TASK 2 (DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS): BANNING DANGEROUS SPORTS
Practice: Luyện brainstorming và chỉ viết Thân bài
Topic: Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Ghi chú
Khi viết Task 2 mình sẽ thường brainstorm và viết luôn Thân bài 1 và Thân bài 2, sau đó mới viết đến Mở bài và Kết luận cuối cùng sau khi đã hoàn thành Body 1 + 2. Nguyên nhân là do Conclusion cũng chính là tóm lược lại hay paraphrase cho câu Opinion của phần Intro (hay rộng hơn chính là paraphrase lại câu Topic sentence 1 và Topic sentence 2 của Thân bài 1+2). Nguyên nhân nữa là do mình không muốn mất thời gian sa đà vào Intro, bởi quan trọng chính là Body paragraphs!
Sample Body paragraphs (Viết canh giờ 25 phút)
Body 1:
Proponents of prohibiting extreme sporting activities argue in favour of the perceived benefits for public safety and individual well-being. These advocates maintain that governments’ revenues are derived from taxpayers’ incomes and thus various levels of governmental entities are naturally tasked with safeguarding public benefits. To this end, valid protection from potential damage to health and security, of which extreme activities may incur, falls right into this fundamental tenet. A ban would, therefore, serve as a disincentive to individuals seeking thrills through participation in dangerous sporting endeavours, thereby discouraging unnecessary recklessness and fostering a sense of public safety. For example, a prohibition issued in sky diving would discourage not only professionals but also amateurs sky-divers and would-be participants, contributing to the lowered rates of injury and fatality.
Body 2:
Nevertheless, such an autocratic measure can be unprecedented and risks undermining individual freedom. This is because an outright ban would potentially infringe upon fundamental human rights, leading to public backlash and discontentment. It is imprudent for governments to lose their credibility and public trust through such a short-sighted and not well-thought out policy. Therefore, a better response would be to raise individual self-awareness regarding personal safety and limit these extreme undertakings to only certified professionals. With regard to the former, local authorities can organise various workshops teaching the intricacies of popular dangerous sports and the use of PPE (personal protective equipment). As far as the latter is concerned, entities organising events concerning dangerous sports should be required by law to only provide services to authorised personnel. Only with stringent regulations would participations in these sports see increased levels of safety and not risk undermining fundamental personal freedom.
Marking by Chat GPT Plus
Sửa lỗi Grammar sau khi viết
Topic: Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Body 1:
Proponents of prohibiting extreme sporting activities argue in favour of the perceived benefits for public safety and individual well-being. These advocates maintain that governments’ revenues are derived from taxpayers’ incomes and thus various levels of governmental entities are naturally tasked with safeguarding public benefits. To this end, valid protection from potential damage to health and security, of which extreme activities may incur which may be caused by extreme activities, falls right into this fundamental tenet. A ban would, therefore, serve as a disincentive to individuals seeking thrills through participation in dangerous sporting endeavours, thereby discouraging unnecessary recklessness and fostering a sense of public safety. For example, a prohibition issued in imposed on sky diving would discourage not only professionals but also amateurs sky–divers and would-be participants, contributing to the lowered rates of injury and fatality.
Body 2:
Nevertheless, such an autocratic measure can be unprecedented and risks undermining individual freedom. This is because an outright ban would potentially infringe upon fundamental human rights, leading to public backlash and discontentment. It is imprudent for governments to lose their credibility and public trust through such a short-sighted and not well-thought out ill-thought-out policy. Therefore, a better response would be to raise individual self-awareness regarding personal safety and limit these extreme undertakings to only certified professionals. With regard to the former, local authorities can organise various workshops teaching the intricacies of popular dangerous sports and the use of PPE (personal protective equipment). As far as the latter is concerned, entities organising events concerning dangerous sports should be required by law to only provide services to authorised personnel. Only with stringent regulations would participations in these sports see increased levels of safety and not risk undermining fundamental personal freedom.
