Checked 23 October 2026. Format and UAT-UK’s recommendations read in its TARA Question Guide and Content Specification (October 2026 and January 2027 sittings) and on its TARA and Test results pages on 23 October 2026.
The TARA Writing Task is one essay, chosen from three prompts, written in 40 minutes and no longer than 750 words. Each prompt, says UAT-UK’s Question Guide, typically gives a short statement and asks you to do three things: explain what you think is meant by it, give a reasoned argument against it, and say to what extent you agree with it. UAT-UK does not mark the essay, and its TARA pages, Content Specification and Question Guide give no marking criteria, grade boundaries or model answers; a copy of your response goes to the universities you applied to for courses that require the TARA, which use it at their discretion. What UAT-UK does publish by way of guidance is a set of recommendations, and the three example essays below, which are ours, are annotated against them part by part. After them comes a weak draft with our feedback. ProSyllabus is an independent study site, not affiliated with UAT-UK, Pearson, the University of Oxford or UCL. Every rule and figure about the TARA here is quoted or summarised from UAT-UK’s and Pearson’s pages and documents, read on 23 October 2026; our own methods, essays and feedback are labelled as ours.
UAT-UK TARA Question Guide and Content Specification, read 23 October 2026.
- Critical Thinking: 22 questions in 40 minutes
- Problem Solving: 22 questions in 40 minutes
- No calculator, as in the test
- An explanation for every answer
What the Writing Task asks
UAT-UK’s Question Guide gives this sample statement, followed by the three instructions an answer to it must cover:
“Democratic freedom means there should be no restriction on what may be said in public.”
- Explain what you think is meant by the statement.
- Give a reasoned argument against the statement.
- To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Quoted from UAT-UK’s TARA Question Guide, for assessment in October 2026 and January 2027. Our first example essay answers this statement.
The Guide says the questions are designed for applicants to a wide range of courses and that detailed knowledge of the subject of the statement “is not expected or required”. The Content Specification says the 750-word limit is there “to promote the disciplined selection and organisation of ideas, together with their concise, accurate and effective expression”, and that the task is a chance to show you can consider different aspects of a proposition and communicate them effectively in writing. The test is taken on computer at a Pearson test centre, and Pearson’s UAT-UK page lists a TARA Writing Task specimen test and a TARA Writing sample exam, so you can practise in the same player.
The part that is easy to leave out
A common approach to essays is to take a position, defend it and mention one objection. In the typical TARA format, more is asked: a reasoned argument against the statement is its own part of the task, whatever you think of the statement, and UAT-UK’s Question Guide asks you to make it strong, with a range of points. An answer that only defends the statement, or that mentions an objection in one sentence before dismissing it, has in effect left out one of the three parts.
FreeTests: Identifying the main conclusion · Identifying an assumption · Relevant selection
TARA Practice Test: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 6 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.How the essay is used: what UAT-UK says, and what it does not
| Question | What UAT-UK says |
|---|---|
| Does UAT-UK mark the essay? | No. The Writing Task is not marked or scored by UAT-UK. |
| Who sees it? | A copy goes to the universities where you applied, for every course that requires the TARA. |
| How do universities use it? | At their discretion. UAT-UK gives no essay-specific detail beyond that. |
| Are there marking criteria or model answers? | None in its TARA pages, Content Specification or Question Guide. The Question Guide gives recommendations, summarised below. |
| Is there a word limit? | 750 words. Dictionaries and electronic spell-checkers are not permitted. |
From UAT-UK’s TARA page, Test results page, Content Specification and Question Guide, read 23 October 2026.
So UAT-UK awards no essay score and gives no scoring method; if a university explains how it reads the response, follow that. The nearest thing to criteria is the Question Guide’s own list of recommendations, which says there is “no single correct way to approach the Writing Task”:
| Area | UAT-UK’s recommendation (summarised) |
|---|---|
| General | Address all three parts clearly and fully; make points precisely and avoid repetition; group similar points together. |
| Planning | It is a good idea to plan for 5 to 10 minutes before writing; group your ideas around the three parts; use the plan to be persuasive and concise. |
| Engaging with the statement | Engage closely with the wording of the statement and the question; take a broad and nuanced view of general or abstract terms; avoid unfocused, overly general discussion. |
| Arguing effectively | Always try to see both sides; use targeted, concrete examples; do not rest an argument on examples alone, or give examples that are overly general or without context. |
| The counter-argument | Strengthen it with a range of points, covering different angles where possible; leave out irrelevant background. |
| Expressing your view | State your view clearly and in enough depth; support it by reference to your arguments in the rest of your answer; do not simply summarise. |
Summarised from the Writing Task section of UAT-UK’s TARA Question Guide, June 2026. We annotate each example essay against these recommendations.
