TCF Canada Writing Task 3: The Structure That Earns the Points

Of the three tasks in the TCF Canada writing paper, the third carries the most weight and gets the least preparation. It comes last, when concentration is already thinning, and it asks for something almost nobody practises in writing: weigh two opposing opinions, then take a position — in about 150 words of French.

The good news is that task 3 is the most predictable part of the paper. The format does not move, the expected structure does not move, and the marking grid does not move. Once the plan is automatic, all that is left is to write.

What task 3 actually asks for

The writing paper runs 60 minutes and contains three tasks. Task 3 is the last and the most demanding.

Take the timing seriously: task 3 deserves half the paper. Tasks 1 and 2 are shorter and far more mechanical, and should be cleared in roughly thirty minutes between them. A candidate who polishes task 1 for twenty minutes arrives at task 3 with fifteen minutes and a rushed text — the single most common time-management failure in the paper.

For where this paper sits in the whole exam, our complete TCF Canada guide walks through all four skills.

The two-part structure that makes the difference

The expected plan is four blocks and takes five minutes to sketch.

1. One opening sentence naming the topic and the writing situation — you are posting on a forum, writing to a magazine, replying to an association. One sentence, not three.
2. The two documents set against each other: what the first says, what the second says, with a clear hinge between them. Roughly 50 to 60 words.
3. Your own position, stated explicitly, supported by two arguments, at least one of them illustrated with a concrete example. Roughly 60 to 70 words.
4. One closing sentence that qualifies or opens out. One again.

Mistake number one is using only one document. It rarely comes from laziness: one of the two opinions matches what the candidate already thinks, so the other quietly disappears. The examiner does not let it disappear — the comparison is written into the instructions, therefore into the task-fulfilment criterion.

The second structural failure is the summary with no stance. A text that lays out both views perfectly and ends on "everyone has a point" has not answered the question. The argued position is not a bonus; it is the task.

The marking grid, criterion by criterion

Your text is read by an examiner working from a grid. Understanding it changes how you write.

One counter-intuitive point: controlled risk pays. A text made entirely of short present-tense sentences is correct but caps out. Two or three more ambitious structures — a subjunctive after bien que, a relative clause with dont, a conditional hypothesis — signal a higher level to the examiner. Two that land beat ten attempted.

Our writing method page breaks each criterion down with sample productions by level.

A worked example, start to finish

What follows is a practice prompt built on the official format, written by our teaching team. It is not a real exam subject: it is a reconstruction of the format, made for training.

The prompt

Document 1 — « Depuis que ma ville a rendu les transports en commun gratuits, je laisse ma voiture au garage. Les bus sont plus fréquents, l’air est plus respirable et je fais des économies chaque mois. C’est la mesure la plus utile prise ici en dix ans. » — Amina, 34 ans Document 2 — « La gratuité est une fausse bonne idée. Le réseau est saturé aux heures de pointe, les véhicules vieillissent faute de budget et ce sont les impôts locaux qui paient. J’aurais préféré des tarifs bas et un réseau qui fonctionne. » — Karim, 41 ans Instruction — Vous réagissez sur le forum du magazine en ligne qui publie ces deux témoignages. Vous présentez les deux points de vue et vous exposez le vôtre, en l’illustrant d’exemples. (120 à 180 mots)

In English: two readers disagree about making city public transport free. You are posting on the magazine's forum. Summarise both views, then give and argue your own, with examples, in 120 to 180 words.

The five-minute plan

• Situation: magazine forum, neutral-to-formal register, first person.
• Doc 1, Amina: free transport, fewer cars, cleaner air, savings.
• Doc 2, Karim: overcrowding, ageing fleet, funded by local taxes.
• My position: broadly in favour, but conditional on real investment.
• Argument 1: access for low-income households, example of students.
• Argument 2: free fares alone are not enough, example of suburban lines.
• Close: worth doing only if service levels rise with it.

