant visibility of conflict quite jarring and may be more reluctant to engage publicly.

So to sum up, I think social media has made disagreement more visible and accessible, but whether that’s ultimately beneficial for constructive discourse really depends on how we navigate these platforms and whether we can develop better digital literacy around healthy debate.

Phân tích:

Structure: Highly sophisticated với balanced argument (positive → negative → concerning trend → generational perspective → conclusion)
Vocabulary: Exceptional range (“paradoxical”, “emboldened”, “marginalized voices”, “performative”, “algorithmic architecture”, “amplify”, “echo chamber effect”, “tribal epistemology”, “digital natives”)
Grammar: Very complex structures including relative clauses, conditionals, passive constructions, gerunds, cleft sentences, all used flexibly và naturally
Critical Thinking: Demonstrates exceptional analytical depth bằng cách reference research (“tribal epistemology”), consider multiple stakeholders, analyze platform design, acknowledge generational differences, và show nuanced understanding of both benefits và drawbacks

💡 Key Language Features:

Academic vocabulary: “paradoxical”, “relative anonymity”, “algorighmic architecture”, “echo chamber effect”, “tribal epistemology”, “digital natives”, “digital literacy”
Discourse markers: “On one hand”, “However”, “What’s particularly troubling”, “I’d also point out”, “In contrast”, “So to sum up”
Hedging: “I’d argue”, “can be”, “often”, “may be”, “seems”
Sophisticated collocations: “lowered the barriers”, “foster an outrage culture”, “accumulate social capital”, “fundamentally incompatible realities”

Question 2: In your country, how important is it to maintain harmony in relationships, even if it means avoiding disagreement?

🎯 Phân tích câu hỏi:

Dạng: Cultural analysis + Opinion về importance
Key words: “your country”, “maintain harmony”, “avoiding disagreement”
Cách tiếp cận:
1. Describe cultural context của Vietnam
2. Explain reasons cho this cultural value
3. Discuss benefits và potential drawbacks
4. Có thể compare với other cultures hoặc mention changing trends

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7-8:

In Vietnamese culture, maintaining harmony in relationships is extremely important. This value comes from our Confucian heritage, which emphasizes respect, hierarchy, and social harmony. Many Vietnamese people prefer to avoid open disagreement, especially with elders or superiors, because we’re taught from childhood that preserving face and group harmony is more important than expressing individual opinions.

There are both positive and negative aspects to this. On the positive side, it helps maintain peaceful relationships and shows respect for others. It also reflects our collectivist values where the group’s wellbeing is prioritized over individual preferences. However, this can also lead to problems because important issues might not be addressed directly. Sometimes people suffer in silence rather than speaking up about their concerns, which can cause resentment to build up over time.

I’ve noticed that younger generations in Vietnam are becoming slightly more comfortable with expressing disagreement, possibly due to Western influence and education. However, the fundamental cultural value of harmony still remains quite strong, and most people still prefer indirect communication when dealing with conflicts.

Phân tích:

Structure: Well-organized (cultural context → reasons → pros and cons → changing trends)
Vocabulary: Good range (“Confucian heritage”, “preserving face”, “collectivist values”, “indirect communication”)
Tại sao Band 7-8: Strong cultural analysis với balanced view. Clear examples. Could be enhanced với more sophisticated vocabulary và deeper exploration of implications.

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9:

In Vietnamese society, the imperative to maintain harmony – what we call “giữ thể diện” or preserving face – is deeply embedded in our cultural DNA and profoundly shapes interpersonal dynamics. This cultural paradigm stems from centuries of Confucian influence, which prioritizes collective harmony over individual assertion and views social cohesion as paramount to personal expression.

The manifestation of this is quite pervasive – you see it everywhere from family dynamics to workplace relationships. There’s a strong cultural script that dictates indirect communication, especially when dealing with disagreement. Rather than explicitly stating opposition, people often employ what linguists call “high-context communication” – relying on subtle cues, implicit messages, and reading between the lines. Disagreement is often couched in suggestions or questions rather than direct statements.

Now, this cultural tendency has both merits and significant drawbacks. On the positive side, it cultivates a certain social grace and minimizes overt conflict, which can be beneficial for maintaining long-term relationships and social stability. There’s wisdom in choosing battles carefully and recognizing that not every disagreement needs to be aired publicly. Moreover, this approach reflects a more holistic view of relationships where momentary rightness is sacrificed for enduring connection.

