TCF Canada Tâche 3: Must You Always Obey Your Boss? (Model Answer)
Work topics come up constantly in TCF Canada Tâche 3, and this one looks easy until you start talking. Say « oui » and you have nothing to develop. Say « non » and you risk sounding like someone who ignores every instruction. Here is a full simulation, filmed in exam conditions with no preparation, where the candidate, Chantal, takes the harder side and still gets a C1-level verdict from the examiner. Below: her plan, her phrases, and exactly what the examiner rewarded.
Le sujet
« Pensez-vous qu'il faut toujours respecter les instructions données par son supérieur au travail ? Pourquoi ? »
Spot the key word: « toujours »
The whole question hangs on one word. Nobody seriously argues that you should never follow your manager, so the real debate is about « toujours » (always). Chantal sees this immediately and answers the question that was actually asked:
« Je dirais que non, on ne doit pas toujours respecter les instructions de son supérieur, même si cela peut sembler surprenant dans un premier temps. » (I would say no, we should not always follow our superior's instructions, even if that may seem surprising at first.)
In the very next breath she protects herself from sounding extreme: « Bien sûr, la hiérarchie joue un rôle essentiel dans l'organisation du travail » (of course, hierarchy plays an essential role in how work is organised). A clear position, nuanced within the first thirty seconds. That is the introduction the examiner described as clear from the start.
Whenever a sujet contains toujours, jamais, tous or seulement, your easiest route is usually to attack the absolute word. You get a position and a built-in nuance at the same time.
The plan: three arguments, three examples, one real counter-argument
The examiner called the structure rigorous: three main arguments that follow each other logically, each illustrated by a concrete example from a different professional context, then a substantial counter-argument. Here is the skeleton:
| Step | In the video | Example used |
|---|---|---|
| Argument 1 — ethics & the law | « Obéir sans réfléchir peut conduire à des actes contraires à nos valeurs ou même à la loi. » | A foreman at a construction firm in Douala asks workers to use materials that break safety standards. |
| Argument 2 — knowledge on the ground | « Un employé de terrain connaît souvent mieux les réalités concrètes de son travail que son manager. » | At her bank, advisers push back on a new document check; management changes the procedure. |
| Argument 3 — creativity | « L'obéissance absolue peut étouffer la créativité et l'innovation au sein d'une organisation. » | A digital-marketing colleague suggests a new campaign instead of copying last year's — and it works. |
| Counter-argument | « En revanche, je reconnais volontiers qu'il existe des domaines où le respect strict de la hiérarchie demeure indispensable. » | Medicine, aviation, the army, emergency services. |
Notice that the three arguments look at the question from three different angles: what is right (ethics, the law), what is efficient (people on the ground know more), and what helps a company progress (innovation). Three angles means three genuinely different paragraphs, not one idea repeated three times.
Examples that sound lived, not invented
The examiner singled out two examples as particularly well developed: the construction site in Douala and the bank. Look at how the bank example is built. It has a setting (the banking sector where she worked for a few years), a problem (a regional director imposes a new procedure meant to speed up credit files), a reaction (the advisers know it will slow things down, express their concerns and propose an alternative) and an outcome (management changes its directive).
Then she draws the lesson out loud: « Cette expérience montre bien que la remise en question constructive des ordres peut améliorer l'efficacité globale de l'entreprise. » (This experience clearly shows that constructive questioning of orders can improve the overall efficiency of the company.) Example, then a sentence that links it back to the argument. That final link is what turns a story into evidence.
According to the examiner, this lived dimension made the whole answer more credible. If you have work experience, it is your best source of material for any work sujet.
A counter-argument with real weight
Many candidates add one quick « mais bien sûr, il y a des exceptions » and move on. Chantal gives the other side a full paragraph: surgeons and pilots cannot improvise mid-operation, the army and emergency services depend on orders being carried out quickly, and questioning every directive can paralyse a team. Then she closes the loop: « Il ne s'agit donc pas de désobéir par principe […] mais plutôt d'exercer un discernement responsable selon les circonstances. » (So it is not about disobeying on principle, but rather about using responsible judgement depending on the circumstances.)
The examiner's comment: the counter-argument is substantial and shows she recognises the complexity of the question without weakening her initial position. That last part is the skill. Concede generously, then explain why your position still stands.
Phrases to steal from this answer
The examiner also praised the number of logical connectors and how well they were used, which made the reasoning easy to follow. These all come straight from the simulation and work on almost any Tâche 3 sujet:
| French | English |
|---|---|
| Je dirais que non… | I would say no… |
| …même si cela peut sembler surprenant dans un premier temps. | …even if that may seem surprising at first. |
| Tout d'abord, il faut reconnaître que… | First of all, it must be acknowledged that… |
| Dans ce genre de situation… | In this kind of situation… |
| C'est pourquoi je crois fermement que… | That is why I firmly believe that… |
| Ensuite, il arrive que… | Next, it sometimes happens that… |
| Cette expérience montre bien que… | This experience clearly shows that… |
| Par ailleurs, il faut considérer que… | Furthermore, we must consider that… |
| En revanche, je reconnais volontiers que… | On the other hand, I readily admit that… |
| Il ne s'agit donc pas de… mais plutôt de… | So it is not a matter of… but rather of… |
| En définitive… | In the end / Ultimately… |
Topic vocabulary worth noting too: la hiérarchie (the chain of command), un supérieur hiérarchique (a line manager), une directive (an instruction), le jugement critique (critical judgement), une prise d'initiative (taking the initiative), le respect des protocoles (following protocols).
A conclusion that adds nuance
Chantal does not simply repeat « non ». She ends on a balance: « L'idéal se situe dans un équilibre entre respect de l'autorité et capacité de jugement personnel. » (The ideal lies in a balance between respect for authority and the capacity for personal judgement.) She then describes what a good workplace looks like: employees can disagree constructively, and managers listen without feeling their legitimacy is under attack. The examiner called this reformulation of the opening position, now more nuanced, a sign of argumentative maturity.
What the examiner rewarded
- A clear position from the introduction, nuanced throughout.
- Three logically linked arguments: ethics and the law, field expertise, creativity.
- One concrete example per argument, from varied professional contexts.
- A substantial counter-argument that did not weaken her position.
- Rich vocabulary and many well-used connectors. A few hesitations kept it natural without hurting fluency.
- A conclusion that reformulated the opening position with more nuance.
The verdict: a performance matching the criteria for a favourable evaluation at C1 level. Note what the examiner did not require: zero mistakes. The video says it plainly at the start: the goal is not to speak without a single error, but to organise your ideas, express them clearly and defend an opinion convincingly.
Practise on real sujets
Work and career questions are among the most common Tâche 3 themes. For another one, see the experience vs diplomas model answer, and for a plan you can reuse on any sujet, read the Tâche 3 structure breakdown. Hundreds more sujets with model answers are in the Expression orale section. For a timed run with the official countdown, use the exam simulator, and check what your mark means for immigration with the NCLC calculator. For feedback on your own monologue, you can book a mock oral.