Three tasks, sixty minutes, and a word budget of around 450.
That sounds comfortable. It stops being comfortable in task 3, where you have to read two source documents, summarize both without copying their phrasing, and then argue your own position, all inside about twenty-five minutes.
Task 3 is where TCF writing scores are won and lost. Tasks 1 and 2 are manageable for anyone at a solid B1 level. Task 3 asks for a skill that has nothing to do with vocabulary: reading two texts and rewriting their ideas in your own words under time pressure.
Below are complete sample subjects for all three tasks with corrected model answers. For the marking framework behind them, our page on how TCF writing is graded sets out the criteria in detail.
How do the three TCF writing tasks differ?
TCF Canada expression écrite lasts 60 minutes and is scored out of 20. Task 1 asks for a message of 60- 120 words in an everyday context. Task 2 asks for a blog or forum article of 120- 150 words for a defined readership. Task 3 asks for a comparison of two short documents followed by your own argued position, 120 to 180 words in total.
| Task | Word range | Text type | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 to 120 | Message, email, note | A2 to B1 |
| 2 | 120 to 150 | Blog or forum article, narrative | B1 to B2 |
| 3 | 120 to 180 | Synthesis plus opinion | B2 to C1 |
The word ranges matter more here than in TEF, because TCF gives you a ceiling as well as a floor.
TEF says “80 words minimum” and leaves the top open. TCF says 60 to 120, and writing 200 words for Task 1 is a task error, not extra credit. The ranges are part of the instruction.
The tasks also climb in register and complexity. Task 1 is often informal or semi-formal, a note to a neighbor or a friend. Task 2 addresses a stated readership, which means register becomes a decision. Task 3 is formal, structured, and analytical.
Anyone still weighing this test against the alternative will find that the writing papers are the biggest single difference between them. Our comparison of whether TEF or TCF suits your profile puts the two writing formats side by side.
Tâche 1 sample: writing a message
The tâche 1 subject you receive
Tâche 1 (60 à 120 mots)
Votre voisin effectue des travaux de rénovation dans son appartement depuis trois semaines. Le bruit commence très tôt le matin et vous empêche de dormir. Vous lui écrivez un message pour lui expliquer la situation et proposer une solution.
Two things are being asked: explain the situation, propose a solution. Both must appear, or task completion suffers.
A corrected 95-word model
Bonjour Monsieur Lefebvre,
Je me permets de vous écrire au sujet des travaux dans votre appartement. Je comprends tout à fait que vous ayez besoin de rénover, et je ne voudrais surtout pas vous déranger.
Cependant, les bruits commencent vers sept heures du matin, y compris le week-end. Je travaille de nuit et je dors le matin, ce qui rend la situation difficile depuis trois semaines.
Serait-il possible de commencer les travaux à partir de neuf heures ? Cela me permettrait de me reposer un peu.
Merci beaucoup de votre compréhension.
Cordialement, Priya Menon
That is 95 words, comfortably within the 60-to-120 range, and it does everything the instructions asked.
- It opens and closes properly. A greeting and a sign-off are expected in a message task. Leaving them out makes the text look incomplete.
- It softens before it complains. Je comprends tout à fait que… costs nine words and changes the whole tone. Examiners reward appropriate politeness, and it is a marker of B1 and above.
- It gives a reason. Je travaille de nuit explains why the noise is a genuine problem rather than a preference. Specific beats vague.
- It proposes something concrete. À partir de neuf heures is a real solution. Pourriez-vous faire moins de bruit ?
- It uses one complex structure. Je comprends que vous ayez besoin d’utiliser le subjonctif. One well-placed subjunctive in Task 1 signals a level well above the minimum.
Choosing a register when the subject is vague
TCF Task 1 subjects do not always tell you how well you know the recipient. A neighbor could be someone you greet daily or someone you have never spoken to.
When it is unclear, choose a semi-formal tone. Use vous, use Bonjour rather than Salut, and close with Cordialement. Semi-formal is never wrong. Informal to a stranger is a task error, and heavy formality to a friend reads as odd.
Watch the sign-off in particular. Cordialement is the safe default. Bien à vous works for a neighbor. Save. Je vous prie d’agréer, Madame, l’expression de mes salutations distinguées.
