TCF Canada Writing Task 3: A Full Example, Paragraph by Paragraph

Last updated: 26 August 2026 · 7 min read

Our guide to Task 3 synthesis covers the method: read for the disagreement, paraphrase both sides, then state your own position. This guide shows the artifact. Below is one complete, invented model response — not a real exam item and not an official sample — broken into its three structural paragraphs, with commentary under each one pointing at specific phrasing choices.

The prompt this example responds to

France Éducation international's guidance puts Task 3 responses in a range of roughly 120–180 words, inside the same 60-minute window as Tasks 1 and 2. The illustrative prompt below follows the task's usual shape: two short opposing viewpoints on a workplace question, followed by an instruction to synthesize them and defend a position.

Viewpoint A (invented): "De plus en plus d'entreprises adoptent le télétravail à temps plein. Selon leurs dirigeants, cela améliore la concentration des employés, réduit le temps perdu dans les transports et permet un meilleur équilibre entre vie professionnelle et vie personnelle."

Viewpoint B (invented): "D'autres responsables s'y opposent. Ils estiment que le travail à distance affaiblit les liens entre collègues, complique la formation des nouveaux employés et freine les échanges informels qui, selon eux, nourrissent la créativité collective au bureau."

Instruction: Synthétisez ces deux points de vue, puis exprimez et justifiez votre propre opinion.

The model response, in full

Read it once straight through before the paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown below. This is a model illustrating the technique, not a graded or officially reviewed sample — no marks or grade are attached to it.

Certaines entreprises ont choisi de généraliser le télétravail parce qu'elles y voient un gain net pour leurs salariés. D'après elles, travailler chez soi permet de se concentrer davantage, d'éviter la fatigue des déplacements quotidiens et de mieux répartir son temps entre les obligations professionnelles et personnelles.

D'autres directions, en revanche, restent réticentes. Elles craignent que l'éloignement physique n'affaiblisse les relations entre collègues, ne rende l'intégration des nouveaux arrivants plus difficile et ne prive l'entreprise des échanges spontanés qui, selon elles, font naître les meilleures idées.

À mon avis, ces deux positions ne sont pas incompatibles: tout dépend de l'organisation mise en place. Un modèle hybride, avec quelques jours au bureau réservés aux projets collectifs et le reste en télétravail, permettrait de préserver à la fois la concentration individuelle et la cohésion d'équipe, sans sacrifier l'une pour l'autre.

Word count: 137 words — inside the guidance range for Task 3.

Paragraph 1 — viewpoint A, in the candidate's own words

Notice that no clause here repeats the prompt's wording. Viewpoint A's "améliore la concentration," "réduit le temps perdu dans les transports" and "un meilleur équilibre" become, in the model, "permet de se concentrer davantage," "d'éviter la fatigue des déplacements quotidiens" and "mieux répartir son temps" — the same three claims, restated with different verbs and different sentence structure. That restatement is the paraphrase a corrector is checking for: proof the candidate processed the idea rather than copied it.

The paragraph also frames the claim as belonging to a source ("certaines entreprises... parce qu'elles y voient," "d'après elles") rather than asserting it as fact. That framing matters for Task 3 specifically: you are reporting a viewpoint, not adopting it yet.

Paragraph 2 — viewpoint B, framed against A

The opening words do the structural work: "D'autres directions, en revanche, restent réticentes." En revanche is a contrastive connector — it tells the reader this paragraph exists in opposition to the one before it, not as an unrelated second point. A synthesis needs that signal somewhere near the pivot from A to B; without it, two accurate paragraphs can still read as a list rather than a comparison.

As in paragraph 1, viewpoint B's own phrasing — "affaiblit les liens," "complique la formation," "freine les échanges informels" — is paraphrased rather than lifted: "n'affaiblisse les relations," "rende l'intégration... plus difficile," "prive l'entreprise des échanges spontanés." Each verb changed, and the clause order changed too, which is a stronger signal of genuine paraphrase than swapping a single word inside an otherwise identical sentence.

Paragraph 3 — the candidate's position

"À mon avis" opens the paragraph plainly — there's no ambiguity about where the synthesis ends and the opinion begins, which is exactly the separation the synthesis guide recommends. The position itself is a qualified middle ground ("ces deux positions ne sont pas incompatibles") rather than a flat pick of A or B, but it is still a real position: a specific proposal (a hybrid model, with in-office days reserved for collective projects) with a stated justification (preserving both individual focus and team cohesion). A hedge like "les deux ont du bon" without that proposal would not count as taking a position.

The paragraph also closes the loop back to both viewpoints by name — concentration for A, cohésion d'équipe for B — anchoring the opinion to the specific disagreement rather than arguing the topic in general terms.

What this example does that a summary wouldn't

A summary of the same two texts could hit a similar word count while still costing marks, for two reasons this model avoids. First, it would likely reuse phrases straight from the prompt instead of paraphrasing them — the specific fault the reading paraphrase trap guide describes on the reading side of the exam. Second, it would likely present A and B as two separate, unconnected paragraphs with no connector marking the pivot between them, leaving the "compare" half of the task undone even if both viewpoints were accurately reported.

Against FEI's published criteria — task achievement, coherent development, range and accuracy of language, and appropriate register — this model is aiming at task achievement (all three parts present, in order) and coherent development (the connector, the closing reference back to both viewpoints). It says nothing about how a real corrector would score it; no marks or grade are implied.

Word count and what to trim under time pressure

At 137 words, this model has some room before the top of the 120–180 guidance range. Under real time pressure, the safest cut is length inside paragraphs 1 and 2, not the connector or the closing reference in paragraph 3 — those two elements carry most of the structural signal, and a shorter but complete three-part response scores better than a longer one that skips straight from viewpoint B to a one-line opinion.

Where to practice this

Building your own version of this structure is faster with feedback than by rereading your own draft, because a fluent-sounding paragraph can still summarize instead of synthesize. Our AI writing feedback scores Task 3 responses against these same criteria. For the argumentative-essay skills that carry over into paragraph 3, see our guide to structuring Task 2.

Practice the real thing

SailTCF is AI-powered TCF Canada preparation built in English for English speakers: realistic practice across all four skills, with AI-assisted feedback and estimated NCLC bands for writing and speaking. Start free with SailTCF. SailTCF scores are practice estimates, not official TCF results.

SailTCF is an independent exam-preparation tool. We are not affiliated with IRCC, France Éducation international, CCI Paris Île-de-France, TCF Canada or TEF Canada, we are not immigration consultants, and nothing here is immigration advice. Score conversions, exam formats and points rules change — always confirm the current requirements against the official sources above before making a decision about your application.