However, the flip side is quite problematic. This cultural conditioning can stifle authentic communication and lead to what psychologists call “conflict avoidance” – where issues fester beneath the surface rather than being addressed constructively. I’ve witnessed situations where critical feedback goes unspoken, problematic behaviors persist unchallenged, and resentment accumulates precisely because direct disagreement is taboo. This is particularly detrimental in professional contexts where honest feedback and constructive debate are essential for innovation and improvement.

What’s interesting is that we’re seeing a generational shift in this regard. Millennials and Gen Z in Vietnam, particularly those with Western education exposure, are beginning to challenge this traditional norm. They’re more inclined to value authenticity and direct communication, though they still navigate this tension carefully, often code-switching between traditional and more direct styles depending on context.

I’d say that while harmony remains important, there’s growing recognition that sustainable relationships actually require the capacity to disagree respectfully rather than suppressing all dissent. The challenge for contemporary Vietnamese society is finding a balance – retaining the positive aspects of social grace while developing greater comfort with constructive disagreement.

Phân tích:

Structure: Exceptional organization (cultural foundation → manifestation → merits and drawbacks → generational shift → balanced conclusion)
Vocabulary: Outstanding range và precision (“deeply embedded”, “cultural DNA”, “pervasive”, “high-context communication”, “couched in”, “stifle authentic communication”, “fester beneath the surface”, “code-switching”)
Grammar: Highly sophisticated structures including complex noun phrases, relative clauses, cleft sentences, passive constructions, gerunds – all used naturally
Critical Thinking: Demonstrates exceptional cultural awareness và analytical depth. References linguistic concepts, psychological theories, generational differences. Shows ability to critique own culture thoughtfully while maintaining respect. Acknowledges complexity và evolving nature of cultural norms.

💡 Key Language Features:

Sophisticated vocabulary: “imperatives”, “embedded in cultural DNA”, “paradigm”, “pervasive”, “high-context communication”, “couched in”, “stifle”, “fester”, “detrimental”, “code-switching”
Academic language: “linguistic” terms, “psychological” concepts, “generational shift”
Discourse markers: “The manifestation of this”, “Now”, “Moreover”, “However”, “What’s interesting”, “I’d say”
Cultural terminology: Integration của Vietnamese term (“giữ thể diện”) với explanation
Balanced analysis: Shows both appreciation for và critique của cultural norms

Từ vựng và cụm từ quan trọng

Topic-Specific Vocabulary

Từ vựng/Cụm từ	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ	Collocation
disagreement	n	/ˌdɪs.əˈɡriː.mənt/	sự bất đồng, không đồng ý	We had a disagreement about the project deadline.	have/reach a disagreement, settle a disagreement, minor/major disagreement
conflict	n	/ˈkɒn.flɪkt/	xung đột, mâu thuẫn	The conflict between them lasted for months.	resolve/avoid a conflict, conflict of interest, interpersonal conflict
dispute	n	/dɪˈspjuːt/	tranh chấp, tranh cãi	There was a dispute over who should pay the bill.	settle a dispute, ongoing dispute, legal dispute
reconciliation	n	/ˌrek.ən.sɪl.iˈeɪ.ʃən/	sự hòa giải, làm hòa	After weeks of silence, they finally achieved reconciliation.	reach reconciliation, genuine reconciliation, process of reconciliation
compromise	n/v	/ˈkɒm.prə.maɪz/	thỏa hiệp, dàn xếp	Both sides had to compromise to reach an agreement.	reach/find/make a compromise, acceptable compromise, willing to compromise
confrontation	n	/ˌkɒn.frʌnˈteɪ.ʃən/	sự đối đầu, chạm trán	She wanted to avoid direct confrontation with her friend.	avoid/face confrontation, direct/heated confrontation
tension	n	/ˈten.ʃən/	căng thẳng, bất hòa	There was obvious tension between the two friends.	ease/reduce tension, mounting tension, sense of tension
misunderstanding	n	/ˌmɪs.ʌn.dəˈstæn.dɪŋ/	sự hiểu lầm, nhầm lẫn	Most disagreements stem from simple misunderstandings.	clear up a misunderstanding, lead to misunderstanding, avoid misunderstanding
friction	n	/ˈfrɪk.ʃən/	ma sát, bất hòa (trong mối quan hệ)	Small differences in opinion can create friction over time.	cause/create friction, reduce friction, source of friction
rift	n	/rɪft/	rạn nứt, chia rẽ (trong quan hệ)	The disagreement caused a serious rift in their friendship.	heal/mend a rift, create a rift, deepen a rift
perspective	n	/pəˈspek.tɪv/	quan điểm, góc nhìn	Try to see things from their perspective.	different perspective, gain perspective, broaden one’s perspective
empathy	n	/ˈem.pə.θi/	sự đồng cảm, thấu hiểu	Resolving conflicts requires empathy and understanding.	show/feel empathy, lack of empathy, develop empathy
mutual	adj	/ˈmjuː.tʃu.əl/	lẫn nhau, qua lại	The resolution required mutual respect and understanding.	mutual respect, mutual understanding, mutual agreement
resolve	v	/rɪˈzɒlv/	giải quyết, xử lý	They managed to resolve their differences peacefully.	resolve a conflict, resolve issues, resolve peacefully
escalate	v	/ˈes.kə.leɪt/	leo thang, trở nên nghiêm trọng hơn	The argument escalated into a serious fight.	escalate quickly, escalate into, prevent from escalating
defuse	v	/diːˈfjuːz/	xoa dịu, làm dịu (tình huống căng thẳng)	She tried to defuse the tension with humor.	defuse tension, defuse the situation, attempt to defuse
mediate	v	/ˈmiː.di.eɪt/	làm trung gian hòa giải	A mutual friend mediated between them to help resolve the issue.	mediate between, mediate a dispute, successfully mediate
reconcile	v	/ˈrek.ən.saɪl/	hòa giải, làm hòa	It took time for them to reconcile after the argument.	reconcile with someone, reconcile differences, attempt to reconcile

Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases

Cụm từ	Nghĩa	Ví dụ sử dụng	Band điểm
the bone of contention	vấn đề gây tranh cãi, điểm bất đồng chính	Money management was the bone of contention in their relationship.	8-9
bury the hatchet	quên đi thù hận, làm hòa	After years of not speaking, they finally decided to bury the hatchet.	7.5-8
clear the air	làm rõ hiểu lầm, giải tỏa bầu không khí căng thẳng	We need to sit down and clear the air about what happened.	7.5-8
see eye to eye	đồng ý, có quan điểm giống nhau	We don’t always see eye to eye on political issues.	7-8
meet halfway	thỏa hiệp, nhượng bộ lẫn nhau	Both parties need to meet halfway to reach a solution.	7-8
put someone in their place	đặt ai đó vào đúng vị trí của họ (thường mang tính tiêu cực)	She firmly put him in his place when he criticized her unfairly.	7.5-8
beat around the bush	nói vòng vo, không thẳng thắn	Stop beating around the bush and tell me what’s really bothering you.	7-8
at loggerheads	tranh cãi gay gắt, không đồng ý hoàn toàn	The two friends were at loggerheads over the business decision.	8-9
strike a balance	tìm sự cân bằng	It’s important to strike a balance between being honest and being tactful.	7.5-8
reach an impasse	đi vào ngõ cụt, không thể tiếp tục đàm phán	The negotiations reached an impasse when neither side would compromise.	8-9
find common ground	tìm điểm chung, thống nhất	Despite their differences, they managed to find common ground.	7.5-8
iron out differences	giải quyết những khác biệt	They spent hours trying to iron out their differences.	7.5-8
put a strain on	gây căng thẳng cho, làm tổn hại	The disagreement put a strain on their friendship.	7.5-8
weather the storm	vượt qua khó khăn, thử thách	Their friendship was strong enough to weather the storm.	7.5-8

Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)

Để bắt đầu câu trả lời:

📝 Well,… – Khi cần một chút thời gian suy nghĩ hoặc muốn sound more natural
📝 Actually,… – Khi đưa ra góc nhìn khác hoặc correct một assumption
📝 To be honest,… / To be frank,… – Khi nói thật lòng về điều gì đó
📝 I’d say that… – Cách sophisticated để đưa ra quan điểm
📝 From my perspective,… – Nhấn mạnh đây là góc nhìn cá nhân
📝 The way I see it,… – Cách natural để express opinion

Để bổ sung ý:

📝 On top of that,… / What’s more,… – Thêm vào đó, hơn nữa
📝 Not to mention… – Chưa kể đến (để add thêm supporting point)
📝 Additionally,… / Furthermore,… – Formal way to add information
📝 Besides,… / Apart from that,… – Ngoài ra
📝 In addition to that,… – Thêm vào đó

