TCF Canada expression écrite tâche 3: the opinion essay, worked

The TCF Canada writing task 3 is the one that separates an NCLC 7 script from an NCLC 9 script, and the reason is a single behaviour. You are given two documents presenting two viewpoints on a social issue, and asked to compare them and then give your opinion, in roughly 120 to 180 words. Summarise document A, then document B, then add your view, and you have produced B1 work - a string of elements laid end to end. Put the two positions in relation and name where they actually disagree, and you are doing the B2 thing the task was built to test.

That distinction is worth memorising, because it is the whole game. The CEFR B2 descriptor for written production asks you to “synthesise and evaluate information and arguments from a number of sources”. Task 3 exists to check that line. The word range and the 60-minute total below come from the TCF Canada expression écrite section page; reconfirm them on france-education-international.fr, since exam facts can shift.

What is the four-move skeleton for tâche 3?

Reusable on any prompt, one move per block of sentences:

• Name the debate in one sentence, without copying a word from the documents.
• Reformulate position A and what it rests on, attributed to its author.
• Reformulate position B and say exactly where it contradicts A.
• Take a stand with a reason, a concrete example and a concession.

The sentence that earns the level is the friction sentence: Le désaccord porte sur X, et non sur Y. That single move turns two summaries into a comparison. Practise producing it on any topic - the disagreement is about means, not ends; about the short term, not the principle; about who decides, not about what.

A worked model answer

Prompt: document 1, a head teacher, reports that banning phones cut incidents by a third in a year; document 2, an education researcher, argues that confiscating phones prepares pupils for nothing. You write for your neighbourhood website, comparing the two, then giving your view. A model at 158 words:

Faut-il interdire le téléphone au collège ? Les deux textes répondent l’un oui, l’autre non, et pour des raisons qui ne se situent pas sur le même terrain. La principale raisonne à partir de ce qu’elle observe dans sa cour : depuis l’interdiction, les élèves se parlent et les incidents ont reculé. Son argument est un constat, limité à un établissement et à une année. Le chercheur ne nie pas ce constat ; il le juge insuffisant, parce qu’un collège doit préparer à un usage qui durera toute une vie. Le désaccord porte donc sur l’horizon : l’une regarde la récréation de demain, l’autre l’adulte de 2040. Je penche pour l’interdiction, à une condition. Retirer l’outil sans rien enseigner ne règle rien, c’est vrai. Mais on n’apprend pas à conduire au milieu du trafic. Le collège de mon quartier a supprimé les téléphones et ouvert un atelier hebdomadaire sur les réseaux sociaux : ensemble, les deux mesures tiennent debout.

Why does that model score where a summary does not?

Look at what it does. It opens on the question, which names the debate without borrowing a word. Each position is attributed to its author, so it is synthesised rather than quoted. The first argument is evaluated, not repeated - the text notes that a finding from one school over one year stays narrow, and that is the evaluation the B2 descriptor demands. The friction is named in a single sentence. The seven-word concession - c’est vrai, then the pivot - is worth more than a paragraph of assertion. And the driving-in-traffic image argues without borrowing the documents’ language.

What are the traps that cap task 3?

• Copying a sentence from a document. This is a published condition for “A1 non atteint” on the whole script. Read the document, turn the sheet over, write the idea from memory.
• Two summaries with no relation. Without the friction sentence you have delivered B1 behaviour under a B2 word count.
• An opinion with no example. A stand without a concrete instance is just an assertion; the concession is what marks the level.
• Running out of time. An unfinished task 3 is one of the six conditions for “A1 non atteint” on everything, so three finished texts always beat two polished ones.

How do I plan tâche 3 under the clock?

Read all three prompts, task 3 documents included, before you write a word - about three minutes. It sounds wasteful, but your mind starts working on task 3 the moment it knows the theme, while your hand writes task 1; and you cannot afford to meet task 3 for the first time with a few minutes left. A workable budget leaves task 3 roughly twenty-two minutes, six of them to reread the documents and build the plan. Write the plan as fifteen words on the rough sheet - débat, position A, position B, friction, your view - and the friction line forces you to find the point of disagreement before you write, which is what keeps two summaries from masquerading as a comparison. None of this timing is official, so treat it as a strategy and confirm the 60-minute total on france-education-international.fr.

Aim near 165 words, verify with the word counter, and if you want a marker to tell you whether your friction sentence actually lands, that feedback is what the TCF Canada course is built to give.