A 40-minute plan
| Minutes | Step | Our note |
|---|---|---|
| 0–2 | Read all three prompts and choose | Pick the statement you can argue against most strongly, not the one you agree with most. |
| 2–10 | Plan | UAT-UK says it is a good idea to plan for 5 to 10 minutes. Note what the key words mean, a range of points against (we aim for three or four), and your position. |
| 10–35 | Write the three parts | In order, one part at a time. |
| 35–40 | Check | Did you answer all three parts? Is your view clear? Cut repetition. |
Timings and notes are our suggestion; only the 5 to 10 minutes of planning comes from UAT-UK.
Word counts of the essays below, part by part. All three stay well under the 750-word limit; in our view, in 40 minutes the limit is a ceiling, not a target.
Our suggestion: copy the pattern in the word counts. The explanation is the shortest part, and the argument against and your own view get most of the words. An explanation that runs on for half the essay leaves too little room for the two parts where you have to argue.
Example essay 1: UAT-UK’s sample statement
Example essay 1 of 3 · 492 words
“Democratic freedom means there should be no restriction on what may be said in public.”
UAT-UK’s sample statement, from its TARA Question Guide. The essay is ours. Explain what you think is meant by the statement. Give a reasoned argument against the statement. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Part 1 · Explain the statement · 140 words
The statement links two ideas: that a democracy depends on its citizens being free to speak, and that this freedom must be complete when they speak in public. “Democratic freedom” here means the freedoms a people needs in order to govern itself: to criticise those in power, to propose alternatives and to hear every argument before voting. On this view any limit on public speech is a limit on self-government, because whoever decides what may not be said gains a power over public debate that the voters never gave them. “No restriction” is the strong part of the claim. It rules out not only censorship of political opinions but also laws against, for example, inciting violence or spreading damaging falsehoods about a person. “In public” narrows it: the claim is about what is said to an audience, not in private.
What this part does: Takes the three key phrases one at a time and says what each adds. UAT-UK’s Question Guide asks you to “engage closely with the wording of the statement and the question” and to take a broad and nuanced view of general or abstract terms; “democratic freedom” is given a meaning before it is used.
Part 2 · Argue against it · 164 words
There are strong reasons to reject the statement. First, some speech damages the very process democracy relies on. A deliberate lie about where and when to vote, spread on the eve of an election, adds nothing to debate; it stops people taking part in it. Second, speech can harm people who have no fair chance to answer it. A false public claim that a named person has committed a crime can cost them their job and reputation, and a later correction rarely reaches everyone who heard the claim. Third, words can be used to direct violence: a speaker urging a crowd to attack a particular building is not contributing to an exchange of views. In each case a restriction protects other people’s ability to live and take part in public life. Finally, if democratic freedom means that the people decide, they may decide that some limits are worth having; a rule that no limit may ever be imposed would override the public’s own choice.
What this part does: Four separate points, each from a different angle: harm to the democratic process, harm to an individual, violence, and a point about democracy itself. That matches the Question Guide’s advice to strengthen the counter-argument “by including a range of points”. Each example is specific (an election-eve lie, a named person, one building), not “some speech can be harmful”.
Part 3 · Say how far you agree · 188 words
I agree with the spirit of the statement but not with its absolute form. The case for very wide freedom is strongest when speech is about politics and power: criticising the government, mocking leaders and defending unpopular views must be protected, because governments may have especially strong incentives to suppress exactly those views. But the examples above suggest that the right test is not whether speech is offensive or unpopular, but whether it causes a concrete, serious harm that more speech cannot adequately prevent. A lie about the date of an election, spread too late to be corrected, or a call for an immediate attack, fails that test; a merely unpopular opinion about immigration or religion, without threats, incitement or targeted harassment, does not. The danger in any restriction is that it is drawn too widely or used by those in power against their critics, so limits should be narrow, set out in law in advance and applied by independent courts rather than by the government of the day. Democratic freedom therefore requires a strong presumption against restricting public speech, not the absence of any restriction at all.
What this part does: States a clear position in the first sentence, then builds it from the examples in the previous paragraph rather than repeating them. The Question Guide asks you to support your view “by reference to your arguments in the rest of your answer” and not simply summarise; here the view adds something new, a test for when a limit is justified.
