IELTS Reading: Dịch Vụ Cộng Đồng Thay Thế Tù Giam – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Giới Thiệu

Chủ đề “Is Community Service A Better Alternative To Prison” (Dịch vụ cộng đồng có phải là giải pháp thay thế tốt hơn cho tù giam không) là một đề tài xã hội nóng hổi thường xuyên xuất hiện trong các kỳ thi IELTS Reading. Đây là chủ đề liên quan đến tư pháp, phục hồi tội phạm, và các chính sách xã hội – những lĩnh vực được IELTS ưa chuộng vì tính học thuật và khả năng đánh giá kỹ năng đọc hiểu đa dạng.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ được trải nghiệm một đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh bao gồm 3 passages với độ khó tăng dần từ Easy đến Hard. Bạn sẽ luyện tập với 40 câu hỏi đa dạng giống thi thật, từ Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given, Matching Headings đến Summary Completion. Mỗi câu hỏi đều được thiết kế cẩn thận để phản ánh đúng format và độ khó của kỳ thi IELTS chính thức.

Bên cạnh đề thi, bạn còn nhận được đáp án chi tiết với giải thích từng bước, giúp bạn hiểu rõ cách paraphrase, xác định từ khóa và áp dụng chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả. Phần từ vựng quan trọng được trình bày dưới dạng bảng với phiên âm, nghĩa tiếng Việt và collocations sẽ giúp bạn mở rộng vốn từ học thuật.

Đề thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, đặc biệt hữu ích cho những bạn đang nhắm đến band 6.5-7.5 và muốn làm quen với các chủ đề xã hội phức tạp.

Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút với 3 passages và tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, không có điểm âm cho câu sai. Độ khó của các passages tăng dần, với Passage 1 là dễ nhất và Passage 3 là khó nhất.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1: 15-17 phút (13 câu hỏi)
• Passage 2: 18-20 phút (13 câu hỏi)
• Passage 3: 23-25 phút (14 câu hỏi)

Lưu ý dành 2-3 phút cuối để chuyển đáp án vào Answer Sheet. Không có thời gian bổ sung cho việc này trong phòng thi thực tế.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

1. Multiple Choice – Câu hỏi trắc nghiệm
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng/sai/không được đề cập
3. Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề với đoạn văn
4. Summary Completion – Hoàn thành đoạn tóm tắt
5. Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu
6. Matching Features – Nối thông tin với đặc điểm
7. Short-answer Questions – Câu hỏi trả lời ngắn

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – Rethinking Criminal Justice: The Community Service Approach

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

For decades, imprisonment has been the primary method of punishing offenders in most developed countries. However, a growing number of criminal justice experts are questioning whether locking people up is always the most effective solution. In recent years, community service has emerged as a viable alternative to prison sentences for certain types of crimes, particularly non-violent offences.

Community service, also known as community payback or community restitution, requires offenders to perform unpaid work that benefits the local community. This might include cleaning public spaces, maintaining parks and gardens, repairing community facilities, or helping with charitable organizations. The concept is built on the principle that offenders should make amends to the society they have harmed, while also having the opportunity to develop new skills and maintain family ties.

One of the most compelling arguments in favour of community service is its cost-effectiveness. Keeping a person in prison is extraordinarily expensive. In the United Kingdom, for example, the average annual cost of incarcerating one prisoner is approximately £44,000, while supervising someone on a community service order costs only around £2,000 per year. This significant difference means that governments can save substantial amounts of public money by using community service for appropriate offenders.

Proponents of community service also emphasize its rehabilitative benefits. Unlike prison, which often serves merely to warehouse criminals away from society, community service allows offenders to remain in their communities, continue working, and support their families. This continuity can be crucial for successful rehabilitation. Research has shown that offenders who maintain stable employment and family relationships are significantly less likely to reoffend than those whose lives are disrupted by imprisonment.

Moreover, community service provides tangible benefits to local communities. In many cities, community service workers have transformed neglected areas, created community gardens, renovated youth centers, and supported elderly residents with essential tasks. These visible improvements help communities while giving offenders a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Many offenders report that seeing the positive impact of their work helps them feel reconnected to society and motivated to change.

However, critics argue that community service may not be appropriate for all offenders or all types of crimes. There are concerns about public safety if violent criminals or those who pose a serious risk are given community service instead of prison time. Some victims’ rights groups also argue that community service is too lenient and does not provide adequate punishment or deterrence for criminal behaviour. They believe that some crimes deserve the harsh consequences of imprisonment to reflect their severity and to satisfy victims’ need for justice.

