Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.
B2
Un essai argumentatif
À propos de cette leçon
Un essai argumentatif · B2. Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
Rédige ta réponse, puis compare-la au modèle et aux trois critères. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation : aucune note automatique de justesse ni validation enseignante.
La rédaction se relit à l’aide des critères. Cette version n’attribue pas de note et ne certifie pas votre niveau.
2 questions
Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
Write an original response to each task. Use the model only after drafting your own text.
Quelques repères
Organiser le message
Présente les idées dans un ordre utile. Utilise des phrases et, selon la tâche, des paragraphes et des liens. N’ajoute pas de connecteur sans relation réelle.
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.
Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.
Support de cours
Write an original response to each task. Use the model only after drafting your own text.
01 / 2P01Retrouvez-le dans Ma collection après enregistrement.
An education forum asks: Should every adult course include an online option? Use hypothetical examples rather than invented research statistics.
Write 200–260 words. Present a clear position, develop reasons with examples, address a counterargument and reach a justified conclusion.
Votre parcours
01
Étape 1 · Développer la compétence
0/1Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.02
Étape 2 · Développer la compétence
0/1Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.Expression écrite
La rédaction se relit à l’aide des critères. Cette version n’attribue pas de note et ne certifie pas votre niveau.
Aucun texte enregistré pour le moment. Commence un exercice pour retrouver ton brouillon ici.
Carte de la leçon
B2Un essai argumentatif
Points de la leçon
Répondre à la consigne
Traite tous les points demandés en tenant compte du destinataire et du but. Le modèle est une possibilité, pas la seule bonne réponse.
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.Organiser le message
Présente les idées dans un ordre utile. Utilise des phrases et, selon la tâche, des paragraphes et des liens. N’ajoute pas de connecteur sans relation réelle.
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.Vérifier la clarté et la langue
Vérifie verbes, accords, orthographe et ponctuation. Utilise des mots que tu comprends et clarifie les passages ambigus.
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.Questions et réponses
Ouvrir une réponse enregistre une aide pour cette question.
An education forum asks: Should every adult course include an online option? Use hypothetical examples rather than invented research statistics.
Write 200–260 words. Present a clear position, develop reasons with examples, address a counterargument and reach a justified conclusion.
Réponse et explication
Adult courses should normally offer some form of online participation, but a single model will not suit every subject. The aim should be meaningful access rather than simply placing a camera at the back of a classroom.
An online option can remove practical barriers. A learner who works changing shifts might watch an explanation later instead of abandoning the course. Someone with limited mobility may be able to participate without an exhausting journey. These benefits are especially valuable when the online material includes clear instructions and opportunities to ask questions.
However, access to a recording is not the same as access to learning. Practical courses may require equipment, supervision or interaction that is difficult to reproduce remotely. A beginner using unfamiliar tools, for example, may need immediate guidance. There is also a risk that online learners become a secondary audience whose questions are repeatedly overlooked.
For these reasons, requiring every lesson to operate in two formats could stretch a small teaching team too far. A better approach would combine reusable explanations with carefully chosen live sessions and suitable alternatives for practical work. Providers should tell learners clearly which parts require attendance before they enrol.
Online participation is therefore worth expanding, but its quality matters more than its mere availability. The strongest policy would support flexible routes while allowing course designers to explain justified limits. Offering a weak digital copy of every activity would create the appearance of inclusion without necessarily giving learners a fair chance to succeed.
An online option can remove practical barriers. A learner who works changing shifts might watch an explanation later instead of abandoning the course. Someone with limited mobility may be able to participate without an exhausting journey. These benefits are especially valuable when the online material includes clear instructions and opportunities to ask questions.
However, access to a recording is not the same as access to learning. Practical courses may require equipment, supervision or interaction that is difficult to reproduce remotely. A beginner using unfamiliar tools, for example, may need immediate guidance. There is also a risk that online learners become a secondary audience whose questions are repeatedly overlooked.
For these reasons, requiring every lesson to operate in two formats could stretch a small teaching team too far. A better approach would combine reusable explanations with carefully chosen live sessions and suitable alternatives for practical work. Providers should tell learners clearly which parts require attendance before they enrol.
