Công nghệ blockchain đang dần thay đổi nhiều lĩnh vực trong cuộc sống, và hệ thống bầu cử không phải là ngoại lệ. Chủ đề về vai trò của blockchain trong việc tăng cường tính minh bạch bầu cử (The Role Of Blockchain In Increasing Voting Transparency) ngày càng xuất hiện nhiều trong các đề thi IELTS Reading gần đây, đặc biệt trong những bài đọc về công nghệ và xã hội hiện đại.
Bài viết này cung cấp một đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh gồm 3 passages với độ khó tăng dần từ Easy đến Hard, bao gồm 40 câu hỏi đa dạng giống thi thật. Bạn sẽ học được các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến như Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given, Matching Headings, và nhiều dạng khác. Mỗi passage đều được thiết kế công phu với từ vựng được làm đậm, kèm theo đáp án chi tiết và giải thích cụ thể giúp bạn hiểu rõ cách tiếp cận từng câu hỏi.
Đề thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với format thi thực tế, nâng cao khả năng đọc hiểu và rèn luyện kỹ thuật làm bài hiệu quả.
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. Đây là phần thi đòi hỏi kỹ năng quản lý thời gian tốt và khả năng đọc hiểu chính xác.
Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:
- Passage 1: 15-17 phút (độ khó thấp, cần làm nhanh để dành thời gian cho các passage sau)
- Passage 2: 18-20 phút (độ khó trung bình, cần đọc kỹ hơn)
- Passage 3: 23-25 phút (độ khó cao, yêu cầu phân tích sâu)
Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này
Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:
- Multiple Choice – Lựa chọn đáp án đúng từ các phương án cho sẵn
- True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hay không được đề cập
- Matching Information – Nối thông tin với đoạn văn tương ứng
- Sentence Completion – Hoàn thiện câu với từ trong bài
- Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề với đoạn văn phù hợp
- Summary Completion – Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
- Short-answer Questions – Trả lời ngắn gọn các câu hỏi
IELTS Reading Practice Test
PASSAGE 1 – The Basics of Blockchain Voting Systems
Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút
The concept of using blockchain technology in voting systems has gained significant attention in recent years as governments and organizations search for more secure and transparent ways to conduct elections. At its core, blockchain is a digital ledger that records transactions in a way that makes them extremely difficult to alter or hack. Each transaction, or in the case of voting, each vote, is recorded as a “block” of data. These blocks are then linked together in a chronological chain, hence the name “blockchain.”
Traditional voting systems have long faced challenges related to security, transparency, and voter trust. Paper-based voting can be subject to ballot stuffing, miscounting, or deliberate manipulation. Electronic voting machines, while faster, have raised concerns about hacking and software vulnerabilities. Many voters worry that their votes might not be counted accurately or that the results could be tampered with. These concerns have led to a search for better solutions, and blockchain technology appears to offer promising answers.
One of the primary advantages of blockchain voting is its immutability. Once a vote is recorded on the blockchain, it becomes virtually impossible to change or delete. This is because each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, creating a secure chain. If someone tries to alter a vote in one block, it would change that block’s hash, which would then be noticed because it wouldn’t match the hash stored in the next block. This chain reaction makes fraudulent alterations immediately detectable.
Transparency is another key benefit. In a blockchain voting system, every vote is recorded on a distributed ledger that can be viewed by authorized participants. This doesn’t mean that individual votes can be traced back to specific voters, as the system maintains voter anonymity through encryption. However, it does mean that the overall voting process can be audited and verified by multiple parties, reducing the possibility of election fraud. This level of transparency helps build public confidence in election results.
The decentralized nature of blockchain is particularly important for voting systems. Unlike traditional databases that are stored in a central location, blockchain data is distributed across many computers, called nodes, in a network. This means there is no single point of failure that hackers could target. To successfully manipulate the voting results, an attacker would need to simultaneously hack more than half of all the nodes in the network, which is practically impossible in a well-designed system.
Several countries and organizations have already begun experimenting with blockchain voting. Estonia, often considered a digital pioneer, has been using internet voting for national elections since 2005, and has explored blockchain applications to enhance security. In 2018, West Virginia in the United States piloted a blockchain-based mobile voting app for military personnel stationed overseas. These early experiments have provided valuable insights into both the potential and challenges of implementing such systems on a larger scale.
