Free TARA guide, no signup, sources named and linked
The Writing Task, decoded
Choose one of three prompts. Explain the statement, give a reasoned argument against it, then state the extent to which you agree. UAT-UK sends your response to universities without scoring it.
The task has three verbs
- Explain what the statement means.
- Give a reasoned argument against the statement.
- Judge the extent to which you agree.
These are not three mini-essays. Your explanation fixes the claim's meaning. The counter-argument stress-tests it. Your final judgement weighs what survives.
A 40-minute shape
| Clock | Job | Output |
|---|---|---|
| - min | Choose and define | One prompt, key terms and a provisional judgement |
| - min | Build the spine | Strongest case against, response and two examples |
| - min | Write the argument | Explanation, counter-case and reply |
| - min | Deliver judgement | Where the claim works, fails and needs qualification |
| - min | Edit for force | Remove repetition and repair logic or grammar |
UAT-UK recommends planning for - minutes. The detailed split above is a study strategy. Test it against your own typing speed.
Build the argument before the sentences
Worked example A fair society
Statement: 'A fair society gives everyone the same opportunities, not the same outcomes.'
Explain the claim
Opportunity means a realistic chance, not merely an identical rule on paper. Outcome means the result people reach. The statement treats fairness as a fair starting procedure.
Build the strongest argument against it
Severe outcome gaps can shape the next generation's starting points through housing, health, time and education. Ignoring results may preserve unequal opportunity while declaring the procedure fair.
Answer the challenge
Equalising every result would ignore effort, preference and legitimate risk. A stronger response uses an outcome floor and investigates persistent results as evidence of blocked opportunity.
Make a qualified judgement
Agree only if equal opportunity means substantive access and repeated outcomes are used to test whether that access is real.
Why this works: Each part answers one official verb, and the final view changes after the counter-argument.
Why the tempting route fails: A two-sided list ending with 'both sides have good points' avoids the judgement the prompt requests.
Give every paragraph a job
- Claim: what are you asking the reader to accept?
- Reason: why should the reader accept it?
- Example: what concrete case reveals the reason?
- Link: how does this change your judgement of the prompt?
An example becomes evidence only when you explain what it demonstrates. One developed example is usually stronger than three names left to argue for themselves.
Four failure modes to remove
| Failure | What it looks like | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt drift | A general essay on the topic | Repeat the disputed phrase in each planning branch |
| Weak opposition | A token objection you dismiss immediately | Give the counter-case its strongest plausible form |
| Example pile | Names or events with no inference | Write the exact claim each example supports |
| Summary ending | The conclusion repeats the introduction | State the condition changing your extent of agreement |
Sources
UAT-UK, TARA Question Guide. The three-part prompt, planning advice, counter-argument and expression guidance. Read pages 16-17https://uat-wp.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/24172250/TARA_Question_Guide_June2025.pdf
UAT-UK, TARA Content Specification. The -minute module, -word limit, unscored status and purpose of disciplined expression. Read the specificationhttps://uat-wp.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/30103001/TARA_Content_Specification_April2025.pdf
The worked prompt and plan are original. They are not a recalled live question or an official model response.