The effectiveness of community service as an alternative to prison also depends heavily on proper implementation and supervision. Without adequate monitoring, some offenders may fail to complete their assigned hours or may reoffend during their community service period. Successful programs require trained probation officers, clear guidelines, and sufficient resources to track offenders’ progress and provide support when needed.

Despite these challenges, many countries have expanded their use of community service sentences with encouraging results. In the Netherlands, for instance, community service has been used for decades, and studies suggest that reconviction rates for those completing community service are lower than for those serving short prison sentences. Similarly, programs in Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that well-designed community service schemes can reduce reoffending while providing valuable community benefits.

Questions 1-6

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?

Write:

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

1. Community service has only recently been introduced as an alternative to prison.
2. The annual cost of keeping someone in prison in the UK is more than twenty times higher than supervising them on community service.
3. Offenders who maintain employment and family connections are less likely to commit crimes again.
4. All victims’ rights groups support community service as an alternative to imprisonment.
5. Community service programs require trained staff and adequate resources to be successful.
6. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to implement community service schemes.

Questions 7-10

Complete the sentences below.

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

7. Community service allows offenders to perform work that provides benefits to the __.
8. One of the main advantages of community service is that it is highly __.
9. Critics worry that community service might be too __ as a punishment for some crimes.
10. Studies in the Netherlands show that people completing community service have lower __ than those serving short prison terms.

Questions 11-13

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

11. According to the passage, what is a key principle behind community service?

    • A. Offenders should be isolated from society
    • B. Offenders should compensate society for harm caused
    • C. Offenders should pay financial penalties
    • D. Offenders should receive professional training

12. What concern do critics have about community service?

    • A. It costs too much money
    • B. It takes too long to complete
    • C. It may not be suitable for dangerous criminals
    • D. It requires too many probation officers

13. What does the passage suggest about community service in Australia and New Zealand?

    • A. It is more expensive than in other countries
    • B. It has been completely unsuccessful
    • C. It can be effective when properly designed
    • D. It is only used for minor traffic offences

---

PASSAGE 2 – The Psychological and Social Dimensions of Community-Based Sanctions

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The dichotomy between punitive incarceration and restorative community service represents more than a simple choice between two sentencing options; it reflects fundamentally different philosophies about the purpose of criminal justice. While traditional imprisonment focuses on retribution and incapacitation, community service embodies principles of rehabilitation, reintegration, and reparative justice. Understanding these underlying philosophical differences is essential for evaluating whether community service can truly serve as an adequate substitute for prison in contemporary justice systems.

Psychological research has consistently demonstrated that imprisonment can have profoundly detrimental effects on mental health and social functioning. The phenomenon known as “prisonization” describes how inmates gradually adopt institutional behaviours and attitudes that enable them to survive in prison but impede their reintegration into society. Long-term incarceration can lead to dependency, social withdrawal, post-traumatic stress, and difficulty maintaining interpersonal relationships. These psychological scars often persist long after release, creating significant barriers to successful reentry and contributing to high recidivism rates.

In contrast, community service programs allow offenders to maintain their psychological integrity and social identity while serving their sentences. By remaining in their communities, offenders can continue fulfilling family responsibilities, maintaining employment, and sustaining meaningful relationships. This continuity is particularly important for primary caregivers, whose incarceration can have devastating consequences for dependent children. Research indicates that children whose parents are imprisoned face elevated risks of educational difficulties, behavioral problems, and future criminal involvement. Community service thus offers a way to hold offenders accountable without inflicting collateral damage on innocent family members.

The concept of desistance – the process by which individuals cease criminal activity – provides further support for community-based alternatives. Criminological studies suggest that desistance is facilitated by social bonds, employment stability, and the development of a prosocial identity. Prison environments, by their nature, sever social bonds, disrupt employment, and reinforce criminal identities through association with other offenders. Community service, conversely, can foster desistance by maintaining existing prosocial connections and creating opportunities for offenders to demonstrate competence and contribute meaningfully to society.

However, the efficacy of community service depends significantly on its implementation quality and the characteristics of the offenders to whom it is applied. Meta-analyses of community service programs have revealed considerable variation in outcomes, with the most successful programs sharing several key features. First, effective programs employ structured risk assessment tools to identify appropriate candidates – typically low to medium-risk offenders whose criminal histories suggest they can be safely supervised in the community. Second, successful programs provide adequate supervision and support, including regular contact with probation officers and access to auxiliary services such as substance abuse treatment or mental health counseling.

Third, research suggests that community service is most effective when it is genuinely constructive rather than merely punitive. Programs that offer offenders opportunities to develop marketable skills, work alongside community members as equals, and see the tangible positive impact of their labor report better outcomes than those that emphasize menial tasks or public shaming. The quality of the work experience appears to influence whether offenders internalize prosocial values and develop a reformed self-concept.