Để đưa ra quan điểm cân bằng:

📝 On the one hand,… On the other hand,… – Một mặt… mặt khác…
📝 While it’s true that…, we also need to consider… – Mặc dù đúng là… nhưng cũng cần xem xét…
📝 Having said that,… – Nói như vậy thì (để introduce contrasting point)
📝 That said,… – Dù vậy, tuy nhiên
📝 Then again,… – Nhưng mà, xét lại

Để giải thích hoặc clarify:

📝 What I mean is… – Ý tôi là
📝 In other words,… – Nói cách khác
📝 To put it another way,… – Nói theo cách khác
📝 What I’m trying to say is… – Điều tôi đang cố nói là
📝 The thing is,… – Vấn đề là

Để kết luận:

📝 All in all,… / All things considered,… – Tóm lại, xét mọi mặt
📝 At the end of the day,… – Cuối cùng thì, xét cho cùng
📝 In the final analysis,… – Khi phân tích cuối cùng
📝 To sum up,… – Tóm lại
📝 Looking back,… / In retrospect,… – Nhìn lại

Để show uncertainty hoặc tentativeness (quan trọng cho Band 8+):

📝 I would say… – Tôi cho rằng (tentative hơn “I say”)
📝 It seems to me that… – Có vẻ như với tôi
📝 To some extent,… – Ở một mức độ nào đó
📝 I tend to think that… – Tôi có khuynh hướng nghĩ rằng
📝 It could be argued that… – Có thể lập luận rằng

Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng

1. Conditional Sentences (Câu điều kiện):

Mixed Conditional:

Formula: If + past perfect, would + infinitive (hoặc ngược lại)
Ví dụ: “If we had addressed the issue earlier, we wouldn’t be in this awkward position now.”
Khi nào dùng: Để nói về past action với present consequence hoặc ngược lại

Inversion in Conditionals:

Formula: Had/Were/Should + subject + verb (thay vì If)
Ví dụ: “Had I known how she felt, I would have approached the situation differently.”
Khi nào dùng: Formal, sophisticated way to express conditionals, especially trong Part 3

2. Relative Clauses (Mệnh đề quan hệ):

Non-defining Relative Clauses:

Formula: Subject, which/who + verb, main clause
Ví dụ: “My friend, who usually avoids confrontation, surprisingly spoke up about her concerns.”
Khi nào dùng: Để add extra information về subject, making speech more fluent và sophisticated

Reduced Relative Clauses:

Formula: Subject + V-ing/V-ed
Ví dụ: “People avoiding difficult conversations often find their relationships suffer.” (instead of “People who avoid…”)
Khi nào dùng: Để make speech more concise và advanced

3. Passive Voice (Câu bị động):

Impersonal Passive:

Formula: It is thought/believed/said/considered that…
Ví dụ: “It is widely believed that open communication is key to resolving conflicts.”
Khi nào dùng: Để present general opinions hoặc common knowledge một cách formal và objective

Passive with Modal Verbs:

Formula: Modal + be + past participle
Ví dụ: “Disagreements should be addressed promptly before they escalate.”
Khi nào dùng: Để give advice hoặc talk about obligations một cách impersonal

4. Cleft Sentences (Câu chẻ):

It-cleft:

Formula: It + be + emphasized element + that/who clause
Ví dụ: “It was the lack of communication that really caused the problem, not the disagreement itself.”
Khi nào dùng: Để emphasize một phần cụ thể của câu

What-cleft:

Formula: What + clause + be + emphasized element
Ví dụ: “What I found most difficult was expressing my feelings without hurting hers.”
Khi nào dùng: Để focus attention vào điều bạn muốn highlight

The thing that-cleft:

Formula: The thing that… is/was…
Ví dụ: “The thing that bothered me most was her dismissive attitude toward my concerns.”
Khi nào dùng: Similar to what-cleft, nhưng sound slightly less formal

5. Participle Clauses (Mệnh đề phân từ):

Present Participle (-ing):

Formula: V-ing…, main clause (hoặc Main clause, V-ing…)
Ví dụ: “Feeling hurt by her comments, I decided to take some time before responding.”
Khi nào dùng: Để show simultaneous actions hoặc cause-effect relationship

Perfect Participle:

Formula: Having + past participle, main clause
Ví dụ: “Having cooled down, we were able to discuss the issue more rationally.”
Khi nào dùng: Để show một action hoàn thành trước action khác

6. Inversion for Emphasis:

Negative Inversion:

Formula: Negative word + auxiliary + subject + verb
Ví dụ: “Never have I experienced such a heated argument with a close friend.”
Khi nào dùng: Để create dramatic emphasis (use sparingly)

Only/Not until Inversion:

Formula: Only/Not until + time/condition + auxiliary + subject + verb
Ví dụ: “Only after we had that honest conversation did I realize how much the issue had been bothering her.”
Khi nào dùng: Để emphasize timing hoặc conditions

7. Subjunctive Mood:

In “suggest/recommend/insist” structures:

Formula: Subject + suggest/recommend/insist + (that) + subject + base verb
Ví dụ: “I suggested that we take some time apart to think things through.”
Khi nào dùng: Formal way to express suggestions hoặc recommendations

8. Gerunds and Infinitives in Complex Structures:

Gerund as Subject:

Formula: V-ing + verb + object
Ví dụ: “Maintaining friendships requires consistent effort and open communication.”
Khi nào dùng: Để make abstract concepts concrete và academic

Gerund after Prepositions:

Formula: Preposition + V-ing
Ví dụ: “She’s quite skilled at defusing tense situations before they escalate into major conflicts.”
Khi nào dùng: After phrasal verbs và expressions với prepositions

Chiến lược trả lời và lời khuyên từ Examiner

Chiến Lược Tổng Quan

Trước khi vào phòng thi:

✅ Mindset đúng đắn:

Đây là cuộc trò chuyện, không phải interrogation
Examiner muốn bạn thành công, họ không phải là “kẻ thù”
Mistakes are normal và không phải deal-breaker cho band cao
Authenticity > perfection

✅ Chuẩn bị về mặt nội dung:

Nghĩ về 5-6 stories từ cuộc sống thực của bạn có thể adapt cho nhiều topics khác nhau
Với chủ đề disagreement, chọn stories có positive resolution
Practice telling stories một cách natural, không học thuộc lòng
Có sẵn một số opinions về common social issues

✅ Chuẩn bị về mặt ngôn ngữ:

Familiar với band descriptors để hiểu examiner đang assess gì
Practice pronunciation của sophisticated vocabulary trước
Record và listen lại speaking của mình để identify patterns cần improve
Learn collocations as chunks, không phải individual words

Trong phòng thi – Tips chung cho cả 3 Parts:

🎯 Fluency & Coherence:

Maintain steady flow without long pauses (max 2-3 seconds để think)
Nếu cần think, dùng natural fillers: “Well, let me think…”, “That’s an interesting question…”
Sử dụng discourse markers để link ideas smoothly
Finish sentences completely rather than trailing off
Self-correct naturally nếu realize mistake: “I mean…” hoặc “or rather…”

🎯 Lexical Resource:

Prioritize precision over complexity – dùng từ đúng nghĩa hơn là dùng từ phức tạp sai nghĩa
Show range bằng cách paraphrase thay vì repeat words
Use collocations naturally – đây là điểm cộng lớn
Incorporate idioms nếu phù hợp, nhưng không force it
Academic/sophisticated vocabulary nên tăng dần từ Part 1 đến Part 3

🎯 Grammatical Range & Accuracy:

Mix simple và complex sentences naturally
Demonstrate control của multiple tenses, especially trong Part 2 storytelling
Use conditionals, relative clauses, passive voice khi appropriate
Minor errors acceptable nếu không affect communication
Aim for accuracy first trong Part 1, complexity tăng lên ở Part 2-3

🎯 Pronunciation:

Speak clearly và at a natural pace – không quá nhanh cũng không quá chậm
Pay attention to word stress và sentence stress – quan trọng hơn perfect individual sounds
Use intonation để convey meaning (rising for questions, falling for statements)
Linking sounds naturally giữa words (như native speakers)
Don’t try to fake an accent – clear articulation quan trọng hơn

Chiến Lược Cụ Thể Cho Từng Part

Part 1 Strategy:

⏱️ Timing: Mỗi câu trả lời khoảng 2-3 câu, kéo dài 15-20 giây

📝 Structure đơn giản:

Direct answer
Reason/explanation
Example/additional detail (nếu có thể)

💡 Dos:

Answer ngay, đừng think quá lâu
Expand naturally với reasons hoặc examples
Be genuine – examiner có thể tell nếu bạn lying
Vary sentence structure giữa các answers