Tóm tắt lỗi Grammar
| ❌ Incorrect / Awkward | ✅ Correction |
| of which extreme activities may incur | which may be caused by extreme activities |
| issued in sky diving | imposed on skydiving |
| amateurs sky-divers | amateur skydivers |
| lowered rates | lower rates |
| not well-thought out | ill-thought-out |
| entitiesorganising | entities organising |
| participations | participation |
Final Sample Body paragraphs
Topic: Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Body 1:
Proponents of prohibiting extreme sporting activities argue in favour of the perceived benefits for public safety and individual well-being. These advocates maintain that governments’ revenues are derived from taxpayers’ incomes, and thus various levels of governmental entities are naturally tasked with safeguarding public benefits. To this end, valid protection from potential damage to health and security, which may be caused by extreme activities, falls right into this fundamental tenet. A ban would, therefore, serve as a disincentive to individuals seeking thrills through participation in dangerous sporting endeavours, thereby discouraging unnecessary recklessness and fostering a sense of public safety. For example, a prohibition imposed on skydiving would discourage not only professional but also amateur skydivers and would-be participants, contributing to lower rates of injury and fatality.
Body 2:
Nevertheless, such an autocratic measure can be unprecedented and risks undermining individual freedom. This is because an outright ban would potentially infringe upon fundamental human rights, leading to public backlash and discontent. It is imprudent for governments to lose their credibility and public trust through such a short-sighted and ill-thought-out policy. Therefore, a better response would be to raise individual self-awareness regarding personal safety and limit these extreme undertakings to certified professionals. With regard to the former, local authorities can organise various workshops teaching the intricacies of popular dangerous sports and the use of PPE (personal protective equipment). As far as the latter is concerned, entities organising events concerning dangerous sports should be required by law to only provide services to authorised personnel. Only with stringent regulations would participation in these sports see increased levels of safety and not risk undermining fundamental personal freedom.
Vocabulary
| Phrase / Collocation | Vietnamese Translation |
| Proponents of prohibiting | Những người ủng hộ việc cấm |
| Perceived benefits | Lợi ích được nhìn nhận |
| Public safety | An toàn công cộng |
| Individual well-being | Sức khỏe và phúc lợi cá nhân |
| Advocates maintain | Người ủng hộ cho rằng |
| Governmental entities | Cơ quan chính phủ |
| Safeguarding public benefits | Bảo vệ lợi ích cộng đồng |
| Valid protection from potential damage | Bảo vệ hợp lý khỏi nguy cơ thiệt hại |
| Fundamental tenet | Nguyên lý cơ bản |
| Disincentive | Sự ngăn cản, yếu tố làm nản chí |
| Seeking thrills | Tìm cảm giác mạnh |
| Dangerous sporting endeavours | Những nỗ lực tham gia môn thể thao mạo hiểm |
| Discouraging unnecessary recklessness | Ngăn chặn sự liều lĩnh không cần thiết |
| Fostering a sense of public safety | Thúc đẩy cảm giác an toàn trong cộng đồng |
| Prohibition imposed on skydiving | Lệnh cấm áp dụng cho nhảy dù |
| Amateur skydivers | Người nhảy dù nghiệp dư |
| Lower rates of injury and fatality | Tỷ lệ chấn thương và tử vong thấp hơn |
| Nevertheless | Tuy nhiên |
| Autocratic measure | Biện pháp độc đoán |
| Unprecedented | Chưa từng có |
| Undermining individual freedom | Làm suy yếu quyền tự do cá nhân |
| Outright ban | Lệnh cấm hoàn toàn |
| Infringe upon fundamental human rights | Xâm phạm quyền con người cơ bản |
| Public backlash | Phản ứng dữ dội từ công chúng |
| Discontent | Sự bất mãn |
| Imprudent | Thiếu thận trọng |
| Credibility | Sự tín nhiệm |
| Public trust | Niềm tin của công chúng |
| Short-sighted | Thiển cận |
| Ill-thought-out policy | Chính sách thiếu suy nghĩ |
| Raise individual self-awareness | Nâng cao ý thức cá nhân |
| Personal safety | Sự an toàn cá nhân |
| Limit these extreme undertakings | Hạn chế các hoạt động mạo hiểm này |
| Certified professionals | Chuyên gia được cấp phép |
| Organise workshops | Tổ chức hội thảo |
| Intricacies of popular dangerous sports | Chi tiết phức tạp của các môn thể thao mạo hiểm phổ biến |
| PPE (personal protective equipment) | Trang thiết bị bảo hộ cá nhân |
| Entities organising events | Các đơn vị tổ chức sự kiện |
| Authorised personnel | Nhân sự được ủy quyền |
| Stringent regulations | Quy định nghiêm ngặt |
| Increased levels of safety | Mức độ an toàn được nâng cao |
| Undermining fundamental personal freedom | Làm suy yếu quyền tự do cá nhân cơ bản |
Dàn ý
Bài viết của mình sẽ bao gồm 1 đoạn mở bài (introduction), 2 đoạn thân bài (body paragraph), và 1 đoạn kết bài (conclusion).