Critics of community service raise important concerns about net-widening – the possibility that community sanctions might be applied to individuals who would otherwise receive non-custodial dispositions such as fines or conditional discharges, thereby increasing overall criminal justice system involvement rather than reducing reliance on imprisonment. There is also the challenge of ensuring proportionality: determining how many hours of community service equate to a given prison term, and whether this equivalence adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence and satisfies societal expectations for punishment.

Furthermore, the symbolic function of punishment cannot be entirely dismissed. Some scholars argue that punishment serves important communicative purposes, conveying societal condemnation of certain behaviors and affirming shared values. From this perspective, excessively lenient sanctions might undermine the moral authority of the law and diminish its deterrent effect. Balancing the practical benefits of community service with the expressive dimensions of punishment remains an ongoing challenge for policymakers and sentencing authorities.

Nevertheless, empirical evidence increasingly supports the judicious use of community service for appropriate offenders. A longitudinal study conducted in England and Wales found that offenders sentenced to community service had reconviction rates approximately 8% lower than comparable offenders sentenced to short custodial terms. The cost savings were substantial, and community members reported positive perceptions of the visible improvements produced by community service workers. Such findings suggest that, when properly implemented, community service can achieve the multiple objectives of punishment: holding offenders accountable, protecting public safety, and promoting rehabilitation – all while avoiding the harmful effects of incarceration.

Questions 14-18

Choose the correct heading for each paragraph from the list of headings below.

List of Headings:

• i. The financial advantages of community-based programs
• ii. Different philosophical approaches to justice
• iii. The psychological harm caused by imprisonment
• iv. Risk assessment and program quality factors
• v. The importance of meaningful work in rehabilitation
• vi. Concerns about expanding the justice system’s reach
• vii. Supporting families through alternative sentencing
• viii. Evidence of reduced reoffending rates
• ix. The role of punishment in society

14. Paragraph 2 (begins “Psychological research has…”)
15. Paragraph 4 (begins “The concept of desistance…”)
16. Paragraph 5 (begins “However, the efficacy…”)
17. Paragraph 7 (begins “Critics of community service…”)
18. Paragraph 8 (begins “Furthermore, the symbolic function…”)

Questions 19-23

Complete the summary below.

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

Community service represents a different approach to justice compared to traditional imprisonment. While prison focuses on punishment and containment, community service emphasizes rehabilitation and 19. __. Research shows that imprisonment can cause serious psychological problems, including a process called 20. __, where prisoners adopt behaviors that make it difficult to return to normal society.

Community service allows offenders to maintain their 21. __ and family connections, which is especially important for those with children. The concept of 22. __ describes how people stop committing crimes, and this process is helped by maintaining employment and developing positive relationships. Studies show that community service can be effective, with offenders showing **23. __ that are about 8% lower than those who serve short prison sentences.

Questions 24-26

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 2?

Write:

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

24. Community service programs are always more effective than imprisonment for all types of offenders.
25. The most successful community service programs include both supervision and access to additional support services.
26. Public opinion has consistently favored community service over imprisonment for serious crimes.

---

PASSAGE 3 – Evaluating Community Service as a Penal Alternative: International Perspectives and Evidence-Based Policy

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The perennial debate surrounding the optimal balance between punitive and rehabilitative approaches to criminal justice has intensified in recent decades, propelled by escalating incarceration rates, mounting fiscal pressures, and accumulating evidence of imprisonment’s iatrogenic effects. Community service, variously termed community payback, reparative work, or compensatory labor, has emerged as a prominent intermediate sanction within this discourse, occupying a conceptual space between unconditional liberty and custodial deprivation. However, the question of whether community service constitutes a genuinely superior alternative to imprisonment, rather than merely a complementary element within a diversified sentencing repertoire, demands rigorous empirical scrutiny and nuanced theoretical analysis.

Comparative criminological research reveals substantial cross-national variation in the implementation, scope, and perceived legitimacy of community service programs. In Scandinavian jurisdictions, particularly Norway and Sweden, community service has been institutionalized as a mainstream sanction for moderately serious offences, underpinned by a welfare-oriented correctional philosophy that prioritizes social inclusion over exclusionary punishment. These systems are characterized by relatively low penal intensity, extensive social support infrastructure, and cultural norms emphasizing collective responsibility for offender reintegration. Recidivism data from these countries consistently demonstrate favorable outcomes, with three-year reconviction rates for community service recipients often falling 15-20% below those for matched samples of short-term prisoners.