❌ Don’ts:

Đừng answer chỉ “Yes” hoặc “No”
Đừng nói quá dài (over 30 seconds) – examiner sẽ cut you off
Đừng ask examiner to repeat question nhiều lần
Đừng memorize và recite answers – sẽ sound unnatural

Part 2 Strategy:

⏱️ 1-minute preparation:

Spend đủ 1 phút – đừng rush vào speaking ngay
Write bullet points, không phải sentences
Organize theo bullet points của cue card
Note down 2-3 keywords cho mỗi bullet point
Plan một conclusion/reflection statement

📝 Structure bài nói:

Introduction (10-15 seconds): Brief intro về event/person/place
Body (1.5-2 minutes): Develop each bullet point với details
- Use past tenses chủ yếu nếu đây là past event
- Include specific details (names, places, times, feelings)
- Make it vivid với descriptive language
Conclusion (15-20 seconds): Explain feelings/significance (bullet point cuối)
- Đây là phần ghi điểm cao nhất – show reflection và mature thinking

💡 Dos:

Speak for full 2 minutes nếu có thể (tối thiểu 1 minute 30 seconds)
Use connectors để transition giữa ideas
Show enthusiasm về topic – animation helps fluency
Include personal feelings và reactions
End with a thoughtful reflection

❌ Don’ts:

Đừng stop trước 1.5 phút trừ khi examiner stops you
Đừng skip bất kỳ bullet point nào
Đừng deviate quá xa topic
Đừng read từ notes – chỉ glance occasionally
Đừng panic nếu forget điểm gì – improvise naturally

Part 3 Strategy:

⏱️ Timing: Mỗi answer khoảng 30-45 giây, có thể dài hơn cho complex questions

📝 Structure sophisticated:

Direct position: State opinion rõ ràng
Main argument: Develop với 2-3 reasons
Examples/Evidence: Support với examples hoặc general knowledge
Balanced view: Acknowledge other perspectives nếu appropriate
Conclusion: Sum up hoặc add final thought

💡 Dos:

Think critically – show analytical ability
Use tentative language (“I would say”, “It seems that”, “To some extent”)
Reference broader contexts: society, trends, research (nếu biết)
Admit complexity: “It’s a complex issue…”, “There’s no simple answer…”
Connect ideas across your answers trong Part 3
Be willing to develop ideas if examiner asks follow-up

❌ Don’ts:

Đừng give short answers như Part 1
Đừng only talk về personal experience – go broader
Đừng be too absolute (“always”, “never”, “everyone”) – show nuance
Đừng disagree với examiner aggressively nếu họ challenge you
Đừng panic nếu don’t know answer – it’s okay to say “That’s not something I’ve thought much about, but I suppose…”

Xử Lý Tình Huống Khó

Khi không hiểu câu hỏi:

✅ Good strategies:

“I’m sorry, could you repeat that question?”
“I’m not sure I understood correctly. Are you asking about…?”
“Do you mean…?” (paraphrase what you think they asked)

❌ Avoid:

Answering a different question bạn nghĩ họ hỏi
Asking “What does [word] mean?” – better to paraphrase

Khi không biết từ vựng:

✅ Good strategies:

Paraphrase: “I’m not sure of the exact English word, but it’s something like…”
Describe the concept: “You know, that thing when…”
Use simpler words để convey ý tưởng

❌ Avoid:

Switching to Vietnamese
Leaving long silences
Saying “I don’t know the word” và stop

Khi mắc lỗi ngữ pháp:

✅ Good strategies:

Self-correct naturally: “I meaned… sorry, I meant…”
Continue nếu minor error và không affect meaning
Don’t dwell on mistakes

❌ Avoid:

Over-apologizing: “Sorry, sorry, my English is bad”
Stopping completely to correct minor errors
Letting one mistake affect confidence cho rest of test

Khi không có ý kiến về topic:

✅ Good strategies:

“That’s an interesting question. I haven’t thought about it much, but I suppose…”
Acknowledge lack of deep knowledge nhưng try to reason through it
Draw on general knowledge hoặc observations

❌ Avoid:

Simply saying “I don’t know”
Refusing to answer
Making up obviously false information

Khi nervous:

✅ Good strategies:

Take a deep breath trước khi answer
Remember examiner wants you to succeed
Focus on communication, not perfection
Use one familiar opening như “Well…” để start naturally
Make eye contact với examiner – it helps connection