However, implementing blockchain voting is not without challenges. The technology requires significant infrastructure investment and technical expertise. There are also concerns about digital literacy among voters, particularly elderly citizens who may not be comfortable with new technology. Cybersecurity experts warn that while blockchain itself is secure, the devices and interfaces that voters use to access the system could still be vulnerable to attacks. Additionally, ensuring that the blockchain voting system maintains complete voter anonymity while still allowing for verification is a complex technical challenge.
Despite these obstacles, advocates argue that the benefits of blockchain voting outweigh the risks. They point to increased voter accessibility, especially for citizens living abroad or those with mobility issues. Blockchain voting could also significantly reduce the time and cost associated with conducting elections, as results could be tallied almost instantly and with greater accuracy than traditional methods. As technology continues to advance and more pilot programs are conducted, blockchain may well become a standard feature of democratic elections worldwide.
Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.
-
What is the main purpose of linking blocks in a blockchain?
A. To make voting faster
B. To create a secure chain that prevents tampering
C. To reduce voting costs
D. To help voters understand the system -
According to the passage, traditional paper-based voting can suffer from:
A. being too expensive
B. taking too long to count
C. ballot stuffing and manipulation
D. requiring too much technology -
The cryptographic hash in blockchain voting helps to:
A. identify individual voters
B. make voting faster
C. detect any attempts to alter votes
D. reduce the cost of elections -
What does the passage say about Estonia?
A. It was the first country to use blockchain voting
B. It has used internet voting since 2005
C. It has the most secure voting system
D. It invented blockchain technology -
One challenge of blockchain voting mentioned in the passage is:
A. the technology is too old
B. it makes voting take longer
C. concerns about digital literacy among some voters
D. it cannot maintain voter anonymity
Questions 6-10: True/False/Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage? Write:
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
-
Blockchain technology was originally designed specifically for voting systems.
-
In blockchain voting, individual votes can be traced back to specific voters.
-
Blockchain data is stored across many computers rather than in one central location.
-
West Virginia’s blockchain voting pilot program was considered completely successful.
-
Blockchain voting could make elections more accessible for people living overseas.
Questions 11-13: Sentence Completion
Complete the sentences below. Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.
-
Each transaction in blockchain is recorded as a __ of data.
-
The __ of blockchain means there is no single point that hackers could target.
-
Blockchain voting could reduce both the __ associated with conducting elections.
PASSAGE 2 – Blockchain’s Impact on Electoral Integrity
Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút
The integrity of electoral processes has become an increasingly pressing concern in modern democracies, with allegations of vote manipulation, foreign interference, and systemic irregularities threatening public confidence in election outcomes. Blockchain technology, with its inherent characteristics of immutability, transparency, and decentralization, presents a compelling solution to many of these challenges. However, the relationship between blockchain implementation and voting transparency is far more nuanced and complex than simple technological optimism might suggest.
Traditional electoral systems operate on a fundamental trust paradigm: citizens must trust election officials, voting machine manufacturers, and various intermediaries to conduct elections fairly and count votes accurately. This centralized trust model creates multiple vulnerabilities and potential points of compromise. Blockchain technology fundamentally disrupts this paradigm by distributing trust across a network, using mathematical certainty rather than institutional credibility to guarantee electoral integrity. In a blockchain-based voting system, the verification process becomes democratized, allowing any participant to independently audit results without relying on a central authority.
The transparency mechanisms inherent in blockchain voting systems operate on multiple levels. At the most fundamental level, blockchain creates an immutable audit trail where every vote is recorded as a transaction with a unique cryptographic signature. This creates what researchers call “end-to-end verifiability,” meaning voters can confirm their votes were cast as intended, recorded as cast, and counted as recorded. This three-tier verification system represents a significant advancement over conventional electronic voting machines, which typically function as “black boxes” with no way for voters to verify their votes were properly recorded.
Moreover, blockchain enables what computer scientists term “universal verifiability” – the ability for anyone, not just election officials, to verify that all votes were counted correctly without compromising voter privacy. This is achieved through sophisticated cryptographic techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic encryption. These methods allow the system to prove that votes were counted accurately without revealing how any individual voted. The mathematical elegance of these solutions addresses one of the central paradoxes of democratic voting: the need for both complete transparency in vote counting and absolute privacy in vote casting.