Conversely, in more punitive jurisdictions such as certain American states, community service has frequently been relegated to the status of an adjunct sanction for minor misdemeanors or deployed as a supplementary condition of probation rather than a genuine alternative to incarceration for offenses that would otherwise warrant imprisonment. This restricted application may reflect deeper structural factors, including entrenched retributive attitudes, powerful correctional unions with vested interests in maintaining institutional capacity, and political incentives that favor ostensibly tough criminal justice policies. In such contexts, the counterfactual question – what would have happened to these offenders absent community service – becomes crucial; if community service primarily diverts individuals who would otherwise have received non-custodial sentences, its capacity to reduce incarceration rates remains limited.

Methodologically sophisticated evaluations employing quasi-experimental designs or natural experiments provide the most credible evidence regarding community service effectiveness. A particularly illuminating study conducted in Switzerland exploited regional variation in sentencing practices to compare outcomes for offenders convicted of similar offenses but receiving different sanctions. The research employed propensity score matching to control for selection bias and found that offenders sentenced to community service exhibited significantly lower rates of subsequent criminal justice involvement over a five-year follow-up period compared to those who served custodial sentences of less than six months. The magnitude of the effect was substantial, with community service associated with an approximate 30% reduction in re-incarceration risk.

The mechanisms through which community service may exert beneficial effects are multifaceted and theoretically grounded in several criminological frameworks. Social control theory emphasizes how community service preserves conventional social bonds – to family, employment, and civic institutions – that serve as protective factors against recidivism. Procedural justice theory suggests that offenders who perceive their sanctions as fair, respectful, and meaningful are more likely to internalize legal norms and voluntarily comply with the law. Desistance research highlights the importance of identity transformation: community service may facilitate development of prosocial self-concepts by providing opportunities for socially valued contributions and positive recognition from community members.

However, translating these theoretical insights into effective practice requires careful attention to program design elements. Research indicates that community service programs achieve optimal outcomes when they incorporate several evidence-based principles. First, the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model suggests that intervention intensity should be calibrated to offenders’ risk levels, with higher-risk individuals receiving more intensive supervision and criminogenic need targeting. Second, work assignments should be substantive and skill-enhancing rather than deliberately demeaning, as degrading labor may reinforce antisocial attitudes rather than promoting prosocial development. Third, effective programs integrate community service with comprehensive case management, ensuring that offenders receive appropriate support services addressing underlying issues such as substance dependence, mental health disorders, or vocational deficits.

Economic analyses consistently demonstrate community service’s substantial fiscal advantages, though the magnitude of cost savings depends on implementation specifics and methodological choices regarding which costs are included. Direct operational costs – supervision, administration, and work site coordination – typically range from 5-10% of imprisonment costs for equivalent offender populations. When indirect costs are considered, including foregone tax revenue from incarcerated workers, welfare expenditures for dependents of imprisoned offenders, and long-term productivity losses associated with the criminogenic effects of incarceration, the economic advantage of community service becomes even more pronounced. One comprehensive cost-benefit analysis conducted in Washington State calculated a net benefit of approximately $12,000 per offender for community service compared to short-term incarceration, accounting for reduced recidivism, preserved employment, and averted victimization costs.

Nevertheless, several unresolved tensions complicate any simplistic endorsement of community service as categorically superior to imprisonment. First, there remains the philosophical question of penal equivalence: how should sentencers determine the appropriate quantum of community service hours corresponding to a given term of imprisonment? This question has no purely technical answer, as it implicates contested values regarding suffering, liberty deprivation, and proportionality. Second, concerns about enforcement persist; non-completion rates for community service sentences vary widely but can exceed 30% in some jurisdictions, raising questions about sanction credibility. Third, the applicability of community service is inherently constrained by offence seriousness and risk considerations; while it may constitute an appropriate alternative for non-violent, low to moderate-risk offenders, its extension to more serious or dangerous individuals would likely generate unacceptable public safety risks and undermine social confidence in the justice system.

Contemporary penal policy increasingly recognizes that the question is not whether community service is universally preferable to imprisonment, but rather for which offenders, under what conditions, and with what support structures it can effectively serve societal objectives of accountability, public safety, and offender rehabilitation. Evidence-based sentencing frameworks that incorporate validated risk assessment instruments, structured decision-making protocols, and ongoing outcome monitoring offer the most promising pathway toward optimizing the use of community service within a graduated system of sanctions. As correctional systems grapple with resource constraints and mounting evidence of imprisonment’s limited effectiveness for many offender populations, well-designed and rigorously implemented community service programs represent an increasingly vital component of a rational, humane, and cost-effective approach to criminal justice.

