Speaking · task 34 min 30 · no preparationLevel B2

Should each citizen's air travel be limited?

The task

4 min 30 · no preparation

Vous passez la tâche 3 de l'expression orale. L'examinateur vous pose une question et vous devez exprimer votre point de vue de façon spontanée, sans préparation. Vous parlez seul(e) pendant environ 4 minutes 30, en développant des arguments clairs et en cherchant à convaincre l'examinateur.

Question de l'examinateur : « Afin de préserver l'environnement, certains pensent que les gouvernements devraient fixer une limite au nombre de vols que chaque personne peut effectuer. Selon vous, une telle mesure est-elle souhaitable ? Expliquez et justifiez votre opinion. »

TCF Canada — expression orale — tâche 3

Translation of the prompt

You are taking Task 3 of the speaking test. The examiner asks you a question and you must express your point of view spontaneously, without preparation. You speak alone for about 4 minutes 30, developing clear arguments and trying to convince the examiner. Examiner's question: "In order to protect the environment, some people think that governments should set a limit on the number of flights each person may take. In your opinion, is such a measure desirable? Explain and justify your opinion."

How to structure your answer

  1. Introduction (20–30 seconds): rephrase the examiner's question in your own words and state your position clearly: you favour some regulation of flying, but not a strict, uniform quota. For example: "Mon point de vue est nuancé : je pense qu'il faut agir sur le transport aérien, mais..."

  2. First argument (1 minute): aviation's climate impact is significant and concentrated among a minority who fly very often. Back it up with a concrete example, such as someone who flies ten times a year for leisure versus a family that flies once every five years.

  3. Second argument (1 minute): an individual quota would be hard to enforce and would raise fairness problems: families separated by immigration, professional needs, isolated regions such as Canada's North. Give one precise example, such as an immigrant in Montréal with parents in Dakar or Algiers.

  4. Counter-argument and nuance (1 minute): acknowledge freedom of movement and the economic importance of tourism, then answer by proposing alternatives: a progressive tax, trains, sustainable fuels. Use a phrase like "On peut me répondre que..." to introduce the objection.

  5. Conclusion (30 seconds): sum up your position in one or two sentences and end with a recommendation or a broader thought, then thank the examiner.

  6. Throughout: speak in your own words rather than reciting a memorised text, and vary your connectors so that you can fill almost 4 minutes 30 with examples, an objection and a response.

Model answer

about 497 words

Bonjour. La question qui m'est posée est de savoir si les États devraient limiter le nombre de vols que chaque citoyen peut effectuer afin de protéger l'environnement. Mon point de vue est nuancé : je pense qu'il faut agir sur le transport aérien, mais qu'un quota individuel strict n'est pas la meilleure solution.

Commençons par le constat. L'aviation représente environ deux à trois pour cent des émissions mondiales de dioxyde de carbone, et son impact réel est plus important si l'on tient compte des autres effets sur l'atmosphère. Surtout, ces émissions sont très inégalement réparties : une petite minorité de la population réalise la majorité des vols. Une personne qui prend l'avion dix fois par an pour ses loisirs pollue beaucoup plus qu'une famille qui ne voyage qu'une fois tous les cinq ans. Il est donc logique de demander des efforts à ceux qui contribuent le plus au problème.

Cependant, je ne crois pas qu'un plafond identique pour tout le monde soit juste ni réalisable. D'abord, tous les voyages ne se valent pas. Prenons l'exemple d'un immigrant installé à Montréal dont les parents vivent à Dakar, à Alger ou à Abidjan. Pour lui, prendre l'avion n'est pas un luxe, c'est le seul moyen de garder le lien avec sa famille. De même, dans le Nord du Canada, l'avion est parfois le seul moyen de se déplacer, de se faire soigner ou de recevoir des marchandises. Ensuite, il serait très compliqué de contrôler un tel système : il faudrait un registre national, des sanctions, et cela poserait aussi des questions de vie privée.