❌ Avoid:

Speaking too fast because nervous
Apologizing for nervousness
Looking down whole time
Fidgeting excessively (okay to use some hand gestures naturally)

Common Mistakes của Học Viên Việt Nam

Mistake 1: Over-preparation và memorization

❌ Vấn đề:

Học thuộc lòng entire answers
Sounds robotic và unnatural
Examiner có thể tell và may deduct points
Không flexible khi câu hỏi slightly different

✅ Solution:

Learn ideas và vocabulary, không phải full sentences
Practice telling stories nhiều ways khác nhau
Focus on natural conversation skills
Have frameworks, not scripts

Mistake 2: Sử dụng vocabulary quá phức tạp không phù hợp

❌ Vấn đề:

Dùng từ sophisticated nhưng sai nghĩa hoặc context
Sounds forced và unnatural
Có thể confuse meaning

✅ Solution:

Prioritize accuracy over complexity
Learn words với collocations và example sentences
Use sophisticated words chỉ khi confident
Simple, clear language tốt hơn complex, wrong usage

Mistake 3: Thinking in Vietnamese, translating sang English

❌ Vấn đề:

Cause unnatural sentence structures
Lead to long pauses
Result in Vietnamese-influenced expressions

✅ Solution:

Practice thinking trực tiếp bằng English
Learn phrases as chunks, not word-by-word
Immerse in English content daily
Practice speaking without translating

Mistake 4: Not expanding answers đủ (đặc biệt Part 1 và 3)

❌ Vấn đề:

Answers quá short trong Part 3
Không demonstrate language range
Miss opportunity to show skills

✅ Solution:

Always add reason + example
Use “because”, “for instance”, “such as”
Practice extending answers naturally
Aim for 3-5 câu trong Part 3

Mistake 5: Cultural hesitation to express strong opinions

❌ Vấn đề:

Too neutral, không commit to position
Sounds uncertain và indecisive
Miss chance to show critical thinking

✅ Solution:

It’s okay to have strong but polite opinions
Use tentative language để soften khi cần
Remember this is language test, không phải debate
Examiner không judge opinions, only language

Mistake 6: Poor pronunciation của linking và weak forms

❌ Vấn đề:

Pronounce mỗi từ separately, clearly
Sounds choppy và non-fluent
Miss natural rhythm của English

✅ Solution:

Learn connected speech patterns
Practice weak forms (do you → d’ya, want to → wanna in casual speech)
Listen to native speakers và mimic rhythm
Record và compare với native audio

Mistake 7: Inappropriate formality level

❌ Vấn đề:

Too formal trong Part 1 (sounds stiff)
Too informal trong Part 3 (lacks sophistication)
Không adjust register theo context

✅ Solution:

Part 1: Friendly, natural (like chatting)
Part 2: Personal storytelling tone
Part 3: More formal, analytical (but still conversational)
Learn register-appropriate vocabulary

Lộ Trình Cải Thiện Speaking

Cho người mục tiêu Band 6.0-6.5:

📚 Focus areas:

Build adequate vocabulary cho common topics
Master basic grammar: present/past/future tenses, simple conditionals
Practice answering fluently without long pauses
Develop answers thành 2-3 câu consistently
Work on clear pronunciation của common words

🎯 Action steps:

Daily: 10 phút speaking practice với topics khác nhau
Weekly: Record 1-2 Part 2 responses và self-evaluate
Focus: Fluency first, complexity second
Resources: Practice với common IELTS topics list

Cho người mục tiêu Band 7.0-7.5:

📚 Focus areas:

Expand vocabulary với collocations và less common words
Use complex grammar accurately: relative clauses, passives, perfect tenses
Develop longer, more detailed answers
Improve pronunciation features: stress, intonation
Show some critical thinking trong Part 3

🎯 Action steps:

Daily: 15-20 phút speaking practice + 10 phút vocabulary review
Weekly: Full mock test cả 3 parts với recording
Focus: Balance giữa fluency, accuracy, và complexity
Resources: Native content (podcasts, TED talks) cho exposure

Cho người mục tiêu Band 8.0+:

📚 Focus areas:

Master sophisticated vocabulary và idiomatic language
Demonstrate flexible use của advanced grammar structures
Show sophisticated ideas và critical thinking
Achieve native-like pronunciation features
Maintain fluency với minimal hesitation