An example written by ProSyllabus, not a UAT-UK model answer: UAT-UK gives no model answers in its TARA pages, Content Specification or Question Guide, and does not mark the Writing Task.
Example essay 2: experts and elected politicians
Example essay 2 of 3 · 431 words
“Decisions on complex issues are better made by experts than by elected politicians.”
Our own statement, in the format UAT-UK describes. Explain what you think is meant by the statement. Give a reasoned argument against the statement. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Part 1 · Explain the statement · 124 words
The statement compares two ways of deciding questions such as how to set interest rates, how to respond to a new disease or how to fund pensions. “Complex issues” are those where judging the likely effects of a decision needs specialist knowledge that most voters, and many politicians, do not have. “Experts” are the people who have that knowledge, such as economists, doctors and engineers. “Better” suggests that their decisions would have better results, presumably because experts can predict consequences more accurately and are less tempted to choose what is popular in the short term over what works in the long term. The statement does not say experts should decide everything, only complex issues; but many important public decisions are complex in this sense.
What this part does: Defines each term and spells out the reasoning the statement leaves unstated (why experts would decide better). The last sentence notices a limit in the wording, “complex issues”, and what follows from it.
Part 2 · Argue against it · 151 words
Expertise answers questions of fact, but most complex decisions also involve questions of value. A public health expert can estimate how many lives closing schools might save; she cannot say how those lives should be weighed against a year of lost education, because that depends on what a society cares about. Such trade-offs belong to people who answer to the public. Second, experts often disagree, and someone has to choose between them; a politician who can be voted out has a reason to explain that choice. Third, experts are not free of bias: specialists can share the blind spots of their training, and an expert in one field may know little about how a policy affects people far outside it. Finally, decisions that people have had no say in can be harder to carry out, because rules seen as imposed by officials nobody can vote out may win less public acceptance.
What this part does: Leads with the strongest point, the difference between facts and values, and makes it concrete with one example. The other three points come from different directions (disagreement, bias, consent), as the Question Guide suggests: cover different aspects “from different angles”.
Part 3 · Say how far you agree · 156 words
I agree that experts should do much of the work, but not that they should make the final decision on questions of value. Where the goal is already agreed and the difficulty is mainly technical, delegating to experts works well: an elected government can set a target for inflation and leave an independent body to choose the interest rate needed to meet it. Where a decision is mainly about whose interests should come first, the expert’s role should be to set out the options and their likely effects as clearly as possible, and the elected politician’s role to choose and to answer for the choice. The statement is right about what experts know but wrong as a general rule about who should decide. Elected politicians should decide the goals and the trade-offs between competing interests; experts should advise openly on those choices and, where a goal is agreed, may decide the technical means of meeting it.
What this part does: Takes a qualified position and draws the line in a specific place (agreed goals versus competing interests). In our reading this answers the Question Guide’s advice to “see both sides of the argument”: the answer is neither “yes” nor “no” but says when the statement holds.
An example written by ProSyllabus, not a UAT-UK model answer: UAT-UK gives no model answers in its TARA pages, Content Specification or Question Guide, and does not mark the Writing Task.
The skill behind a strong counter-argument
In our view, arguing against a statement draws on some of the same skills as the Critical Thinking module, which UAT-UK’s Question Guide describes as the evaluation of arguments: seeing what the conclusion is, what reasons support it, and what it takes for granted. A strong counter-argument attacks the main claim, not a side issue. Try one of the free questions from our practice test: in this question, the right answer is the claim the rest of the passage supports, and the wrong options are supporting reasons, claims stronger than the passage makes, or claims it never makes.
Free question · Critical Thinking · Identifying the main conclusion · original, TARA style
Councils that replace the printed reference books in their libraries with online subscriptions are making a false economy. An online subscription has to be paid for every year, and when library budgets are cut, as they regularly are, access to the material can disappear overnight; a printed encyclopaedia bought once remains usable for decades. Nor is online material always better. It is true that it can be updated more quickly than print, but most of what library users look up, such as definitions, historical dates and maps of physical features, changes very little from one decade to the next.
Which one of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?
- A Access to online reference material can disappear when library budgets are cut.
- B Councils should spend more of their library budgets on printed books than on online material.
- C Most of what library users look up changes very little from one decade to the next.
- D Online reference material is no better than printed reference material.
- E Replacing printed reference books with online subscriptions is a false economy for councils.