The finished text

Les deux témoignages publiés par votre magazine illustrent bien le débat sur la gratuité des transports. Amina y voit une mesure écologique et sociale : elle a renoncé à sa voiture et constate une amélioration de la qualité de l’air. Karim, à l’inverse, souligne la saturation du réseau et s’inquiète d’un financement assuré par les impôts locaux. Pour ma part, je suis favorable à la gratuité, à condition qu’elle s’accompagne d’un investissement réel. Elle change la vie des foyers les plus modestes : dans mon quartier, plusieurs étudiants ont pu accepter un stage éloigné parce que le trajet ne leur coûtait plus rien. Bien que cet effet soit important, il reste insuffisant si l’offre stagne. Les lignes de banlieue dont Karim parle sont précisément celles qui manquaient déjà de véhicules avant la réforme. La gratuité n’est donc pas une erreur : c’est une première étape qui n’a de sens que si le réseau suit.

161 words.

The annotations

• Task fulfilment — both documents are named and fairly summarised, the personal position is explicit and illustrated, and the communication situation (a forum post addressed to the magazine) is respected. Length sits inside the band.
• Coherence — the progression is clean: observation, contrast, position, qualification, opening. The hinges à l’inverse, pour ma part, bien que and donc guide the reader without clutter.
• Vocabulary — renoncé à, saturation, stagne, première étape avoid filler vocabulary. No repetition of chose or faire.
• Grammar — two risks that land: the subjunctive after bien que, and the relative clause dont Karim parle. This is exactly what separates an average script from a good one.
• What could still improve — the student example could be sharper. A number, even approximate (commute length, monthly saving), anchors the argument.

We deliberately publish no numerical mark on this example. Exam scores are awarded by a human examiner on a real script under session conditions; stamping "16/20" on a practice text would be false precision. What is useful is the criterion-by-criterion annotation — and that is what our simulator produces.

20 connectors that hold a point of view together

Learn them by function, not alphabetically. Three per category is enough on the day.

• Reporting a view: selon, d’après, pour sa part, aux yeux de.
• Contrasting: à l’inverse, en revanche, alors que, tandis que, or.
• Conceding: certes… mais, bien que (+ subjunctive), même si, il est vrai que.
• Adding: de plus, par ailleurs, non seulement… mais aussi.
• Illustrating: ainsi, par exemple, c’est le cas de, on le voit à travers.
• Closing or qualifying: en définitive, à condition que (+ subjunctive), plutôt que.

A dosage rule: one connector per idea, not one per sentence. A script saturated with de plus and en outre reads like a grammar drill, and the coherence criterion penalises overload as much as absence.

The six mistakes that cost the most

1. Using only one document. A direct loss on task fulfilment, whatever else you do.
2. Not taking a position. A neutral summary has not answered the instruction.
3. Going past 180 words. More text means more errors, for no extra marks.
4. Copying phrases from the documents. The examiner is looking for your reformulation, not your transcription.
5. Ignoring the communication situation. Writing a school essay when a forum post was requested costs task-fulfilment marks.
6. Skipping the proofread. Five targeted minutes — subject-verb agreement, past participles, verb endings — almost always recovers three or four errors.

These are fixed by repetition, not by reading. If your exam is close, our 30-day study plan schedules one corrected written production per day in week 3.

Practising with automated correction

Writing without correction engraves your mistakes. The Examia writing simulator works on the same principle as the annotations above: you write under exam conditions, with the timer and the word counter running, then you get structured feedback organised by the four grid criteria — task fulfilment, coherence, vocabulary, grammar — with the relevant passages highlighted inside your own text.

What it surfaces:

• gaps against the instruction (a document dropped, no stated position, length outside the band);
• coherence breaks between paragraphs;
• lexical repetition, with higher-register alternatives;
• grammar errors ranked by frequency, so you know which one to fix first.

For current formats, our writing topics are filed month by month, and the subscription plans include unlimited corrections.

FAQ

How many words should task 3 be?

Between 120 and 180 words. Under 120 you lose marks on task fulfilment. Over 180 you multiply errors without gaining anything: 150 to 170 words is the comfortable zone.

Do I really have to use both documents?

Yes. The instructions ask you to set two viewpoints against each other before giving your own. Ignoring one document is the most expensive mistake in task 3, because it hits task fulfilment directly.

How much of the hour should task 3 take?

About 30 of the 60 minutes: 5 planning, 20 writing, 5 proofreading. Tasks 1 and 2 are shorter and more mechanical and should be cleared in 30 minutes combined.

Can I take a strong personal position?

Yes, and it is expected. The examiner does not mark your opinion, only your ability to state, qualify and illustrate it. A clear argued view beats a cautious empty one every time.