Questions 27-31

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

27. According to the passage, what is the main characteristic of Scandinavian community service programs?

    • A. They focus primarily on punishment rather than rehabilitation
    • B. They are based on a welfare-oriented philosophy emphasizing social inclusion
    • C. They are used only for very minor offenses
    • D. They have higher reconviction rates than other countries

28. What does the passage suggest about community service in some American states?

    • A. It has completely replaced imprisonment
    • B. It is often used only for minor offenses rather than as a true prison alternative
    • C. It has proven more effective than European programs
    • D. It receives strong support from correctional unions

29. The Swiss study mentioned in the passage used propensity score matching in order to:

    • A. increase the number of participants
    • B. reduce the cost of the research
    • C. control for selection bias in the data
    • D. extend the follow-up period

30. According to social control theory, community service helps prevent reoffending by:

    • A. providing harsh punishment
    • B. maintaining connections to family and employment
    • C. isolating offenders from society
    • D. reducing supervision requirements

31. The Washington State cost-benefit analysis found that community service:

    • A. costs the same as imprisonment
    • B. is only slightly cheaper than prison
    • C. provides a net benefit of approximately $12,000 per offender
    • D. is more expensive when all factors are considered

Questions 32-36

Complete the sentences below.

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

32. In some jurisdictions, community service non-completion rates can be higher than __.
33. The risk-need-responsivity model suggests that the intensity of intervention should match offenders’ __.
34. Community service programs work best when they include comprehensive __ to address underlying problems.
35. The question of how many community service hours equal a prison term involves __ about values rather than purely technical matters.
36. Evidence-based sentencing frameworks incorporate validated __ and structured decision-making.

Questions 37-40

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 3?

Write:

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

37. Scandinavian countries show reconviction rates for community service recipients that are 15-20% lower than for short-term prisoners.
38. All criminologists agree that community service should replace imprisonment entirely.
39. Work assignments in community service programs should be designed to be skill-enhancing rather than deliberately demeaning.
40. The passage states that community service is appropriate for all types of offenders regardless of the seriousness of their crimes.

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. NOT GIVEN
2. TRUE
3. TRUE
4. FALSE
5. TRUE
6. NOT GIVEN
7. local community
8. cost-effective
9. lenient
10. reconviction rates
11. B
12. C
13. C

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. iii
15. vii
16. iv
17. vi
18. ix
19. reparative justice
20. prisonization
21. social identity
22. desistance
23. reconviction rates
24. NO
25. YES
26. NOT GIVEN

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. B
29. C
30. B
31. C
32. 30% / thirty percent
33. risk levels
34. case management
35. contested values
36. risk assessment instruments
37. TRUE
38. FALSE
39. TRUE
40. FALSE

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: community service, recently introduced, alternative to prison
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Passage chỉ nói “In recent years, community service has emerged as a viable alternative” nhưng không nói nó “only recently been introduced”. Từ “emerged” có thể hiểu là trở nên phổ biến hơn, không nhất thiết là mới được giới thiệu. Không đủ thông tin để xác định TRUE hay FALSE.

Câu 2: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: annual cost, UK, more than twenty times higher
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Passage nói chi phí tù giam là £44,000/năm, trong khi giám sát community service chỉ £2,000/năm. £44,000 chia cho £2,000 = 22 lần, do đó “more than twenty times higher” là đúng.

Câu 3: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: maintain employment, family connections, less likely, commit crimes again
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: Passage nói “offenders who maintain stable employment and family relationships are significantly less likely to reoffend”. Câu hỏi paraphrase “commit crimes again” = “reoffend” và “family connections” = “family relationships”.

Câu 4: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all victims’ rights groups, support community service
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Passage nói “Some victims’ rights groups also argue that community service is too lenient”, cho thấy một số (some) nhóm quyền nạn nhân phản đối, không phải tất cả (all) đều ủng hộ. Do đó statement mâu thuẫn với thông tin.

Câu 5: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: require, trained staff, adequate resources, successful
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Passage nói “Successful programs require trained probation officers, clear guidelines, and sufficient resources”, khớp với statement về trained staff và adequate resources.

Câu 8: cost-effective

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: main advantages, community service
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: Câu đầu đoạn 3 nói “One of the most compelling arguments in favour of community service is its cost-effectiveness”. Cần điền tính từ mô tả lợi thế.

Câu 11: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: key principle, community service
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 4-6
• Giải thích: Passage nói “The concept is built on the principle that offenders should make amends to the society they have harmed”. Đáp án B “compensate society for harm caused” là paraphrase của “make amends to the society they have harmed”. Các đáp án khác không được nhắc đến là nguyên tắc chính.