- Intro: (Không viết)
- Body 1: Mình sẽ trình bày lập luận của phe ủng hộ lệnh cấm, nhấn mạnh vào lợi ích về an toàn cộng đồng và hạn chế rủi ro.
- Body 2: Mình sẽ phản biện quan điểm trên, cho rằng việc cấm đoán làm tổn hại quyền tự do cá nhân, và đề xuất giải pháp thay thế là tăng cường kiểm soát + nâng cao nhận thức.
- Conclusion: (Không viết)
Dàn ý cụ thể của 2 Body Paragraphs:
Body paragraph 1:
Phe ủng hộ việc cấm cho rằng điều đó mang lại lợi ích cho xã hội
- Lập luận 1: Đảm bảo an toàn cộng đồng
→ Những môn thể thao mạo hiểm gây nguy cơ chấn thương nghiêm trọng hoặc tử vong.
→ Cause & Effect: Giảm số người tham gia → Giảm chi phí y tế và tai nạn ngoài ý muốn.
→ Example: Cấm nhảy dù giúp giảm tỉ lệ tai nạn cho cả vận động viên chuyên và không chuyên. - Lập luận 2: Trách nhiệm của chính phủ
→ Chính phủ thu thuế từ dân thì có nghĩa vụ bảo vệ dân.
→ Reasoning: Nếu không kiểm soát, tiền thuế sẽ phải dùng để chữa hậu quả (bệnh viện, cấp cứu…)
Body paragraph 2:
Phản biện lại quan điểm trên, ủng hộ quyền tự do cá nhân + đưa ra giải pháp
- Lập luận 1: Tổn hại quyền tự do
→ Việc cấm chơi thể thao là vi phạm quyền cơ bản của con người.
→ Cause & Effect: Lệnh cấm → Mất niềm tin vào chính phủ → Phản ứng tiêu cực từ công chúng. - Lập luận 2: Giải pháp hợp lý hơn
→ Thay vì cấm, nên có quy định kiểm soát chuyên nghiệp
→ Examples:- Chỉ cho phép người có giấy phép tham gia.
- Tổ chức các khóa huấn luyện, workshop an toàn, hướng dẫn sử dụng PPE (thiết bị bảo hộ).
→ Kết: Đảm bảo vừa an toàn vừa bảo vệ quyền cá nhân.
Tủ Grammar
| Cấu Trúc / Grammar | Ví dụ áp dụng trong bài |
| It is + adj + for sb to do sth | It is imprudent for governments to lose public trust. |
| Cause and Effect (Câu nhân – quả) | Constant monitoring may lead to heightened public mistrust. |
| With + noun / V-ing (mở rộng câu) | With stringent regulations, participation in these sports can become much safer. |
| Instead of + V-ing | Instead of banning, authorities should implement safer procedures. |
| Subject + should be + V3 (bị động) | These sports should be restricted to certified professionals. |
| Not only … but also … | Not only professionals but also amateur thrill-seekers would be discouraged. |
| A better response would be to… | A better response would be to raise public awareness about personal safety. |
| Despite + noun/V-ing | Despite the risks, many individuals still choose to participate. |
| Participial phrase (Phẩy + V-ing) | …thereby discouraging unnecessary recklessness and fostering a sense of public safety. |
| Relative clause (who/which/where…) | Entities which organise dangerous sports should be required to enforce strict protocols. |