On peut me répondre que la liberté de circuler n'est pas un droit absolu et que l'urgence climatique justifie des mesures fortes. Je suis d'accord sur l'urgence, mais je pense qu'on peut obtenir de meilleurs résultats avec des outils plus souples. Par exemple, une taxe progressive : le premier vol de l'année serait peu taxé, et chaque vol supplémentaire coûterait plus cher. Ainsi, ceux qui voyagent rarement ou par nécessité seraient protégés, tandis que les grands voyageurs seraient incités à réduire leur consommation. On pourrait aussi interdire les vols courts quand une liaison ferroviaire raisonnable existe, comme la France l'a fait pour certains trajets. Enfin, il faut investir dans des trains plus rapides, y compris dans le corridor Québec–Windsor, et soutenir la recherche sur les carburants d'aviation durables.

Il faut aussi penser à l'impact économique. Le tourisme fait vivre beaucoup de travailleurs, au Canada comme dans les pays du Maghreb et d'Afrique. Une restriction brutale pourrait provoquer des pertes d'emplois et pénaliser des régions qui dépendent des visiteurs. Une transition progressive est donc préférable.

Pour conclure, je suis favorable à une réduction des vols, mais pas à une limite uniforme imposée à chaque citoyen. Je préfère une approche équilibrée qui combine une fiscalité progressive pour les voyageurs fréquents, des alternatives de transport plus propres et des exceptions pour les besoins essentiels. Protéger la planète est indispensable, mais cela doit se faire de manière juste et réaliste. Je vous remercie.

Show the translation

Hello. The question put to me is whether states should limit the number of flights each citizen can take in order to protect the environment. My point of view is nuanced: I think we must act on air transport, but a strict individual quota is not the best solution.

Let us begin with the facts. Aviation accounts for roughly two to three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and its real impact is greater if we take into account its other effects on the atmosphere. Above all, these emissions are very unequally distributed: a small minority of the population makes the majority of the flights. A person who flies ten times a year for leisure pollutes much more than a family that travels only once every five years. It is therefore logical to ask for efforts from those who contribute most to the problem.

However, I do not believe that an identical ceiling for everyone is either fair or workable. First, not all journeys are equal. Take the example of an immigrant settled in Montréal whose parents live in Dakar, Algiers or Abidjan. For him, flying is not a luxury; it is the only way to stay in touch with his family. Likewise, in northern Canada, the plane is sometimes the only way to get around, to receive medical care or to receive goods. Next, it would be very complicated to monitor such a system: it would require a national register and penalties, and it would also raise questions of privacy.

Someone might reply that freedom of movement is not an absolute right and that the climate emergency justifies strong measures. I agree about the urgency, but I think we can get better results with more flexible tools. For example, a progressive tax: the first flight of the year would be taxed lightly, and each additional flight would cost more. In this way, those who travel rarely or out of necessity would be protected, while frequent flyers would be encouraged to cut back their consumption. We could also ban short flights when a reasonable rail connection exists, as France has done for certain routes. Finally, we must invest in faster trains, including in the Québec–Windsor corridor, and support research on sustainable aviation fuels.

We must also think about the economic impact. Tourism supports many workers, in Canada as well as in the countries of the Maghreb and Africa. A sudden restriction could cause job losses and penalise regions that depend on visitors. A gradual transition is therefore preferable.

To conclude, I am in favour of a reduction in flights, but not of a uniform limit imposed on every citizen. I prefer a balanced approach that combines progressive taxation for frequent travellers, cleaner transport alternatives and exceptions for essential needs. Protecting the planet is essential, but it must be done in a way that is fair and realistic. Thank you.

Key vocabulary

Word or phraseMeaning
les émissions de gaz à effet de serregreenhouse gas emissions: gases released into the atmosphere that contribute to global warming
l'empreinte carbonecarbon footprint: the amount of polluting gases produced by the activities of a person or a country
un quotaa quota: a limit set in advance, a maximum permitted amount
une taxe progressivea progressive tax: a tax that rises with the amount consumed or used
inciter àto encourage someone to do something, for example through a benefit or a financial constraint
les carburants durablessustainable fuels: fuels produced in a way that reduces their environmental impact
la mobilité douce / les alternatives ferroviaireslow-impact mobility / rail alternatives: less polluting means of transport, such as the train or the bicycle
porter atteinte à la liberté de circulerto infringe on freedom of movement: to restrict the right to travel freely
une mesure équitablea fair measure: a just decision that takes into account everyone's different circumstances
la transition écologiquethe ecological transition: the gradual shift towards a society that respects the environment more
pénaliserto penalise: to put at a disadvantage, to impose a sanction or a cost on someone
un déplacement indispensablean essential trip: a journey that cannot be avoided for family, medical or professional reasons

Common mistakes

  • Reciting a memorised introduction and staying too general. The examiner expects a personal point of view backed by precise examples.