The decentralized architecture of blockchain also provides resilience against various forms of attack that plague traditional systems. In conventional electronic voting, a successful breach of central servers could potentially alter election outcomes without detection. Blockchain’s distributed ledger system, however, requires consensus among numerous nodes before any entry can be added. An attacker would need to simultaneously compromise a majority of nodes – a feat exponentially more difficult than breaching a single centralized database. This structural security makes blockchain-based systems particularly resistant to both technical attacks and insider manipulation.
However, the implementation of blockchain voting faces substantial practical and theoretical challenges. The “digital divide” remains a significant concern, as blockchain voting systems require voters to have access to appropriate technology and possess sufficient technical literacy. This could potentially disenfranchise populations with limited technological resources or digital skills, creating new forms of electoral inequality. Furthermore, while blockchain technology itself may be secure, the endpoints – the devices voters use to cast their votes – remain vulnerable to malware and hacking attempts. A compromised smartphone or computer could alter votes before they even reach the blockchain, undermining the entire system’s integrity.
The scalability question also presents significant technical hurdles. Most blockchain networks can process only a limited number of transactions per second. National elections involving millions of voters would require blockchain systems to handle unprecedented transaction volumes within a compressed timeframe. Current blockchain technologies struggle with this scalability challenge, though various technological innovations such as “sharding” and “layer-two solutions” are being developed to address these limitations.
Perhaps most critically, blockchain voting systems must navigate complex regulatory and legal frameworks. Election laws in most countries were written long before blockchain technology existed, and adapting these legal structures to accommodate new voting methods requires extensive legislative revision. Questions about voter authentication, dispute resolution, recounts, and legal challenges become significantly more complex in blockchain systems. Additionally, the irreversibility of blockchain entries, while generally an advantage, creates challenges for correcting legitimate errors or handling disputed votes.
Despite these challenges, several jurisdictions and organizations are making significant progress in developing practical blockchain voting solutions. The concept of How blockchain is enhancing sustainability in supply chains demonstrates how this technology can create transparent, auditable systems in complex environments, principles that apply equally to electoral systems. As the technology matures and addresses current limitations, blockchain voting may become an integral component of democratic processes, fundamentally transforming how societies ensure electoral transparency and integrity.
Hệ thống bầu cử điện tử ứng dụng công nghệ blockchain tăng cường tính minh bạch và bảo mật
Questions 14-18: Yes/No/Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in the passage? Write:
YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer
NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
-
Traditional electoral systems require citizens to trust multiple intermediaries in the voting process.
-
Blockchain voting eliminates all possible forms of electoral fraud.
-
Zero-knowledge proofs allow verification of vote counting while maintaining voter privacy.
-
The digital divide is no longer a significant concern in developed countries.
-
Most existing election laws are adequate for regulating blockchain voting systems.
Questions 19-23: Matching Information
Match the following concepts (19-23) with the correct description (A-H). You may use any letter more than once.
- End-to-end verifiability
- Universal verifiability
- Homomorphic encryption
- Sharding
- Layer-two solutions
A. A method allowing anyone to confirm votes were counted correctly
B. A system ensuring votes are cast, recorded, and counted accurately
C. A technique for processing more blockchain transactions
D. A cryptographic method that maintains voter privacy during verification
E. A way to attack blockchain systems
F. A type of centralized database
G. Another technological innovation to improve blockchain scalability
H. A method for identifying individual voters
Questions 24-26: Summary Completion
Complete the summary below. Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Blockchain voting systems create an (24) __ which records every vote with a unique signature. This allows for verification at multiple levels without compromising privacy. However, the (25) __ used by voters remain vulnerable to attacks even if the blockchain itself is secure. Additionally, blockchain systems face challenges with (26) __, as most networks can only process a limited number of transactions per second.
PASSAGE 3 – Cryptographic Foundations and Socio-Political Implications of Blockchain Voting
Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)
Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút
The epistemological challenge of establishing electoral legitimacy in contemporary democracies has prompted increasing scholarly attention to blockchain technology as a potential panacea for systemic vulnerabilities in voting systems. However, this technological solution introduces a complex interplay between cryptographic mechanisms, political theory, and social infrastructure that demands rigorous examination beyond mere technical feasibility. The fundamental question is not whether blockchain can theoretically enhance voting transparency, but rather how its implementation reconfigures the relationship between citizens, state institutions, and democratic accountability.
