TCF Canada Writing Task 3: Compare and Argue

Separate the two viewpoints from your own decision

TCF Canada writing task 3 combines comparison and argument. You need to present the supplied viewpoints fairly before explaining your own position. The difficult part is often keeping those voices separate. If you begin with your opinion and make both source viewpoints sound like versions of it, the comparison disappears. Read each text for its main claim and reason, then identify where they agree, disagree, or address different needs.

The published format gives a total target of 120–180 words within the shared sixty-minute writing section. See the UQAM test-centre format reference. Follow the instructions on the task you receive, including any separate part requirements. The shorter viewpoints in our original drill are for practising comparison; they do not reproduce the full length or layout of an exam document.

Practise with an original domestic-choice drill

Open E3-001: planned meals or spontaneous menus. Ana explains that preparing meals for the week leaves more time for people close to her. Luc says that choosing a menu at the last moment lets him follow his preferences. The writing instruction asks you to compare their reasons and explain your own preference in a short article. Both are talking about meals, but their decision criteria differ: time available for others and freedom to choose.

A fair original summary fragment is « Ana préfère organiser ses repas à l'avance pour préserver du temps avec ses proches. Luc, au contraire, apprécie la liberté de décider selon ses envies. » This preserves each person's reason. It does not claim that Ana dislikes cooking or that Luc wastes food, because neither assertion is supplied. Your argument can discuss those possibilities as your own considerations if you clearly introduce them as such.

Use a claim-and-reason reading method

First, draw two small columns, one for each viewpoint. Under each, write the preferred option and the reason given. Use keywords rather than copying sentences. Then look for the shared question: how should someone organise everyday meals? The shared question makes comparison possible. Without it, you might produce two summaries that sit beside each other but never explain the relationship between them.

Second, check the strength of the claims. Preferring an approach does not mean demanding that everyone use it. A text that describes a personal benefit is not necessarily a universal prescription. Avoid words like toujours, tous, or jamais unless the supplied viewpoint actually supports them. Distorting a moderate position into an extreme one makes your later argument easier but makes the summary less faithful.

Third, paraphrase through meaning. Replace a whole idea with your own sentence structure rather than changing one word in a copied line. « Garder du temps pour mes proches » could be expressed as « préserver des moments avec sa famille ». Check that the new version does not narrow the meaning unnecessarily: proches can include friends as well as family. A simpler faithful phrase is preferable to a sophisticated but inaccurate synonym.

Fourth, choose your decision criterion. For this drill, predictability during a busy week is one possible criterion. Explain why it matters, give a concrete example, and acknowledge what spontaneous choice offers. You might favour planning the main meals while leaving one evening open. A conditional position can be clear if you specify how it works; it becomes vague when you merely say that everything has advantages and disadvantages.

Fifth, conclude from the criterion you developed. « Je préparerais donc quelques bases le dimanche tout en gardant une soirée libre » follows from balancing time and flexibility. A conclusion about public transport would be unrelated even if its French were accurate. Before editing grammar, ask whether a reader can trace your decision back to the comparison and your own reason.

Develop an original argument without replacing the sources

Try this original practice paragraph: « Pour ma part, je privilégie une organisation souple. Préparer deux plats le dimanche peut simplifier les soirées où je rentre tard. Cependant, je garderais un repas sans menu prévu afin de profiter des produits disponibles au marché. Cette solution répond à mon besoin de temps sans supprimer toute liberté. » It contains a preference, a specific situation, a limitation, and a response to that limitation. It is a fragment you can adapt, not a full response to memorise.

Notice that the example concerns the writer's schedule. It is not attributed to Ana or Luc. When practising, mark summary sentences with one colour and your own reasoning with another. A third colour can identify hypothetical examples. If you cannot tell which voice owns a sentence, revise its introduction. « Selon Ana… » and « Pour ma part… » are simple ways to make the distinction visible.

Common mistakes in comparison and argument

« Les deux documents disent que planifier est nécessaire » is inaccurate here because Luc favours deciding later. Repair the meaning first: « Les deux personnes cherchent une organisation adaptée à leur quotidien, mais elles privilégient des méthodes différentes ». This sentence identifies common ground without inventing agreement. Accurate comparison is more important than choosing a decorative connector.

For grammar, « Luc pense à choisir selon ses envies » changes the meaning toward thinking about choosing. If you mean that he believes this method is preferable, use « Luc pense qu'il vaut mieux choisir selon ses envies ». « Je préfère de préparer les repas » becomes « Je préfère préparer les repas ». « Cette méthode permet gagner du temps » becomes « Cette méthode permet de gagner du temps ». Keep a small list of verb patterns you use frequently.

For concession, avoid an unfinished structure such as « Bien que la méthode est pratique ». You can write « Même si la méthode est pratique » with the indicative, or « Bien que la méthode soit pratique » with the subjunctive. Choose the version you can control in a timed draft. Using one reliable concession is more useful than collecting several expressions whose grammar interrupts your reasoning.

Review fairness before polishing style

Reread the viewpoints and underline the evidence for every statement in your summary. If a sentence has no support, remove it or identify it as your own inference. Next, check whether your argument adds something beyond the summary. Simply restating that one person likes planning and another likes freedom does not explain your choice. A personal example should show how your criterion leads to a workable decision.

Use the planned-meals task in SpeakTCF for a complete independent draft. Review practice feedback beside your submitted text, verify quotations, and test whether a suggested rewrite still represents both viewpoints fairly. Feedback cannot decide your immigration outcome or establish what an examiner will conclude. Use it to identify a repair you can demonstrate in your next comparison.

Continue with the French connectors guide for contrast and concession, the writing feedback and revision guide for editing within the total target, and writing task 2 if your difficulty is developing a concrete example rather than summarising supplied views.