Hình ảnh minh họa dịch vụ cộng đồng thay thế tù giam trong bài thi IELTS Reading với đề tài tư pháp xã hội

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: iii (The psychological harm caused by imprisonment)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Từ khóa: psychological, harm, imprisonment
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2
• Giải thích: Đoạn 2 bắt đầu “Psychological research has consistently demonstrated that imprisonment can have profoundly detrimental effects on mental health and social functioning” và toàn bộ đoạn thảo luận về những tác hại tâm lý của việc tù giam như prisonization, dependency, social withdrawal, PTSD. Heading iii khớp hoàn hảo.

Câu 15: vii (Supporting families through alternative sentencing)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
• Từ khóa: families, alternative sentencing
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4
• Giải thích: Đoạn này (bắt đầu “The concept of desistance”) thảo luận về cách community service giúp duy trì “family responsibilities”, “sustaining meaningful relationships”, và đặc biệt nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng cho “primary caregivers” và tác động lên trẻ em. Mặc dù có nhắc đến desistance, trọng tâm là về gia đình.

Câu 19: reparative justice

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: emphasizes rehabilitation
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Passage nói “community service embodies principles of rehabilitation, reintegration, and reparative justice”. Câu tóm tắt đã có “rehabilitation”, cần điền cụm còn lại là “reparative justice”.

Câu 20: prisonization

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: psychological problems, process, prisoners adopt behaviors
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Passage định nghĩa “The phenomenon known as ‘prisonization’ describes how inmates gradually adopt institutional behaviours and attitudes that enable them to survive in prison but impede their reintegration into society”.

Câu 24: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: always more effective, all types of offenders
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: Passage nói “the efficacy of community service depends significantly on its implementation quality and the characteristics of the offenders to whom it is applied”, và “the most successful programs… typically low to medium-risk offenders”. Điều này mâu thuẫn với “always” và “all types”, do đó đáp án là NO.

Câu 25: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: most successful programs, supervision, additional support services
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 5-8
• Giải thích: Passage nói “successful programs provide adequate supervision and support, including regular contact with probation officers and access to auxiliary services such as substance abuse treatment or mental health counseling”. Statement khớp với quan điểm của tác giả.

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Scandinavian community service programs, main characteristic
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-5
• Giải thích: Passage mô tả “In Scandinavian jurisdictions… community service has been institutionalized as a mainstream sanction… underpinned by a welfare-oriented correctional philosophy that prioritizes social inclusion over exclusionary punishment”. Đáp án B paraphrase chính xác điểm này.

Câu 28: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: American states, community service
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-4
• Giải thích: Passage nói “in more punitive jurisdictions such as certain American states, community service has frequently been relegated to the status of an adjunct sanction for minor misdemeanors… rather than a genuine alternative to incarceration”. Đáp án B chính xác phản ánh điều này.

Câu 29: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Swiss study, propensity score matching
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 4-5
• Giải thích: Passage nói rõ “The research employed propensity score matching to control for selection bias”. Đây là phương pháp thống kê để kiểm soát bias trong dữ liệu.

Câu 32: 30% / thirty percent

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion (NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS)
• Từ khóa: non-completion rates, can be higher than
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 5-6
• Giải thích: Passage nói “non-completion rates for community service sentences vary widely but can exceed 30% in some jurisdictions”.

Câu 37: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Scandinavian countries, reconviction rates, 15-20% lower
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: Passage nói “Recidivism data from these countries consistently demonstrate favorable outcomes, with three-year reconviction rates for community service recipients often falling 15-20% below those for matched samples of short-term prisoners”. Khớp chính xác với statement.

Câu 38: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: all criminologists agree, replace imprisonment entirely
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: Passage nói “Contemporary penal policy increasingly recognizes that the question is not whether community service is universally preferable to imprisonment, but rather for which offenders, under what conditions”. Điều này cho thấy không có sự đồng thuận rằng nó nên thay thế hoàn toàn tù giam, do đó statement là FALSE.

Câu 40: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: appropriate for all types of offenders, regardless of seriousness
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 7-10
• Giải thích: Passage nói rõ “the applicability of community service is inherently constrained by offence seriousness and risk considerations… its extension to more serious or dangerous individuals would likely generate unacceptable public safety risks”. Điều này mâu thuẫn trực tiếp với statement, do đó đáp án là FALSE.

