TARA writing examples: plan and revise an argument
Choose one of three prompts. Explain the statement, argue against it, then say how far you agree. Universities read it; UAT-UK does not score it.
Three responses to one prompt, annotated
'A government should never tell people how to live their private lives.' Explain what this statement means. Argue that a government is sometimes right to tell people how to live their private lives. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Original responses written for this page. UAT-UK gives the Writing Task no score, so none is shown; the notes say what a university reader would see.
Response 1: an essay on the topic
Fluent, but it writes about freedom in general and never carries out the three instructions. Its examples and final judgement are undeveloped. 133 words.
Freedom is one of the most important values in many societies, and throughout history people have fought for it. In this essay I will discuss freedom and the role of government.
NoteThe first instruction is to explain the statement. This paragraph never mentions private lives or what it would mean to be told how to live.
Governments do many things that affect people's lives, such as collecting taxes, running schools and building roads. Some people think the government is too big and should do less. Others think it should do more to help people who are struggling.
NoteTrue, but about government in general. Nothing here is about private life, so it answers none of the three instructions.
For example, smoking is banned in many public places, and there is a tax on sugary drinks. Some people call this the nanny state. However, smoking causes many deaths, so the ban may be a good idea.
NoteThe best material in the response, and the start of the second instruction. But a ban in public places and a tax on drinks are not rules about private life, and the response does not notice the difference.
In conclusion, freedom is very important but the government also has a role to play. There needs to be a balance between the two.
Note"A balance" without saying where it lies does not answer "to what extent". The reader still cannot tell how far the writer agrees.
The one change that would help most: Plan in three parts using the prompt's own words: what "private lives" and "tell" mean, a case where telling is right, and how far you agree.
Plan one in ten minutes
'Students should be free to choose every subject they study after the age of fourteen.' Explain what this statement means. Argue that some subjects should be compulsory after fourteen. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Ten minutes, the planning share of the 40. Write notes in each box.
The 40 minutes
| Clock | Job |
|---|---|
| - | Choose the prompt and define its terms |
| - | Strongest case against, your reply, two examples |
| - | Write: explain it, then argue against it |
| - | Write your judgement: where the claim holds and where it fails |
| - | Check: cut repetition, fix grammar |
Build the argument first
Worked example A fair society
Statement: 'A fair society gives everyone the same opportunities, not the same outcomes.'
Explain
Opportunity means a real chance, not just the same rule on paper. The statement treats fairness as a fair start.
Argue against
Big outcome gaps shape the next generation's start through housing, health and schooling.
Reply
Equal results would ignore effort and choice. A floor on outcomes, plus checking persistent gaps, answers the objection.
Judge
Agree, if opportunity means real access and outcomes are used to test it.
Why this works: Each part answers one instruction, and the view changes after the objection.
Why the tempting route fails: A two-sided list ending 'both sides have good points' skips the judgement.
Four things to cut
| Failure | Repair |
|---|---|
| A general essay on the topic | Repeat the prompt's key phrase in each part of the plan |
| A token objection | Give the other side its strongest form |
| A pile of examples | Say what each example proves |
| A conclusion that repeats the opening | State the condition that sets how far you agree |