Show the answer
Answer: E. The opening sentence is the claim everything else supports: the yearly cost and the risk of losing access, and the point that most reference material does not need fast updating, are reasons for calling the switch a false economy. The option about losing access when budgets are cut is one of those reasons, not the conclusion. The argument says online material is not always better, which is weaker than saying it is no better, and it never says how budgets should be divided.
An original ProSyllabus question, not a UAT-UK question. It is one of the three free questions in our TARA practice test; try all three free.
Example essay 3: science and what we ought to do
Example essay 3 of 3 · 412 words
“Science can tell us what is the case, but never what we ought to do.”
Our own statement, in the format UAT-UK describes. Explain what you think is meant by the statement. Give a reasoned argument against the statement. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Part 1 · Explain the statement · 104 words
The statement draws a line between two kinds of claim. Scientific claims describe the world: smoking raises the risk of lung cancer; a river is polluted. Claims about what we ought to do are recommendations: people should not smoke; the factory should stop the pollution. The statement says that no quantity of the first kind can, on its own, establish the second. “Never” makes this a claim about every case, not only difficult ones. The thought behind it is that a recommendation always needs a further premise about what is valuable, such as health or a clean environment, which observation and experiment cannot supply.
What this part does: Uses paired examples to make an abstract distinction clear, then picks out the word that carries most weight (“never”) and states the reasoning behind the claim.
Part 2 · Argue against it · 148 words
It can be argued that science does tell us what to do, at least in practice. Once we know that a medicine cures a disease with few side effects, and a patient wants to recover, it would be strange to say that science has told us nothing about whether she should take it: the facts all but settle the question. Science can also change what we think we ought to do by changing what we know. Evidence that an animal can feel pain can lead people to decide they ought to treat it differently; the moral conclusion follows a discovery. And science shapes our duties by showing what is possible. It makes no sense to say we ought to do something that science shows cannot be done, so scientific knowledge rules some recommendations out entirely. On this view the line between “is” and “ought” is drawn too sharply.
What this part does: Three points, each a different way science bears on action: settling a decision when the values are agreed, changing views through discovery, and limiting what is possible. The counter-argument is made as strong as possible before the essay replies to it.
Part 3 · Say how far you agree · 160 words
I largely agree with the statement, but the counter-argument shows why “never” matters less in practice than it sounds. The medicine example works only because it includes a value, the patient’s wish to recover, so uncontroversial that it is easy to overlook that it is a value at all; when values conflict, the gap returns. Science can tell us how much time a new road would save drivers and how much woodland it would destroy, but not which matters more. Similarly, evidence of animal pain changes people’s behaviour only because they already believe that causing needless pain is wrong. So the statement is right as a point of logic: every scientific recommendation rests on a value that science does not prove. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that science has little to say about action. Many real disagreements about what to do turn partly on facts, and there science can narrow an argument even when it cannot settle it.
What this part does: Answers the medicine and animal-pain points of the counter-argument instead of ignoring them, then ends with a conclusion that keeps the statement’s point as a matter of logic while allowing that science can narrow disagreements. In our reading, this is what the Question Guide’s call for a view “in enough depth” looks like in practice.
An example written by ProSyllabus, not a UAT-UK model answer: UAT-UK gives no model answers in its TARA pages, Content Specification or Question Guide, and does not mark the Writing Task.
FreeTests: Identifying the main conclusion · Identifying an assumption · Relevant selection
TARA Practice Test: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 6 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.A weak draft, with our feedback
Here is the kind of answer that is easy to write under time pressure, written by us to the statement in Example essay 2. It is fluent and not wrong about everything, but it misses most of what the task asks.
Weak draft · 108 words
“Decisions on complex issues are better made by experts than by elected politicians.”
In today’s world, many issues are very complex and it is important that they are decided well. Experts know a lot about their subjects and politicians often do not, so I think the statement is true. For example, in the pandemic scientists knew more than politicians. Experts are also more intelligent and do not have to worry about being re-elected, so they make better decisions. Some people might say that experts can be wrong, but everyone can be wrong, so this is not a good argument. In conclusion, experts should make decisions on complex issues because they know more, and this would make the world a better place.