  • Confusing "limiter" (to limit) with "interdire" (to ban). A limit is not a total ban, and you should keep this distinction in your argument.

  • You agree with an idea or a measure, not with a question. It is better to say that you are in favour of the measure.

    WrongJe suis d'accord avec la question.

    RightJe suis favorable à cette mesure.

  • Do not use "malgré que" with the indicative, and do not use "pendant que" to contrast two ideas. Prefer "bien que" + subjunctive, or "alors que" / "tandis que".

    WrongMalgré qu'il y a des alternatives, ...

    RightBien qu'il existe des alternatives, ...

  • Pronunciation and liaison: "environnement" takes the article "l'" (never "le environnement"), and in "les États" you must make the liaison, pronounced [lezeta].

    Wrongle environnement

    Rightl'environnement

  • Word choice: say "polluer" on its own rather than "polluer l'environnement", and say "la pollution causée par l'avion" or "les émissions du transport aérien" rather than "la pollution de l'avion".

    Wrongla pollution de l'avion

    Rightla pollution causée par l'avion

  • Speaking for too short a time (1 to 2 minutes). Structure your ideas so that you can last almost 4 minutes 30, with examples, an objection and a response.

  • Overusing repetitive connectors ("donc", "et puis", "aussi"). Vary them with "en effet", "par ailleurs", "cependant", "en revanche", "pour conclure".

    WrongEt puis, donc, il y a aussi le train.

    RightPar ailleurs, il y a le train. En revanche, ...

The grammar this task needs

Expressing opinion and concession: subjunctive after 'bien que' and 'il faut que', indicative after 'alors que'

You must nuance your position (favourable to regulation but against a strict quota) and concede points to the opposing side. This requires concessive and opposition connectors with the right mood. 'Bien que' always takes the subjunctive, while 'alors que' and 'tandis que' take the indicative.

  • Bien que l'aviation ne représente que quelques pour cent des émissions, son impact réel est plus important.
  • Il faut que les gouvernements agissent sans pénaliser les familles immigrantes.
  • Certains voyagent dix fois par an, alors que d'autres ne prennent l'avion qu'une fois tous les cinq ans.
  • Je suis favorable à une réduction des vols, même si je ne soutiens pas un quota uniforme.

The conditional for proposals and hypotheses (conditionnel présent) and the 'si + imparfait' structure

You are not describing something that exists but imagining a measure and its consequences (a quota, a progressive tax). The conditional shows that you are reasoning about a hypothesis, and the 'si + imparfait, conditionnel' sentence is very natural for this.

  • Le premier vol de l'année serait peu taxé et chaque vol supplémentaire coûterait plus cher.
  • Il faudrait un registre national et des sanctions.
  • Si l'on imposait un plafond identique à tous, les personnes qui ont de la famille à l'étranger seraient pénalisées.
  • On pourrait interdire les vols courts quand une liaison ferroviaire existe.

Cause and consequence: 'en effet', 'c'est pourquoi', 'ainsi', 'donc', 'par conséquent', 'causé par'

A convincing argument links a fact to a conclusion. The examiner wants to hear logical reasoning rather than a list of opinions. Vary the connectors so that you do not repeat 'donc' all the time.

  • Ces émissions sont très inégalement réparties ; il est donc logique de demander plus d'efforts aux grands voyageurs.
  • La pollution causée par l'avion est concentrée sur une minorité de passagers.
  • Une restriction brutale pourrait détruire des emplois ; c'est pourquoi une transition progressive est préférable.
  • Les voyageurs rares seraient protégés ; ainsi, la mesure resterait équitable.

Using the pronouns 'en' and 'y' and relative pronouns ('dont', 'qui', 'où') to avoid repetition

In 4 minutes 30 of continuous speech, you must avoid repeating the same nouns. Relative pronouns, especially 'dont', let you build longer, more fluent sentences, which is a C1 marker.

