Speaking · task 34 min 30 · no preparationLevel B2

Should We Always Tell Children the Truth?

The task

4 min 30 · no preparation

Vous allez maintenant vous exprimer sur le sujet suivant : faut-il, selon vous, toujours dire la vérité aux enfants, ou existe-t-il des situations où il est préférable de leur cacher certaines choses ? Vous disposez de quelques instants pour organiser vos idées, puis vous prendrez la parole pendant environ 4 minutes 30 pour exposer votre opinion de façon claire, argumentée et convaincante. L'examinateur pourra ensuite vous poser une ou deux questions pour approfondir votre point de vue.

TCF Canada — expression orale — tâche 3

Translation of the prompt

You will now express your opinion on the following topic: in your view, should we always tell children the truth, or are there situations where it is better to hide certain things from them? You have a few moments to organize your ideas, then you will speak for about 4 minutes 30 seconds to present your opinion clearly, with arguments, and persuasively. The examiner may then ask you one or two questions to explore your point of view further.

How to structure your answer

  1. Rephrase the question and clearly state your position (for example: honesty should be the rule, but it must be adapted to the child's age)

  2. First argument: trust between parents and children is built on honesty — support it with a concrete example (divorce, illness, bereavement)

  3. Second argument: lying, even with good intentions, can weaken a child when they later discover the truth

  4. Nuance your view: some truths need to be adjusted to age — lying is not the same as pacing information or delaying certain explanations

  5. Conclude by reaffirming your position while acknowledging the validity of the opposite view, to show the critical thinking expected at B2/C1 level

Model answer

about 476 words

Alors, la question qui m'est posée est de savoir s'il faut systématiquement dire la vérité aux enfants, ou si, au contraire, certaines situations justifient qu'on leur cache des choses. Je dois dire que c'est une question à laquelle je réponds plutôt clairement : oui, je pense qu'il faut, dans la grande majorité des cas, dire la vérité aux enfants, mais en l'adaptant toujours à leur âge et à leur maturité.

D'abord, je crois que la confiance entre un parent et son enfant se construit précisément sur l'honnêteté. Si un enfant apprend plus tard qu'on lui a menti sur un sujet important, par exemple un divorce, une maladie grave dans la famille, ou même le décès d'un proche, il risque de perdre confiance non seulement dans ses parents, mais aussi dans les adultes en général. Je pense à des exemples très concrets : des enfants à qui on a caché la maladie d'un grand-parent, et qui, une fois adultes, expriment encore de la colère parce qu'ils n'ont pas eu le temps de dire au revoir correctement. Ce genre de silence, même bien intentionné, laisse des traces.

Ensuite, je voudrais souligner que le mensonge, même quand il part d'une bonne intention, place l'enfant dans une position de vulnérabilité. Il finit toujours, ou presque, par découvrir la vérité, que ce soit par une conversation entendue, par un document, ou simplement parce que la réalité rattrape le mensonge. Et à ce moment-là, ce n'est plus seulement la nouvelle elle-même qui blesse, c'est aussi le sentiment d'avoir été trompé par les personnes en qui il avait le plus confiance.

Cela dit, je veux tout de même nuancer ma position, parce que je ne pense pas qu'il faille tout dire, de la même façon, à tous les âges. Un enfant de quatre ans n'a pas besoin des mêmes détails qu'un adolescent de quinze ans concernant, par exemple, une maladie grave. Il ne s'agit donc pas, à mon sens, de mentir, mais plutôt de doser l'information, de choisir le bon moment et les bons mots. On peut dire une vérité simplifiée, rassurante, sans pour autant inventer une fausse version des faits. C'est cette nuance, je crois, qui distingue le mensonge protecteur, que je trouve risqué, de la vérité adaptée, que je trouve nécessaire.

Enfin, je comprends parfaitement l'argument contraire, celui qui consiste à dire qu'on veut protéger l'innocence d'un enfant le plus longtemps possible. C'est une intention louable. Mais à mon avis, protéger un enfant, ce n'est pas l'isoler de la réalité, c'est plutôt l'accompagner pour qu'il puisse la comprendre et l'affronter progressivement.

Pour conclure, je dirais donc que oui, la vérité doit rester la règle générale dans l'éducation d'un enfant, parce qu'elle construit la confiance et l'aide à grandir de façon solide. Mais cette vérité doit toujours être transmise avec discernement, avec des mots adaptés à son âge, et jamais brutalement.

Show the translation

So, the question I've been asked is whether we should always tell children the truth, or whether, on the contrary, certain situations justify hiding things from them. I have to say this is a question I answer fairly clearly: yes, I believe that in the vast majority of cases, we should tell children the truth, but always adapting it to their age and maturity.

First of all, I believe that trust between a parent and their child is built precisely on honesty. If a child later learns that they were lied to about something important — for example a divorce, a serious illness in the family, or even the death of a loved one — they risk losing trust not only in their parents, but in adults in general. I think of very concrete examples: children who were kept in the dark about a grandparent's illness, and who, once grown up, still feel anger because they didn't get the chance to say goodbye properly. This kind of silence, even when well-intentioned, leaves scars.

Next, I would like to point out that lying, even when it comes from good intentions, puts the child in a vulnerable position. They almost always end up discovering the truth eventually, whether through an overheard conversation, a document, or simply because reality catches up with the lie. And at that moment, it's no longer just the news itself that hurts — it's also the feeling of having been deceived by the very people they trusted most.