Phân tích hiệu quả và đánh giá chương trình dịch vụ cộng đồng trong đề thi IELTS Reading band cao

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
imprisonment	n	/ɪmˈprɪzənmənt/	sự tù giam, giam giữ	imprisonment has been the primary method	life imprisonment, unlawful imprisonment
viable alternative	n phrase	/ˈvaɪəbl ɔːlˈtɜːnətɪv/	giải pháp thay thế khả thi	community service has emerged as a viable alternative	provide a viable alternative
non-violent offences	n phrase	/nɒn-ˈvaɪələnt əˈfensɪz/	tội phạm không bạo lực	particularly non-violent offences	commit non-violent offences
make amends	v phrase	/meɪk əˈmendz/	sửa chữa, bồi thường	offenders should make amends to society	make amends for mistakes
cost-effectiveness	n	/kɒst ɪˈfektɪvnəs/	tính hiệu quả về chi phí	its cost-effectiveness	improve cost-effectiveness
incarcerate	v	/ɪnˈkɑːsəreɪt/	giam giữ, tống giam	the average annual cost of incarcerating	incarcerate prisoners
rehabilitative benefits	n phrase	/riːəˈbɪlɪtətɪv ˈbenɪfɪts/	lợi ích phục hồi	emphasize its rehabilitative benefits	provide rehabilitative benefits
reoffend	v	/riːəˈfend/	tái phạm	less likely to reoffend	prevent offenders from reoffending
tangible benefits	n phrase	/ˈtændʒəbl ˈbenɪfɪts/	lợi ích hữu hình, cụ thể	provides tangible benefits	deliver tangible benefits
deterrence	n	/dɪˈterəns/	sự răn đe	does not provide adequate deterrence	nuclear deterrence, crime deterrence
reconviction rates	n phrase	/riːkənˈvɪkʃən reɪts/	tỷ lệ tái phạm	reconviction rates for those completing	reduce reconviction rates
supervision	n	/suːpəˈvɪʒən/	sự giám sát	without adequate supervision	under close supervision

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
dichotomy	n	/daɪˈkɒtəmi/	sự phân đôi, đối lập	The dichotomy between punitive incarceration	false dichotomy
punitive	adj	/ˈpjuːnɪtɪv/	mang tính tr징phạt	punitive incarceration and restorative community service	punitive measures, punitive damages
retribution	n	/ˌretrɪˈbjuːʃən/	sự trả thù, trừng phạt	focuses on retribution and incapacitation	seek retribution
restorative justice	n phrase	/rɪˈstɒrətɪv ˈdʒʌstɪs/	tư pháp phục hồi	embodies principles of restorative justice	restorative justice programs
prisonization	n	/ˌprɪzənaɪˈzeɪʃən/	quá trình nhà tù hóa	The phenomenon known as prisonization	effects of prisonization
reintegration	n	/riːˌɪntɪˈɡreɪʃən/	sự tái hòa nhập	impede their reintegration into society	social reintegration
desistance	n	/dɪˈzɪstəns/	sự từ bỏ tội phạm	The concept of desistance	promote desistance
prosocial	adj	/prəʊˈsəʊʃəl/	ủng hộ xã hội, tích cực	development of a prosocial identity	prosocial behavior
efficacy	n	/ˈefɪkəsi/	hiệu lực, hiệu quả	the efficacy of community service	demonstrate efficacy
meta-analyses	n	/ˌmetəəˈnæləsiːz/	phân tích tổng hợp	Meta-analyses of community service programs	conduct meta-analyses
collateral damage	n phrase	/kəˈlætərəl ˈdæmɪdʒ/	thiệt hại gián tiếp	without inflicting collateral damage	avoid collateral damage
net-widening	n	/net ˈwaɪdənɪŋ/	mở rộng lưới tư pháp	concerns about net-widening	prevent net-widening
proportionality	n	/prəˌpɔːʃəˈnæləti/	tính cân đối, tương xứng	ensuring proportionality	principle of proportionality
empirical evidence	n phrase	/ɪmˈpɪrɪkəl ˈevɪdəns/	bằng chứng thực nghiệm	empirical evidence increasingly supports	provide empirical evidence
longitudinal study	n phrase	/ˌlɒŋɡɪˈtjuːdɪnəl ˈstʌdi/	nghiên cứu theo thời gian	A longitudinal study conducted	conduct a longitudinal study