At the cryptographic foundation of blockchain voting lies a sophisticated architecture of distributed consensus algorithms and cryptographic primitives that collectively establish what computer scientists term Byzantine fault tolerance. This concept, derived from the “Byzantine Generals Problem” in distributed computing, addresses the challenge of achieving reliable consensus in a network where some participants may be unreliable or malicious. Modern blockchain implementations utilize various consensus mechanisms – including Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, and Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) – each presenting distinct trade-offs between security, scalability, and energy efficiency. The selection of an appropriate consensus mechanism for electoral applications requires careful consideration of threat models, attack vectors, and performance requirements specific to voting scenarios.
The cryptographic protocols underpinning voter privacy in blockchain systems represent particularly intricate mathematical constructions. Zero-knowledge proofs, specifically zk-SNARKs (Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge), enable the creation of cryptographic proofs that verify the validity of votes without revealing any information about the votes themselves. These probabilistic proofs leverage elliptic curve cryptography and polynomial commitment schemes to achieve computational soundness while maintaining perfect zero-knowledge properties. Similarly, homomorphic encryption schemes – whether partially homomorphic or fully homomorphic – permit mathematical operations on encrypted votes, enabling aggregation and tallying without decryption, thus preserving ballot secrecy throughout the counting process.
However, the theoretical elegance of these cryptographic solutions confronts substantial practical constraints when deployed in real-world electoral contexts. The computational overhead associated with advanced cryptographic operations creates significant latency in vote processing, potentially incompatible with the temporal requirements of large-scale elections. Furthermore, the cryptographic assumptions underlying these systems – such as the computational hardness of discrete logarithm problems or integer factorization – face potential obsolescence with the advent of quantum computing. Post-quantum cryptographic algorithms, while theoretically viable, remain computationally expensive and insufficiently tested for deployment in critical infrastructure like electoral systems.
The socio-political dimensions of blockchain voting transcend purely technical considerations, engaging fundamental questions about democratic epistemology and political legitimacy. Traditional voting systems embody what political theorists call “trust-based governance,” where electoral legitimacy derives from institutional credibility and procedural transparency overseen by neutral authorities. Blockchain voting, conversely, proposes a model of “trustless governance” where mathematical certainty replaces institutional trust. This paradigm shift has profound implications for democratic theory, potentially reconfiguring citizens’ relationship with electoral processes from one of delegated trust to direct verification.
Yet this transition is not without philosophical complications. The concept of mathematical verifiability assumes a level of technical literacy that may be unrealistic for broad populations, potentially creating what sociologists term “algorithmic alienation” – a condition where citizens are epistemically disconnected from the very mechanisms meant to ensure democratic participation. When the verification of electoral integrity requires understanding complex cryptographic protocols, the transparency promised by blockchain may become effectively opaque to most citizens, undermining the democratic ideal of accessible accountability. This raises the paradoxical possibility that blockchain voting, designed to enhance transparency, might instead create new forms of technocratic opacity.
The governance structures surrounding blockchain voting systems present additional theoretical and practical challenges. Who controls the protocol parameters? How are software updates and security patches implemented? What mechanisms exist for resolving disputes or correcting errors? These questions reveal tensions between blockchain’s decentralized ideology and the practical necessity of governance mechanisms. The immutability central to blockchain’s security guarantees becomes problematic when legitimate corrections are required, whether due to technical errors, security breaches, or disputed eligibility. The resolution of such issues often requires centralized decision-making, potentially contradicting the decentralized principles that justify blockchain’s adoption.
Empirical evidence from existing blockchain voting implementations reveals significant gaps between theoretical promises and practical outcomes. The Moscow 2019 parliamentary elections, which incorporated blockchain voting, faced criticism when security researchers identified critical vulnerabilities in the system’s implementation, demonstrating that theoretical cryptographic security does not guarantee practical system security. Similarly, Switzerland’s various blockchain voting pilots exposed challenges in achieving genuine end-to-end verifiability while maintaining user-friendly interfaces. These experiences underscore that blockchain voting’s success depends not merely on cryptographic soundness but on holistic system design encompassing user experience, operational procedures, legal frameworks, and social acceptance.