Tâche 2 sample: article or narrative
The tâche 2 subject and its readership
Tâche 2 (120 à 150 mots)
Le journal de votre entreprise consacre son prochain numéro au télétravail. On vous demande de raconter votre propre expérience et d’expliquer ce que ce mode de travail a changé pour vous. Votre texte sera lu par l’ensemble de vos collègues.
The instruction names the readership: your colleagues. That is not decoration. It sets the register and the content.
A corrected 140-word model
Le télétravail, deux ans après
Quand notre entreprise a mis en place le télétravail, j’étais franchement sceptique. Je pensais que je n’arriverais jamais à me concentrer chez moi, entre la famille et les distractions habituelles.
Les premières semaines ont été difficiles. Je travaillais sur la table de la cuisine et je finissais souvent après vingt heures, sans vraiment savoir pourquoi.
Puis j’ai changé deux choses. J’ai installé un vrai bureau dans une pièce séparée, et je me suis fixé des horaires stricts. Depuis, tout va beaucoup mieux.
Aujourd’hui, je gagne presque deux heures par jour sans les trajets. Je déjeune avec mes enfants et je cours le matin, ce que je ne faisais plus depuis des années.
Le télétravail me manquerait s’il disparaissait. Mais je reviens au bureau deux jours par semaine, parce que certaines discussions ne se remplacent pas.
140 words, right in the band. Several things here are worth stealing.
- It has a title. An article task expects one. It costs four words, and it demonstrates that you understood the text type.
- It tells a story with a turn. Skeptical, then struggling, then a change, then better. A narrative arc is far more engaging than a list of advantages, and the examiner is grading text organization.
- It uses four tenses. Imparfait for the past state, passé composé for the changes, present for now, conditional for the hypothetical. All natural, none forced.
- It is written to the stated readership. Colleagues, so notre entreprise, shared context, no need to explain what the company does. Register-appropriate content is part of task completion.
- It ends with a qualification. The last sentence stops it from being a simple endorsement, and nuance reads as B2.
Writing for a stated readership
Task 2 almost always names an audience: colleagues, readers of a local paper, members of an association, students at a school. Every one of those changes what you should write.
For colleagues, assume shared knowledge and use a warm, semi-formal register. For a local newspaper, explain the context and use a neutral, slightly more formal register. For an association newsletter, address members directly and use inclusive nous. For students, keep sentences shorter and the tone more direct.
Candidates who ignore the readership and write a generic essay lose marks on task completion even when their French is clean. Read the last line of the instruction twice, because that is usually where the audience is named. Readership discipline is one of the first habits we drill when students join a TCF writing intensive.
How do you write TCF Canada tâche 3?
Summarize both source documents in 40 to 60 words, then give your own argued position in 80 to 120 words, keeping the whole text inside 120 to 180 words. Signal the switch with “personnellement” or “pour ma part”, and restate the sources using nominalization rather than copied phrases.
The two source documents
Tâche 3 (120 à 180 mots : 40 à 60 mots de résumé, 80 à 120 mots d’opinion)
Vous lisez ces deux textes sur un forum consacré à l’alimentation. Résumez les deux points de vue, puis donnez le vôtre en le justifiant.
Document 1 : Camille « Je suis devenue végétarienne il y a cinq ans et je ne le regrette pas une seconde. L’élevage industriel est responsable d’une part énorme des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et les conditions de vie des animaux sont indéfendables. Chacun de nous peut agir simplement en changeant son assiette. »
Document 2 : Hugo « Je respecte les végétariens, mais je trouve le discours culpabilisant. Tout le monde ne peut pas se permettre de remplacer la viande par des produits bio souvent plus chers. Et dans certaines régions, l’élevage fait vivre des familles entières depuis des générations. Le problème, c’est l’industrialisation, pas la viande. »
A corrected 175-word model
Camille défend le végétarisme pour deux raisons principales : l’impact écologique de l’élevage intensif et le traitement réservé aux animaux. Selon elle, un changement individuel d’alimentation constitue une action accessible à tous. Hugo, sans s’opposer au végétarisme, critique le ton moralisateur du débat. Il rappelle que les alternatives coûtent souvent cher et que l’élevage représente une source de revenus vitale dans plusieurs territoires ruraux. Pour lui, c’est le modèle industriel qu’il faut remettre en cause.