| Problem | UAT-UK recommendation it misses | How to fix it |
|---|---|---|
| Does not explain what the statement means | Address all three parts; engage closely with the wording | Say what “complex issues”, “experts” and “better” mean before arguing, as Example essay 2 does. |
| No real argument against the statement | Strengthen the counter-argument with a range of points | Give three or four objections from different angles (facts versus values, disagreement among experts, accountability) and develop each. |
| Dismisses the one objection it mentions | Always try to see both sides of the argument | “Everyone can be wrong” does not answer the objection; ask what happens when experts disagree, and who chooses between them. |
| An example with no detail | Use targeted, concrete examples, not overly general ones | “In the pandemic” names an event, not a decision. Name the decision, and what experts could and could not say about it. |
| An unsupported claim | Make points as precisely as possible | “Experts are more intelligent” is a baseless generalisation: specialist knowledge does not imply greater general intelligence, and the argument does not need it. |
| The conclusion repeats the opening | Do not simply summarise what you have already said | End with a position that builds on your argument, for example where the statement holds and where it does not. |
Our feedback, tied to the recommendations in UAT-UK’s TARA Question Guide. UAT-UK does not mark the Writing Task, so this is our reading, not an official assessment.
The single biggest change is structural: the draft addresses only one question (do I agree?) where the task asks three. Writing the three parts in order, with a heading in your plan for each, fixes most of the problems above before you start.
A checklist for your own essay
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| Part 1 | Have I said what the key words mean, and what reasoning the statement assumes? |
| Part 2 | Is my argument against the statement strong, with a range of distinct points (we aim for three or four) and concrete examples? |
| Part 3 | Is my view clear in the first sentence, and does it build on parts 1 and 2 rather than repeat them? |
| Wording | Have I answered this statement, word for word, and not a general essay on the topic? |
| Length | Am I within 750 words, with no repeated points? |
Our checklist, built from UAT-UK’s recommendations.
Our suggestion: write one essay a week to a statement you have not seen, in 40 minutes, then check it against this list. The TARA Writing Task specimen test on Pearson’s UAT-UK page gives you the test player. Our TARA practice test includes a Writing Task practice prompt with a 40-minute clock and a 750-word counter, alongside full Critical Thinking and Problem Solving modules of 22 original questions each with an explanation for every answer; the three free questions include the one above. Our TARA exam page has the format and dates in brief.
Frequently asked questions
What is the TARA Writing Task?
The third module of the TARA: you choose one of three prompts and write an answer of at most 750 words in 40 minutes. Each prompt typically gives a short statement and asks you to explain it, argue against it, and say how far you agree.
Is the TARA essay marked?
Not by UAT-UK. A copy of your response is sent to the universities you applied to for courses that require the TARA, and how they use it is up to them.
Are there official TARA model essays or marking criteria?
Not in UAT-UK’s TARA Question Guide, which gives a sample statement and a list of recommendations instead, and not in its TARA pages or Content Specification. Pearson’s UAT-UK page also lists a TARA Writing Task specimen test.
How long should a TARA essay be?
No longer than 750 words; UAT-UK gives only a maximum. Our three example essays are each well under the limit; in our view, in 40 minutes including 5 to 10 minutes of planning, a focused answer is better than a long one.
Do I have to argue against the statement even if I agree with it?
If the prompt asks for a reasoned argument against the statement, as UAT-UK says prompts typically do, yes, whatever your own view. Always follow the exact instructions printed with your prompt. Our advice: if you agree with the statement, still make the case against it as strong as you can in the second part, then give your own view in the third.
Do I need subject knowledge for the Writing Task?
No. UAT-UK’s Question Guide says detailed knowledge of the subject of the statement is not expected or required. Concrete examples help, but they should be targeted, not general background.
Can I use a dictionary or spell-checker?
No. UAT-UK’s Content Specification says dictionaries or electronic spell-checkers are not permitted.
More in this series
Sources
- official — UAT-UK: TARA Question Guide, for assessment in October 2026 and January 2027
- official — UAT-UK: TARA Content Specification, for assessment in October 2026 and January 2027
- official — UAT-UK: TARA (format, sittings, scoring, fees, registration), read 23 Oct 2026
- official — UAT-UK: Prepare (specimen and practice tests; how the score scale is set), read 23 Oct 2026
- official — UAT-UK: Test results, read 23 Oct 2026
- official — UAT-UK: TARA Explanation of Results, October 2025 and January 2026
- official — Pearson VUE: UAT-UK landing page (TARA specimen tests and sample exams), read 23 Oct 2026
official = a document published by the conducting body. reported = a news or coaching site we could not check against an original. Where sources disagree this page says so rather than picking one.
FreeTests: Identifying the main conclusion · Identifying an assumption · Relevant selection
TARA Practice Test: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 6 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.