The future trajectory of blockchain voting will likely involve hybrid models that integrate blockchain’s transparency and security benefits with conventional electoral safeguards. Such systems might use blockchain for creating verifiable audit trails while retaining traditional paper ballots as a backup verification mechanism. This socio-technical approach acknowledges that technological innovation must be carefully integrated with existing institutional structures and social practices rather than completely replacing them. As research advances in post-quantum cryptography, scalable consensus mechanisms, and user-centric security design, blockchain may indeed contribute to more transparent and secure electoral systems – not as a standalone solution, but as one component in a multifaceted approach to safeguarding democratic processes.
Cấu trúc mã hóa phức tạp của hệ thống bầu cử blockchain với các thuật toán bảo mật
Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.
-
According to the passage, the Byzantine Generals Problem relates to:
A. ancient military strategies
B. achieving consensus when some participants may be unreliable
C. the history of blockchain technology
D. problems with traditional voting systems -
The passage suggests that zk-SNARKs are used to:
A. make voting faster
B. reduce the cost of elections
C. verify votes without revealing how individuals voted
D. replace traditional paper ballots -
The main concern about quantum computing mentioned in the passage is that it might:
A. make blockchain systems obsolete
B. break the cryptographic assumptions underlying current systems
C. be too expensive to implement
D. require too much technical training -
“Algorithmic alienation” refers to:
A. voters being disconnected from complex verification mechanisms
B. the cost of implementing blockchain systems
C. problems with cryptographic protocols
D. security vulnerabilities in blockchain -
The Moscow 2019 parliamentary elections example demonstrates that:
A. blockchain voting always works perfectly
B. theoretical security does not guarantee practical security
C. blockchain voting should never be used
D. only certain countries can use blockchain voting
Questions 32-36: Matching Features
Match the following concepts (32-36) with the correct characteristics (A-H). You may use any letter more than once.
Concepts:
32. Trust-based governance
33. Trustless governance
34. Homomorphic encryption
35. Post-quantum cryptography
36. Hybrid models
Characteristics:
A. Relies on institutional credibility and neutral authorities
B. Uses mathematical certainty instead of institutional trust
C. Allows mathematical operations on encrypted data
D. Designed to resist attacks from quantum computers
E. Combines blockchain with traditional electoral safeguards
F. Makes voting completely anonymous
G. Eliminates all need for human oversight
H. Reduces election costs significantly
Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions
Answer the questions below. Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
-
What type of cryptography do zk-SNARKs leverage to achieve computational soundness?
-
What creates significant latency in blockchain vote processing?
-
According to the passage, what might blockchain voting create instead of transparency?
-
What do Switzerland’s blockchain voting pilots show is necessary beyond cryptographic soundness?
Answer Keys – Đáp Án
PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13
- B
- C
- C
- B
- C
- NOT GIVEN
- FALSE
- TRUE
- NOT GIVEN
- TRUE
- block
- decentralized nature
- time and cost
PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26
- YES
- NO
- YES
- NOT GIVEN
- NO
- B
- A
- D
- C
- G
- audit trail / immutable audit trail
- endpoints
- scalability
PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40
- B
- C
- B
- A
- B
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- elliptic curve cryptography
- computational overhead
- technocratic opacity
- holistic system design
Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết
Passage 1 – Giải Thích
Câu 1: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: main purpose, linking blocks
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, câu cuối và Đoạn 3
- Giải thích: Bài văn nói rõ “These blocks are then linked together in a chronological chain” và đoạn 3 giải thích chi tiết về immutability – tính bất biến giúp ngăn chặn việc giả mạo. Đáp án B phản ánh đúng mục đích này.
Câu 2: C
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: traditional paper-based voting, suffer from
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, câu thứ 2
- Giải thích: Bài văn nêu rõ “Paper-based voting can be subject to ballot stuffing, miscounting, or deliberate manipulation.” Đây chính là đáp án C.
Câu 6: NOT GIVEN
- Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
- Từ khóa: originally designed, specifically for voting
- Vị trí trong bài: Không có thông tin
- Giải thích: Bài văn không đề cập đến việc blockchain được thiết kế ban đầu cho mục đích gì, chỉ nói về việc áp dụng nó vào hệ thống bầu cử.