  • Prenons l'exemple d'un immigrant installé à Montréal dont les parents vivent à Dakar.
  • Dans le Nord du Canada, il y a des régions où l'avion est le seul moyen de se déplacer.
  • Le tourisme est un secteur dont dépendent beaucoup de travailleurs.
  • Les grands voyageurs, il faut les inciter à réduire leur consommation.

Phrases to reuse

PhraseWhen to use it
La question qui m'est posée est de savoir si + indicatifTo open your answer by rephrasing the examiner's question in your own words, which shows that you have understood it.
Mon point de vue est nuancé : je pense que..., mais...To announce your position clearly in the introduction, while signalling that it is neither fully for nor fully against.
Commençons par le constat.To introduce your first argument by presenting the facts before giving your opinion.
Prenons l'exemple de + nomTo bring in a concrete example. The examiner expects specific cases, not general statements.
Je ne crois pas que + subjonctifTo express doubt or disagreement politely. Remember that after a negative 'croire', the subjunctive is used (je ne crois pas que ce soit juste).
On peut me répondre que...To bring up the opposing argument yourself before answering it. This shows that you can see the debate from both sides.
Je suis d'accord sur + nom, mais...To make a concession: you accept part of the opposing argument, then you add your own reservation (Je suis d'accord sur l'urgence, mais...).
Il serait préférable de + infinitifTo recommend an alternative solution without sounding too categorical.
Par ailleurs, il faut aussi penser à + nomTo add a new angle (here, the economic impact) and show that you are covering several dimensions of the problem.
Pour conclure, je suis favorable à + nom, mais pas à + nomTo summarise your position in the conclusion, repeating the nuance announced in the introduction.
Protéger la planète est indispensable, mais cela doit se faire de manière juste.To end with a strong closing sentence that balances the two sides of your position.
Je vous remercie.To close your speech politely, which signals to the examiner that you have finished.

Ideas bank

PositionArgumentExample
For a limitA small minority of frequent flyers produces most of aviation's emissions, so it is fair to ask them for the greatest effort.A person who flies ten times a year for leisure pollutes far more than a family that travels once every five years.
For a limitThe climate emergency justifies strong measures, and freedom of movement is not an absolute right.Many states already restrict individual freedoms for the common good, for instance with speed limits or smoking bans.
For a limitAviation's real climate impact is larger than its share of CO2 alone, because of other effects on the atmosphere.Emissions at high altitude contribute to warming in ways that the figure of two to three per cent does not fully show.
Against a strict quotaNot all trips are equal: for some people, flying is essential and not a luxury.An immigrant living in Montréal whose parents are in Dakar, Alger or Abidjan needs the plane to keep in touch with family.
Against a strict quotaRemote regions depend on air transport for health care, supplies and mobility.In the Canadian North, the plane is sometimes the only way to travel, get medical treatment or receive goods.
Against a strict quotaA quota would be hard to enforce and would raise privacy issues.It would require a national register of every citizen's flights, plus a system of penalties.
NuanceA progressive tax targets frequent flyers while protecting people who fly rarely or out of necessity.The first flight of the year is lightly taxed and each additional flight costs more.
NuanceRail can replace short flights if a reasonable connection exists, but it must be developed first.France banned certain short domestic flights; in Canada, a faster train in the Québec–Windsor corridor would offer a real alternative.
NuanceTourism supports many jobs, so a sudden restriction could hurt the regions that depend on visitors; a gradual transition is better.Countries of the Maghreb and Africa, as well as Canadian tourist regions, could lose jobs if flights fell sharply.
NuanceTechnology can reduce the impact of flying without limiting travel: sustainable fuels and research.Public investment in sustainable aviation fuels can lower emissions per flight.

What the examiner looks for

The examiner wants a clear, personal position stated in the introduction and kept consistent to the end, here a nuanced view (favourable to regulation, against a uniform quota). Your speech should last close to 4 minutes 30, with a visible structure: arguments, concrete examples, an objection that you answer yourself, and a conclusion. At B2-C1 level, they look for a wide range of connectors, correct use of the subjunctive and the conditional, and precise topic vocabulary (empreinte carbone, taxe progressive, carburants durables). Avoid reciting a memorised text: spontaneity, specific examples and fluency count more than perfection. A short pause to find a word is acceptable, but long silences or going off-topic will lower your score.

More questions · environmentUnderstanding the examTake the free TCF Canada practice test