TCF Canada Tâche 3: Should Phones Be Banned at Work? (Model Answer)
A sujet that ends in « devrait être interdit » pushes you towards a yes or a no. The strongest answers give neither a flat yes nor a flat no — they say not like that. Here is a full Tâche 3 simulation on phones at work that the examiner placed at C1, and the reasons it gets there.
Le sujet
« Le téléphone portable personnel devrait être interdit au travail. Qu'en pensez-vous ? »
The opening: against the ban, not against rules
The candidate, Ousmane, takes his position in the very first sentence: « Je pense que l'interdiction totale du téléphone portable personnel au travail serait une mesure excessive et contre-productive, même si je reconnais qu'un encadrement raisonnable de son usage reste nécessaire dans de nombreux contextes professionnels. » (I think a total ban on personal phones at work would be excessive and counter-productive, even though I accept that reasonable rules on their use are needed in many workplaces.)
Look at the two words doing the work: totale and même si. He is not defending phones everywhere; he is attacking a total ban, and the même si clause already announces his counter-argument. The examiner called it a clear, nuanced position that shows maturity on a controversial topic.
The full plan, step by step
Three arguments, one real counter-argument, one conclusion. Each step opens with a connector, so the examiner can follow the plan by ear:
| Step | In the video | Backed by |
|---|---|---|
| Position | « Je pense que l'interdiction totale du téléphone portable personnel au travail serait une mesure excessive et contre-productive, même si je reconnais qu'un encadrement raisonnable de son usage reste nécessaire… » | Against a total ban, for reasonable rules — in one sentence. |
| Argument 1 | « Tout d'abord, … une interdiction pure et simple risquerait de créer plus de problèmes qu'elle n'en résoudrait, en particulier sur le plan humain. » | Parents who must be reachable when school ends; people caring for elderly or sick relatives. |
| Argument 2 | « Ensuite, … le téléphone portable peut également constituer un outil de travail à part entière… » | His logistics job in Dakar: coordinating deliveries and drivers in real time by phone. |
| Argument 3 | « Par ailleurs, … le véritable enjeu n'est pas tant l'outil lui-même que l'usage qu'on en fait au quotidien. » | Clear rules instead: no phones in key meetings, production areas or with clients, plus regular breaks. |
| Counter-argument | « En revanche, je reconnais volontiers que certaines situations particulières justifient des restrictions beaucoup plus strictes… » | Safety (chemical plants, building sites, power stations) and confidentiality (law firms, banks, defence). |
| Conclusion | « En définitive, … une réponse rigide et autoritaire à un problème qui appelle plutôt de la souplesse, du discernement et du dialogue social. » | Restates the position and widens it to how work itself has changed. |
The examiner described the progression as three stages: human and family needs, then the phone as a work tool, then trusting staff rather than banning things. Three different angles — people, the job, the company's rules — so nothing is said twice.
A technology sujet, answered with people
This sujet is filed under technologie, but the answer barely talks about technology. It talks about a parent whose child might be ill at school, about someone caring for an elderly relative, and about what a total ban would do to them: « Une interdiction totale placerait ces employés dans une situation d'anxiété permanente » (a total ban would leave these employees permanently anxious) — which, he adds, would hurt their productivity far more than a few phone calls.
That last turn is worth copying: he takes the argument the other side would use (productivity) and shows that the ban damages it. You can use the same move on many work sujets, for example in our obeying-your-boss model answer.
The example that anchors everything
For the second argument, Ousmane uses his own job: « lorsque je travaillais dans une entreprise de logistique à Dakar, nous utilisions nos téléphones personnels pour coordonner les livraisons, communiquer avec les chauffeurs en temps réel et signaler les problèmes de circulation. » Then the verdict in one line: « Une interdiction stricte aurait tout simplement paralysé notre activité quotidienne. »
The examiner singled this out as the example that anchors the argument in reality. A city, a sector, three concrete tasks, and a clear consequence: that is what « donnez des exemples précis » means in practice.
A counter-argument that costs him something
The turn comes with en revanche, and it is not a token one. Ousmane accepts a complete ban in some places: where physical safety comes first (chemical plants, building sites, power stations), where attention must never drop (sales, reception), and where confidentiality is critical (pharmaceutical research, law firms, national defence, banks). He ends it with « l'interdiction devient une nécessité opérationnelle et non une simple question de principe ».
The examiner noted that this shows he knows the limits of his own position — and that it makes him more credible, not less. The concession fits his opening perfectly: he was never against rules, only against one rule for everyone.
C1 vocabulary from the answer
The examiner picked out poreuse, périmètres and dialogue social as precise, formal vocabulary. Here they are with other reusable phrases from the same monologue:
| French | English |
|---|---|
| une mesure contre-productive | a measure that backfires |
| un encadrement raisonnable | reasonable rules / a sensible framework |
| une interdiction pure et simple | an outright ban |
| rester joignable | to stay reachable |
| un outil de travail à part entière | a work tool in its own right |
| une frontière devenue poreuse | a boundary that has become blurred |
| responsabiliser plutôt qu'infantiliser | to trust people rather than treat them like children |
| dans certains périmètres | in certain areas / zones |
| une nécessité opérationnelle | an operational necessity |
| le dialogue social | dialogue between employers and staff |
Two structures are worth stealing whole. Ce n'est pas tant X que Y — « le véritable enjeu n'est pas tant l'outil lui-même que l'usage qu'on en fait » — moves the debate to where you want it in one sentence. And « plus de problèmes qu'elle n'en résoudrait » uses the formal ne after a comparison, a small detail that sounds unmistakably C1.
Hesitations that did not cost him
Ousmane hesitates more than once: « Ensuite, euh… », « je crois, enfin, il me semble que… », « Euh, plutôt que d'interdire complètement… ». The examiner said these hesitations were natural, never got in the way of understanding, and even made the answer sound authentic. What matters is that every pause is filled with French and followed by a full sentence.
What the examiner rewarded
- A clear, nuanced position in the first sentence.
- A logical three-stage progression: human needs, work tool, responsible use.
- Concrete examples, above all the logistics job in Dakar.
- A developed counter-argument that reinforces credibility.
- Rich, formal vocabulary and varied connectors.
- A steady pace and clear pronunciation.
- A conclusion that restates the position and opens onto how work has changed.
Practise on real sujets
Tâche 3 gives you no preparation time, so the structure has to be automatic. You will find hundreds of sujets sorted by theme 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.