Câu 7: FALSE
- Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
- Từ khóa: individual votes, traced back, specific voters
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, giữa đoạn
- Giải thích: Bài văn nói rõ “This doesn’t mean that individual votes can be traced back to specific voters, as the system maintains voter anonymity through encryption.” Điều này mâu thuẫn với câu khẳng định.
Câu 11: block
- Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
- Từ khóa: transaction, recorded as
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, câu thứ 3
- Giải thích: Câu gốc: “Each transaction, or in the case of voting, each vote, is recorded as a ‘block’ of data.”
Passage 2 – Giải Thích
Câu 14: YES
- Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
- Từ khóa: traditional electoral systems, trust multiple intermediaries
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, câu đầu
- Giải thích: Bài văn nêu rõ “citizens must trust election officials, voting machine manufacturers, and various intermediaries” – đúng với quan điểm của tác giả.
Câu 15: NO
- Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
- Từ khóa: eliminates all, electoral fraud
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6 và 7
- Giải thích: Tác giả chỉ ra nhiều thách thức và lỗ hổng vẫn còn tồn tại (endpoints vulnerable, digital divide), mâu thuẫn với việc “loại bỏ tất cả” gian lận.
Câu 19: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
- Từ khóa: end-to-end verifiability
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, giữa đoạn
- Giải thích: Bài văn định nghĩa “voters can confirm their votes were cast as intended, recorded as cast, and counted as recorded” – đúng với mô tả B về hệ thống đảm bảo votes được cast, record và count chính xác.
Câu 24: audit trail / immutable audit trail
- Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
- Từ khóa: records every vote, unique signature
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, câu đầu
- Giải thích: Câu gốc: “blockchain creates an immutable audit trail where every vote is recorded as a transaction with a unique cryptographic signature.”
Passage 3 – Giải Thích
Câu 27: B
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: Byzantine Generals Problem
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, giữa đoạn
- Giải thích: Bài văn giải thích “addresses the challenge of achieving reliable consensus in a network where some participants may be unreliable or malicious” – chính xác là đáp án B.
Câu 30: A
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: algorithmic alienation
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, giữa đoạn
- Giải thích: Định nghĩa rõ ràng: “a condition where citizens are epistemically disconnected from the very mechanisms meant to ensure democratic participation.”
Câu 32: A
- Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
- Từ khóa: trust-based governance
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5
- Giải thích: Bài văn mô tả “electoral legitimacy derives from institutional credibility and procedural transparency overseen by neutral authorities” – khớp với đặc điểm A.
Câu 37: elliptic curve cryptography
- Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
- Từ khóa: zk-SNARKs, leverage, computational soundness
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, giữa đoạn
- Giải thích: Câu gốc: “These probabilistic proofs leverage elliptic curve cryptography and polynomial commitment schemes to achieve computational soundness.”
Câu 40: holistic system design
- Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
- Từ khóa: Switzerland’s pilots, show, necessary, beyond cryptographic soundness
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, câu cuối
- Giải thích: “These experiences underscore that blockchain voting’s success depends not merely on cryptographic soundness but on holistic system design.”
Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage
Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| blockchain technology | n | /ˈblɒktʃeɪn tekˈnɒlədʒi/ | công nghệ chuỗi khối | blockchain technology in voting systems | implement blockchain technology |
| digital ledger | n | /ˈdɪdʒɪtl ˈledʒə/ | sổ cái kỹ thuật số | blockchain is a digital ledger | maintain a digital ledger |
| immutability | n | /ɪˌmjuːtəˈbɪləti/ | tính bất biến | One of the primary advantages… is its immutability | ensure immutability |
| cryptographic hash | n | /ˌkrɪptəˈɡræfɪk hæʃ/ | mã băm mật mã | each block contains a cryptographic hash | generate cryptographic hash |
| ballot stuffing | n | /ˈbælət ˈstʌfɪŋ/ | gian lận phiếu bầu | subject to ballot stuffing | prevent ballot stuffing |
| transparency | n | /trænsˈpærənsi/ | tính minh bạch | Transparency is another key benefit | increase transparency |
| distributed ledger | n | /dɪˈstrɪbjuːtɪd ˈledʒə/ | sổ cái phân tán | recorded on a distributed ledger | use distributed ledger |
| voter anonymity | n | /ˈvəʊtə ˌænəˈnɪməti/ | tính ẩn danh của cử tri | maintains voter anonymity | protect voter anonymity |
| decentralized nature | n | /diːˈsentrəlaɪzd ˈneɪtʃə/ | bản chất phi tập trung | The decentralized nature of blockchain | leverage decentralized nature |
| single point of failure | n | /ˈsɪŋɡl pɔɪnt əv ˈfeɪljə/ | điểm lỗi duy nhất | no single point of failure | eliminate single point of failure |
| digital literacy | n | /ˈdɪdʒɪtl ˈlɪtərəsi/ | kiến thức số | concerns about digital literacy | improve digital literacy |
| pilot program | n | /ˈpaɪlət ˈprəʊɡræm/ | chương trình thí điểm | more pilot programs are conducted | launch pilot program |
Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| electoral integrity | n | /ɪˈlektərəl ɪnˈteɡrəti/ | tính toàn vẹn bầu cử | The integrity of electoral processes | safeguard electoral integrity |
| vote manipulation | n | /vəʊt məˌnɪpjuˈleɪʃn/ | thao túng phiếu bầu | allegations of vote manipulation | prevent vote manipulation |
| inherent characteristics | n | /ɪnˈhɪərənt ˌkærəktəˈrɪstɪks/ | đặc tính vốn có | with its inherent characteristics | possess inherent characteristics |
| trust paradigm | n | /trʌst ˈpærədaɪm/ | mô hình niềm tin | operate on a fundamental trust paradigm | establish trust paradigm |
| end-to-end verifiability | n | /end tuː end ˌverɪfaɪəˈbɪləti/ | khả năng xác minh đầu cuối | creates end-to-end verifiability | ensure end-to-end verifiability |
| zero-knowledge proofs | n | /ˈzɪərəʊ ˈnɒlɪdʒ pruːfs/ | bằng chứng tri thức bằng không | through zero-knowledge proofs | implement zero-knowledge proofs |
| homomorphic encryption | n | /ˌhəʊməˈmɔːfɪk ɪnˈkrɪpʃn/ | mã hóa đồng cấu | homomorphic encryption schemes | apply homomorphic encryption |
| consensus mechanisms | n | /kənˈsensəs ˈmekənɪzəmz/ | cơ chế đồng thuận | various consensus mechanisms | utilize consensus mechanisms |
| digital divide | n | /ˈdɪdʒɪtl dɪˈvaɪd/ | khoảng cách số | The digital divide remains a concern | bridge the digital divide |
| disenfranchise | v | /ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz/ | tước quyền bầu cử | could potentially disenfranchise populations | risk disenfranchising voters |
| scalability challenge | n | /ˌskeɪləˈbɪləti ˈtʃælɪndʒ/ | thách thức về khả năng mở rộng | struggle with this scalability challenge | address scalability challenge |
| Byzantine fault tolerance | n | /ˈbɪzəntiːn fɔːlt ˈtɒlərəns/ | khả năng chịu lỗi Byzantine | creates Byzantine fault tolerance | achieve Byzantine fault tolerance |
| cryptographic signature | n | /ˌkrɪptəˈɡræfɪk ˈsɪɡnətʃə/ | chữ ký mật mã | with a unique cryptographic signature | verify cryptographic signature |
| audit trail | n | /ˈɔːdɪt treɪl/ | dấu vết kiểm toán | creates an immutable audit trail | maintain audit trail |
| universal verifiability | n | /ˌjuːnɪˈvɜːsl ˌverɪfaɪəˈbɪləti/ | khả năng xác minh phổ quát | enables universal verifiability | provide universal verifiability |
Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| epistemological challenge | n | /ɪˌpɪstɪməˈlɒdʒɪkl ˈtʃælɪndʒ/ | thách thức nhận thức luận | The epistemological challenge of establishing | face epistemological challenge |
| electoral legitimacy | n | /ɪˈlektərəl lɪˈdʒɪtɪməsi/ | tính hợp pháp bầu cử | establishing electoral legitimacy | ensure electoral legitimacy |
| systemic vulnerabilities | n | /sɪˈstemɪk ˌvʌlnərəˈbɪlətiz/ | lỗ hổng hệ thống | systemic vulnerabilities in voting | address systemic vulnerabilities |
| Byzantine Generals Problem | n | /ˈbɪzəntiːn ˈdʒenrəlz ˈprɒbləm/ | Vấn đề các tướng Byzantine | derived from the Byzantine Generals Problem | solve Byzantine Generals Problem |
| consensus algorithms | n | /kənˈsensəs ˈælɡərɪðəmz/ | thuật toán đồng thuận | sophisticated architecture of consensus algorithms | implement consensus algorithms |
| zk-SNARKs | n | /ziː keɪ snɑːks/ | bằng chứng tri thức súc tích | specifically zk-SNARKs | utilize zk-SNARKs |
| elliptic curve cryptography | n | /ɪˈlɪptɪk kɜːv krɪpˈtɒɡrəfi/ | mã hóa đường cong elliptic | leverage elliptic curve cryptography | apply elliptic curve cryptography |
| computational overhead | n | /ˌkɒmpjuˈteɪʃənl ˈəʊvəhed/ | chi phí tính toán | The computational overhead creates latency | reduce computational overhead |
| quantum computing | n | /ˈkwɒntəm kəmˈpjuːtɪŋ/ | điện toán lượng tử | with the advent of quantum computing | prepare for quantum computing |
| post-quantum cryptography | n | /pəʊst ˈkwɒntəm krɪpˈtɒɡrəfi/ | mã hóa hậu lượng tử | Post-quantum cryptographic algorithms | develop post-quantum cryptography |
| trustless governance | n | /ˈtrʌstləs ˈɡʌvənəns/ | quản trị không cần tin cậy | proposes a model of trustless governance | establish trustless governance |
| algorithmic alienation | n | /ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk ˌeɪliəˈneɪʃn/ | sự xa lánh thuật toán | creating algorithmic alienation | overcome algorithmic alienation |
| technocratic opacity | n | /ˌteknəˈkrætɪk əʊˈpæsəti/ | sự mờ đục kỹ trị | create new forms of technocratic opacity | avoid technocratic opacity |
| protocol parameters | n | /ˈprəʊtəkɒl pəˈræmɪtəz/ | thông số giao thức | controls the protocol parameters | adjust protocol parameters |
| holistic system design | n | /həˈlɪstɪk ˈsɪstəm dɪˈzaɪn/ | thiết kế hệ thống toàn diện | depends on holistic system design | require holistic system design |
| socio-technical approach | n | /ˌsəʊsiəʊ ˈteknɪkl əˈprəʊtʃ/ | phương pháp kỹ thuật – xã hội | This socio-technical approach | adopt socio-technical approach |
| hybrid models | n | /ˈhaɪbrɪd ˈmɒdlz/ | mô hình lai | likely involve hybrid models | implement hybrid models |
| multifaceted approach | n | /ˌmʌltiˈfæsɪtɪd əˈprəʊtʃ/ | cách tiếp cận đa diện | as one component in a multifaceted approach | take multifaceted approach |
Kết Luận
Chủ đề về vai trò của blockchain trong việc tăng cường tính minh bạch bầu cử là một trong những đề tài hiện đại và có tính thời sự cao, thường xuất hiện trong các bài thi IELTS Reading gần đây. Qua bộ đề thi mẫu với 3 passages từ dễ đến khó, bạn đã được làm quen với đầy đủ các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến trong IELTS Reading.
Passage 1 giới thiệu các khái niệm cơ bản về blockchain và ứng dụng trong bầu cử, phù hợp với band 5.0-6.5. Passage 2 đi sâu hơn vào các cơ chế kỹ thuật và thách thức thực tiễn, yêu cầu khả năng phân tích ở band 6.0-7.5. Passage 3 khám phá các khía cạnh lý thuyết, mật mã học và triết học chính trị, thử thách học viên band 7.0-9.0.
Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể đã chỉ ra cách xác định thông tin trong bài, kỹ thuật paraphrase và chiến lược làm bài cho từng dạng câu hỏi. Bảng từ vựng tổng hợp hơn 40 từ quan trọng với phiên âm, nghĩa và collocations sẽ giúp bạn nâng cao vốn từ vựng học thuật.
Hãy luyện tập thường xuyên với các đề thi mẫu như thế này, chú ý quản lý thời gian và rèn luyện kỹ năng skimming, scanning để đạt band điểm cao trong IELTS Reading. Chúc bạn ôn tập hiệu quả và thành công trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!