🎯 Action steps:

Daily: 30 phút practice với focus on sophistication, không chỉ correctness
Weekly: Mock tests + analysis của band 9 samples
Focus: Nuance, sophistication, natural delivery
Resources: Engage in English discussions, debates, read academic articles

Final Tips từ Examiner

🌟 Remember:

IELTS Speaking test measures communication ability, không phải perfection
Examiner is trained to help you show your best English
Band scores reflect consistent performance, không phải individual excellent moments
Authenticity và natural communication score higher than memorized perfection
Every candidate makes mistakes – it’s about overall impression

🎯 On test day:

Arrive early để calm nerves
Chat với other candidates bằng English để warm up
Trust your preparation
Be yourself và let your personality show
Treat it như interesting conversation, không phải interrogation

💪 Mindset for success:

Speaking skills develop gradually – be patient với yourself
Every practice session improves your skills
Mistakes are learning opportunities
The more you practice, the more natural it becomes
You’re capable of achieving your target band với consistent effort

Chúc bạn thành công trong kỳ thi IELTS Speaking! Remember, the goal là communicate effectively và confidently – và bạn hoàn toàn có thể làm được điều đó với preparation đúng hướng và practice đều đặn.

What are You Looking For?

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe a time when you disagreed with a friend” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview

Tổng Quan Về Part 1

Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp

Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết

IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)

Tổng Quan Về Part 2

Cue Card

Phân Tích Đề Bài

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9

Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion

Tổng Quan Về Part 3

Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu

Theme 1: Conflict Resolution and Communication

Theme 2: Friendship Dynamics

Theme 3: Cultural and Social Perspectives

Từ vựng và cụm từ quan trọng

Topic-Specific Vocabulary

Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases

Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)

Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng

Chiến lược trả lời và lời khuyên từ Examiner

Chiến Lược Tổng Quan

Chiến Lược Cụ Thể Cho Từng Part

Xử Lý Tình Huống Khó

Common Mistakes của Học Viên Việt Nam

Lộ Trình Cải Thiện Speaking

Final Tips từ Examiner

IELTS Writing Task 2: Quy Định Khí Thải Công Nghiệp – Bài Mẫu Band 5-9 & Phân Tích Chi Tiết

IELTS Reading: Năng Lượng Tái Tạo và Mục Tiêu Phát Triển Bền Vững - Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Leave a Comment Cancel

Read Next

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Were Very Surprised” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Attended A Workshop” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Helped A Friend With An Important Decision” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe a time when you disagreed with a friend” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking Part 1: Introduction and Interview

Tổng Quan Về Part 1

Các Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp

Phân Tích và Gợi Ý Trả Lời Chi Tiết

IELTS Speaking Part 2: Long Turn (Cue Card)

Tổng Quan Về Part 2

Cue Card

Phân Tích Đề Bài

📝 Sample Answer – Band 6-7

📝 Sample Answer – Band 7.5-8

📝 Sample Answer – Band 8.5-9

Follow-up Questions (Rounding Off Questions)

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Two-way Discussion

Tổng Quan Về Part 3

Các Câu Hỏi Thảo Luận Sâu

Theme 1: Conflict Resolution and Communication

Theme 2: Friendship Dynamics

Theme 3: Cultural and Social Perspectives

Từ vựng và cụm từ quan trọng

Topic-Specific Vocabulary

Idiomatic Expressions & Advanced Phrases

Discourse Markers (Từ Nối Ý Trong Speaking)

Grammatical Structures Ấn Tượng

Chiến lược trả lời và lời khuyên từ Examiner

Chiến Lược Tổng Quan

Chiến Lược Cụ Thể Cho Từng Part

Xử Lý Tình Huống Khó

Common Mistakes của Học Viên Việt Nam

Lộ Trình Cải Thiện Speaking

Final Tips từ Examiner

IELTS Writing Task 2: Quy Định Khí Thải Công Nghiệp – Bài Mẫu Band 5-9 & Phân Tích Chi Tiết

IELTS Reading: Năng Lượng Tái Tạo và Mục Tiêu Phát Triển Bền Vững - Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Leave a Comment Cancel

Read Next

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Were Very Surprised” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Attended A Workshop” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

IELTS Speaking: Cách Trả Lời “Describe A Time When You Helped A Friend With An Important Decision” – Bài Mẫu Band 6-9

Đăng ký nhận thông tin bài mẫu