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
perennial debate	n phrase	/pəˈreniəl dɪˈbeɪt/	cuộc tranh luận lâu dài	The perennial debate surrounding	engage in perennial debate
iatrogenic effects	n phrase	/aɪˌætrəˈdʒenɪk ɪˈfekts/	tác dụng phụ do can thiệp	imprisonment’s iatrogenic effects	minimize iatrogenic effects
intermediate sanction	n phrase	/ˌɪntəˈmiːdiət ˈsæŋkʃən/	hình phạt trung gian	has emerged as a prominent intermediate sanction	apply intermediate sanctions
cross-national variation	n phrase	/krɒs-ˈnæʃənəl ˌveəriˈeɪʃən/	sự khác biệt giữa các quốc gia	reveals substantial cross-national variation	examine cross-national variation
welfare-oriented	adj	/ˈwelfeər ˈɔːrientɪd/	định hướng phúc lợi	underpinned by a welfare-oriented philosophy	welfare-oriented policies
quasi-experimental	adj	/ˈkweɪzaɪ ɪkˌsperɪˈmentəl/	bán thực nghiệm	employing quasi-experimental designs	quasi-experimental research
propensity score matching	n phrase	/prəˈpensəti skɔː ˈmætʃɪŋ/	phương pháp ghép điểm xu hướng	employed propensity score matching	use propensity score matching
social control theory	n phrase	/ˈsəʊʃəl kənˈtrəʊl ˈθɪəri/	lý thuyết kiểm soát xã hội	Social control theory emphasizes	apply social control theory
procedural justice	n phrase	/prəˈsiːdʒərəl ˈdʒʌstɪs/	tư pháp thủ tục công bằng	Procedural justice theory suggests	principles of procedural justice
criminogenic	adj	/ˌkrɪmɪnəˈdʒenɪk/	gây ra tội phạm	addressing criminogenic need targeting	criminogenic factors
risk-need-responsivity	n phrase	/rɪsk niːd rɪˌspɒnsɪˈvɪti/	rủi ro-nhu cầu-đáp ứng	the risk-need-responsivity model	RNR model framework
penal equivalence	n phrase	/ˈpiːnəl ɪˈkwɪvələns/	tương đương hình phạt	the philosophical question of penal equivalence	determine penal equivalence
contested values	n phrase	/kənˈtestɪd ˈvæljuːz/	giá trị tranh cãi	it implicates contested values	debate contested values
evidence-based	adj	/ˈevɪdəns beɪst/	dựa trên bằng chứng	Evidence-based sentencing frameworks	evidence-based practice
validated instruments	n phrase	/ˈvælɪdeɪtɪd ˈɪnstrəmənts/	công cụ đã được kiểm chứng	validated risk assessment instruments	use validated instruments
graduated system	n phrase	/ˈɡrædʒueɪtɪd ˈsɪstəm/	hệ thống phân cấp	within a graduated system of sanctions	implement a graduated system

Bảng từ vựng học thuật chuyên sâu về chủ đề tư pháp và dịch vụ cộng đồng cho IELTS Reading band 7.0+

Kết Bài

Chủ đề “Is community service a better alternative to prison” không chỉ là một đề tài xã hội quan trọng mà còn là một chủ đề phổ biến trong IELTS Reading, thường xuất hiện dưới nhiều góc độ khác nhau: tâm lý học, kinh tế, xã hội học, và chính sách công. Việc nắm vững kiến thức về chủ đề này sẽ giúp bạn tự tin hơn khi đối mặt với các bài đọc liên quan đến criminal justice, social policy, hay rehabilitation programs.

Ba passages trong đề thi mẫu này đã cung cấp cho bạn trải nghiệm hoàn chỉnh với đầy đủ các độ khó từ Easy đến Hard. Passage 1 giúp bạn làm quen với chủ đề và từ vựng cơ bản, Passage 2 đào sâu vào các khía cạnh tâm lý và xã hội với vocabulary nâng cao, còn Passage 3 đòi hỏi khả năng phân tích và hiểu biết học thuật ở mức độ cao nhất. Sự tăng dần về độ khó này phản ánh chính xác cấu trúc của bài thi IELTS Reading thực tế.

Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích đã chỉ cho bạn cách xác định từ khóa, paraphrase, và định vị thông tin trong passage – những kỹ năng cốt lõi để đạt band điểm cao. Hãy dành thời gian xem lại những câu bạn làm sai, phân tích tại sao bạn chọn đáp án đó và đáp án đúng nằm ở đâu trong bài. Đây là cách học hiệu quả nhất để cải thiện kỹ năng Reading của bạn.

Phần từ vựng với hơn 40 từ học thuật quan trọng sẽ là tài liệu quý giá cho việc học từ vựng của bạn. Đừng chỉ học nghĩa tiếng Việt mà hãy chú ý đến cách sử dụng từ trong ngữ cảnh, các collocations, và thực hành tạo câu với những từ này. Hãy nhớ rằng, việc hiểu sâu 40 từ này còn hữu ích hơn là học thuộc lòng 400 từ không biết cách dùng.

Chúc bạn luyện tập hiệu quả và đạt được band điểm mục tiêu trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới. Hãy tiếp tục truy cập VN.IELTS.NET để có thêm nhiều đề thi mẫu và tài liệu luyện thi chất lượng cao khác!