That said, I do want to nuance my position, because I don't think everything should be told in the same way at every age. A four-year-old doesn't need the same details as a fifteen-year-old teenager regarding, for example, a serious illness. So it's not, in my view, about lying, but rather about pacing the information, choosing the right moment and the right words. You can tell a simplified, reassuring truth without inventing a false version of the facts. It's this nuance, I believe, that distinguishes the protective lie, which I find risky, from the adapted truth, which I find necessary.

Finally, I fully understand the opposite argument, the one that says we want to protect a child's innocence for as long as possible. That's a commendable intention. But in my opinion, protecting a child doesn't mean isolating them from reality — it means guiding them so they can understand it and face it gradually.

In conclusion, I would say that yes, truth should remain the general rule in raising a child, because it builds trust and helps them grow up on solid ground. But that truth must always be conveyed with discernment, with words suited to their age, and never bluntly.

Key vocabulary

Word or phraseMeaning
la confiancea feeling of security toward someone you believe to be honest
mentir par omissionnot telling the whole truth, without necessarily inventing a lie
protéger l'innocencewanting to shield a child from difficult realities
doser l'informationgiving details gradually, according to what the person can understand
être adapté à l'âgematching the child's level of maturity
un mensonge protecteura lie told to spare someone pain
la maturitéthe ability to understand and handle complex situations
fragiliser quelqu'unmaking someone more vulnerable, less emotionally strong

Common mistakes

  • Don't mix up 'lying' and 'withholding something' — two related but distinct notions that shouldn't be blurred together in your argument.

  • Answering only with 'yes' or 'no' without developing varied arguments severely limits your score in task 3.

  • Systematically using 'il faut que' + subjunctive in a rigid way, without varying the phrases used to express opinion (à mon avis, je pense que, il me semble que).

  • Forgetting to nuance your point makes the speech sound too one-sided and less convincing at B2/C1 level.

  • Getting past participle agreement wrong with the auxiliary 'avoir'.

    Wrongla vérité qu'il a caché

    Rightla vérité qu'il a cachée

  • Making sentences too short and simply juxtaposed, without logical connectors (d'abord, ensuite, cependant, enfin) that clearly structure an oral presentation.

The grammar this task needs

Subjunctive after opinion/necessity expressions (il faut que, je ne pense pas que)

This topic requires expressing obligation and nuanced opinion, especially in negative constructions

  • je ne pense pas qu'il faille tout dire
  • il faut que la vérité soit adaptée à l'âge

Agreement of the past participle with avoir when the direct object comes before

The topic naturally involves talking about truths or things that were 'hidden' or 'said', a classic trap

  • la vérité qu'il a cachée
  • les choses qu'on leur a dites

Concession and contrast connectors (cela dit, cependant, même si, tout de même)

Nuancing your position is essential at B2/C1 level and is explicitly expected in the marking criteria

  • Cela dit, je veux tout de même nuancer ma position
  • même si l'intention est bonne

Comparative and evaluative structures (plus... que, le même... que, ce n'est pas... c'est plutôt...)

Useful for contrasting concepts like lying versus withholding information, or protecting versus isolating

  • ce n'est pas la même chose que doser l'information
  • ce n'est pas l'isoler, c'est plutôt l'accompagner

Phrases to reuse

PhraseWhen to use it
La question qui m'est posée est de savoir si...opening formula to restate the prompt clearly before giving your opinion
Je pense que, dans la grande majorité des cas...stating your main position while leaving room for nuance
D'abord, je crois que...introducing your first argument
Ensuite, je voudrais souligner que...introducing your second argument
Cela dit, je veux tout de même nuancer ma positionsignaling that you are about to qualify or soften your stance
Il ne s'agit pas de..., mais plutôt de...contrasting two close ideas to sharpen your argument
Je comprends parfaitement l'argument contraireacknowledging the opposing view before refuting or partially accepting it
À mon avis,...a flexible, natural way to introduce your opinion without overusing 'il faut que'
Pour conclure, je dirais donc que...closing your response with a clear final statement
C'est cette nuance qui distingue... de...explicitly marking the distinction between two related concepts for clarity

Ideas bank

PositionArgumentExample
forTruth builds long-term trust between parent and childA child who later learns the truth was hidden may lose trust in adults in general
forLies eventually get discovered, and the discovery itself causes harmA child who overhears a conversation or finds a document ends up feeling betrayed
nuanceAdapting information to a child's age is not the same as lyingA four-year-old and a fifteen-year-old need different levels of detail about a serious illness
againstSome argue that protecting a child's innocence justifies hiding painful realitiesParents may choose not to tell a young child about a terminal diagnosis to preserve their carefree childhood
nuanceTiming matters as much as content: delaying an explanation is different from denying the truthTelling a child about a divorce only once the practical details are settled, rather than immediately

What the examiner looks for

The examiner wants to hear a clear position stated early and maintained throughout, not a vague or hesitant answer. They are listening for at least two distinct, developed arguments supported by concrete examples, not just repeated general statements. A genuine nuance or concession toward the opposing view is expected to show critical thinking at B2/C1 level. Fluency and continuity matter: the speaker should use logical connectors (d'abord, ensuite, cependant, enfin) rather than short disconnected sentences. Finally, grammatical accuracy under spontaneous speech conditions, including subjunctive use and past participle agreement, is closely evaluated.