Online participation is therefore worth expanding, but its quality matters more than its mere availability. The strongest policy would support flexible routes while allowing course designers to explain justified limits. Offering a weak digital copy of every activity would create the appearance of inclusion without necessarily giving learners a fair chance to succeed.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur peut-il retrouver tous ces points : une position définie, des raisons développées avec exemples, un contre-argument équitable et une réponse, puis une conclusion cohérente ? Organisation: Développe les raisons, une objection équitable et ta réponse dans des paragraphes ; la conclusion découle du raisonnement. “An online option can remove practical barriers.” → “However, access to a recording”. Langue: “Adult courses should normally offer some form of online participation, but a single model will not suit every subject.” La formulation exprime une position avec une condition ou limite ; une autre position bien étayée peut aussi convenir. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.
A local discussion asks: Should town centres replace some parking spaces with seating and trees? Use reasoned hypothetical examples, not fabricated local statistics. You may invent personal details; keep any facts supplied in this task.
Write 200–260 words. Argue a position, develop reasons, consider an opposing view and provide a balanced conclusion.
Réponse et explication
Replacing some town-centre parking with seating and trees can improve public space, provided that the change is selective and access needs are taken seriously. The question should be how the street serves people, rather than whether every parking space must either remain or disappear.
Seating gives people a reason to stay without buying something. Older residents may need a place to rest between errands, while families can benefit from a comfortable meeting point. Trees may also make a street more pleasant, although their maintenance and suitability for the location must be considered. A poorly planned planting scheme can create costs without delivering the expected benefit.
The strongest objection concerns access. Some visitors cannot easily walk from a distant car park, and businesses need reliable deliveries. Dismissing these concerns as resistance to change would be unfair. A proposal should preserve accessible spaces near important destinations and include realistic loading arrangements. It should also consider whether public transport is a workable alternative at the times people actually travel.
A limited trial could test the idea before permanent construction. Temporary seating would let residents and businesses describe specific advantages and difficulties. Evaluation should include who uses the space and who finds journeys harder, rather than relying only on attractive photographs.
I therefore support replacing selected spaces, not applying an identical rule to every street. A successful scheme would improve everyday use while responding to genuine disadvantages. That requires observation, adjustment and maintenance, not just an appealing drawing.
Seating gives people a reason to stay without buying something. Older residents may need a place to rest between errands, while families can benefit from a comfortable meeting point. Trees may also make a street more pleasant, although their maintenance and suitability for the location must be considered. A poorly planned planting scheme can create costs without delivering the expected benefit.
The strongest objection concerns access. Some visitors cannot easily walk from a distant car park, and businesses need reliable deliveries. Dismissing these concerns as resistance to change would be unfair. A proposal should preserve accessible spaces near important destinations and include realistic loading arrangements. It should also consider whether public transport is a workable alternative at the times people actually travel.
A limited trial could test the idea before permanent construction. Temporary seating would let residents and businesses describe specific advantages and difficulties. Evaluation should include who uses the space and who finds journeys harder, rather than relying only on attractive photographs.
I therefore support replacing selected spaces, not applying an identical rule to every street. A successful scheme would improve everyday use while responding to genuine disadvantages. That requires observation, adjustment and maintenance, not just an appealing drawing.
Un modèle possible, pas un corrigé unique. Autoévaluation: Le lecteur peut-il retrouver tous ces points : une position définie, des raisons développées avec exemples, un contre-argument équitable et une réponse, puis une conclusion cohérente ? Organisation: Développe les raisons, une objection équitable et ta réponse dans des paragraphes ; la conclusion découle du raisonnement. “Seating gives people a reason to stay” → “The strongest objection concerns access.”. Langue: “Replacing some town-centre parking with seating and trees can improve public space, provided that the change is selective and access needs are taken seriously.” La formulation exprime une position avec une condition ou limite ; une autre position bien étayée peut aussi convenir. D’autres formulations et structures peuvent convenir. Respecte les faits fournis. Il s’agit d’une autoévaluation, pas d’une note automatique de langue.