Personnellement, je me situe plus près de la position d’Hugo, sans écarter les arguments de Camille. Les chiffres sur l’élevage intensif sont difficiles à contester, et réduire sa consommation de viande me semble raisonnable. Mais transformer cette question en jugement moral me paraît contre-productif, surtout quand le budget des ménages entre en jeu.
Je crois davantage à une évolution progressive : moins de viande, mais de meilleure qualité, achetée à des producteurs locaux. Cette approche répond aux préoccupations écologiques tout en préservant les emplois ruraux. Elle a aussi l’avantage d’être réaliste, ce qui compte davantage qu’un idéal que peu de gens suivront.
175 words, inside the 120 to 180 range.
How to summarize without copying phrases
This is the technical heart of task 3, and it is where most marks disappear.
Look at what the model did with Camille’s argument.
- Source: L’élevage industriel est responsable d’une part énorme des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Model: l’impact écologique de l’élevage intensif
- Source: les conditions de vie des animaux sont indéfendables
- Model: le traitement réservé aux animaux
- Source: Chacun de nous peut agir simplement en changeant son assiette.
- Model: un changement individuel d’alimentation constitue une action accessible à tous
Three techniques are doing the work:
- Nominalisation. Turn a verb phrase into a noun phrase. Est responsable des émissions becomes l’impact écologique. This is the single most useful synthesis technique in French, and it compresses ideas fast.
- Superordinate vocabulary. Replace specifics with a category term. Conditions de vie becomes traitement.
- Reported structure. Selon elle, il rappelle que, pour lui. These frame the idea as belonging to the author, which is what a synthesis requires, and they let you restructure the sentence freely.
Copying source phrasing directly is penalized. An answer that reuses whole clauses reads as reproduction rather than comprehension, and examiners are trained to spot it.
In fifteen years of marking these, I have never encountered a candidate who deliberately copied. They copy because the phrase is sitting on the page in front of them, and it is already correct French. That is exactly why it has to be trained out rather than simply pointed out.
Where the opinion half must sit
The instruction says to summarize, then give your view. Order matters.
A common structural error is weaving personal opinion into the summary. Camille a raison de dire que… is no longer a summary; it is already an argument. Keep the two halves clean:
- Paragraph 1: Both positions are neutral; no opinion. 40 to 60 words.
- Paragraphs 2 and 3: Your position is justified. 80 to 120 words.
Those sub-ranges are set by the task itself, not by convention. A 90-word summary leaves too little room for the argument half and reads as an imbalanced answer, even when the total is within 180.
Signal the switch explicitly. Personnellement, pour ma part, en ce qui me concerne. One word tells the examiner you have moved from summary to argument, and that clarity is graded.
Your opinion also does not have to pick a side. The model above lands between the two and proposes a third path, which is usually the strongest option because it shows you engaged with both texts rather than simply agreeing with one.
How should you split the 60 minutes?
Allow roughly 12 minutes for task 1, 20 minutes for task 2, and 25 minutes for task 3, leaving 3 minutes to reread everything. Task 3 needs the most time because you must read two documents before writing. Starting task 3 with under 20 minutes left is the most common cause of an unfinished paper.
| Minutes | Task | What you are doing |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 12 | Task 1 | Read, write, quick check |
| 12 to 32 | Task 2 | Plan 3 min, write 15, check 2 |
| 32 to 57 | Task 3 | Read both documents 5 min, plan 3, write 15, check 2 |
| 57 to 60 | All | Final reread for agreement and accents |
Two rules make this hold.
- Do the tasks in order. Some candidates start with task 3 because it is the hardest. This usually backfires, since tasks 1 and 2 warm up your French and build confidence.
- Move on when the clock says so. An excellent Task 1 and an unfinished Task 3 score worse than three solid answers. If task 1 is not perfect at the twelve-minute mark, leave it.
If you are preparing the receptive papers alongside, our TCF reading comprehension items drill synthesis and inference from the reading side, and the two reinforce each other. The TCF listening transcripts and answers build that habit by ear, while the TCF speaking sample subjects ask you to produce the same structures under a clock.
What do examiners deduct marks for?
The most common deductions are writing outside the word range, missing part of the instruction, copying phrases from source documents in task 3, inconsistent register, and repetitive sentence structure. Grammar errors matter less than these because task completion and range carry substantial weight.
That last point surprises people, so it is worth stating clearly.
A text with four minor agreement errors but varied structures, appropriate register, and full task completion will outscore a flawless text that is too short, ignores half the instructions, and uses only simple sentences.
The deductions that hurt most, in order:
- Ignoring part of the instruction. If the subject says “explain” and “propose,” both must appear. Half a task is half the marks.
- Falling outside the word range. Below the minimum, it is penalized. Well, over the maximum signals, you did not read the instructions.
- Copying in task 3. Reused clauses from the source documents undercut the whole point of a synthesis.
- Register drift. Starting formal and slipping into informal, or mixing tu and vous.
- Structural monotony. Twenty short subject-verb-object sentences in a row cap your range score, no matter how correct they are.
- Missing the text-type conventions. No greeting in a message, no title in an article, no sign-off in a letter.
The fix for most of these is a 90-second check at the end of each task, rather than a single rushed check at the end of the paper.
Which connectors work best in TCF writing tasks?
Task 3 needs reporting phrases such as “selon elle“, “il rappelle que“, and ” elle souligne que” to separate summary from opinion. Tasks 1 and 2 lean on politeness formulas and contrast markers instead. Use five or six across a 175-word text, never more.
Connectors are cheap marks. Learn twenty and rotate them.
- Opening a position À mon avis / Pour ma part / Personnellement / En ce qui me concerne
- Reporting someone else’s view (task 3) Selon elle / D’après lui / Il rappelle que / Elle souligne que / Elle défend l’idée que
- Adding De plus / Par ailleurs / En outre / À cela s’ajoute que
- Contrasting Cependant / En revanche / Néanmoins / Pour autant / Cela dit
- Explaining cause Car / Puisque / Étant donné que / Dans la mesure où
- Explaining consequence Donc / Par conséquent / C’est pourquoi / Ce qui explique que
- Giving examples Par exemple / Notamment / Ainsi / Prenons le cas de
- Concluding En résumé / En somme / Pour conclure / Au final
Two cautions. Do not open consecutive paragraphs with the same connector. And do not use more than five or six across a 175-word text, because density becomes visible fast.
For task 1, connectors matter less than politeness formulas. For task 3, they carry real weight because the examiner is grading how clearly you separate summary from opinion.
How LanguageNext covers TCF writing
Most candidates lose marks on task 3 by copying the source phrasing without realizing it.
They read the two documents, understand them perfectly, and then reproduce whole clauses because those clauses are sitting right there on the page. It feels like summarizing. It is marked as copying.
Our TCF writing work targets that directly. Students write paired-document syntheses each week, and every submission comes back with lifted phrases highlighted against the source, so they see exactly which parts they reproduced rather than rewrote. Most people are surprised the first time. By the third attempt, the habit of nominalization takes over, and the highlighting thins out. Alongside it, we drill the three techniques that make synthesis work, since those are teachable in a way that vocabulary breadth is not.
Tasks 1 and 2 get shorter, higher-frequency practice: word-range discipline, register decisions, text-type conventions, and the ninety-second check habit that catches agreement errors before they cost anything.
Classes run at the Noida center and as live online sessions across India, in regular, fast-track, weekend, crash, one-to-one, and corporate batches. Group size stays at six to ten, the point at which weekly written correction remains detailed rather than generic.
Students submit one full-time three-task paper weekly, marked against the official criteria with a band estimate rather than a percentage. If you are still working toward B1, live French language courses will help build your foundation.
Bring us a Task 3 attempt, and we will mark it against the official criteria. Two documents, 175 words, whatever you can produce this week. Call or WhatsApp us, or visit the Noida center.
How is this TCF Canada Writing sample page verified?
The word ranges come from France Éducation International: 60 to 120 words for tâche 1, 120 to 150 for tâche 2, and 120 to 180 for tâche 3. The internal split within task 3—40 to 60 words for the summary and 80 to 120 for the opinion—is set by the task instructions themselves and is frequently misreported as a looser guideline. Score bands come from IRCC, and TCF writing scores do not need to be converted before entry.
About the author. Vikash Gupta is a linguist and the founder of LanguageNext, a French and Spanish institute that has taught in Noida and online across India since 2014. He has taught both languages for over fifteen years and prepares candidates for DELF, TEF Canada, and TCF Canada.
Update policy. This page is rechecked whenever either board revises its published test specifications or IRCC changes its conversion tables. The review date at the top moves only when something material has changed, not on a schedule.