AtelierLe journal · French, understood
English

Language

The course

Updated

Real document

A DALF C2 personal contribution must do more than repeat the dossier

Edited by Chris Lee · Updated · About the library

Add a substantive personal contribution to a French dossier argument. Distinguish a new criterion, example or counterexample from paraphrasing the sources.

In short

An apport personnel adds a reason, criterion, example or counterexample that advances your argument beyond relaying the dossier. It must remain relevant and defensible. Rewording a source’s claim in more elegant French changes the expression, not the contribution.

Yellow the idea to rememberBlue French to learn

A flowering branch grafted onto a tree trunk, with binding around the join.
A personal contribution adds something to the source material. Illustration: Atelier

The miniature dossier below supports a timed reservation system and warns about excluding users without internet access. The practice asks what the candidate can add when the assigned genre explicitly invites a personal position. A neutral synthesis has a different task and should not receive unannounced additions.

Dossier et contributions possibles

Source A

Les réservations en ligne réduisent le temps passé dans la file d’attente.

Source B

Une procédure uniquement en ligne peut exclure les personnes dont l’accès à internet est peu fiable.

Paraphrase

Le système accélère l’inscription mais peut exclure certains usagers.

Nouveau critère

Une procédure doit être évaluée sur la possibilité réelle de déposer une demande, et pas seulement sur sa vitesse.

Contre-exemple hypothétique

Si tous les créneaux sont réservés en ligne avant l’ouverture du guichet, une seconde voie existe sur le papier sans garantir une chance comparable.

Conséquence pratique

L’essai devrait comparer les chances d’obtenir un créneau selon la voie utilisée.

Question 1No account needed
Which merely restates the sources?

Choose one answer.

Answer and explanation

The system is faster but may exclude some users. This combines A and B without adding a new reasoning step.

Question 2No account needed
How should the counterexample be presented?

Choose one answer.

Answer and explanation

As a hypothetical case. The candidate supplies it as an imagined test, not reported evidence.

Question 3No account needed
Why is the criterion substantive?

Choose one answer.

Answer and explanation

It gives a basis for evaluating competing benefits. A criterion helps justify how the candidate weighs speed and access.

Give the addition a job

Introduce the contribution where it resolves a question raised by the dossier. A disconnected anecdote adds words but may not add reasoning. A useful counterexample tests whether a proposed safeguard actually satisfies the criterion; a useful example shows how a mechanism could work.

J’ajouterais un critère d’accès effectif : la présence de deux voies ne suffit pas si leur calendrier crée des chances inégales.

I would add an effective-access criterion: two routes are insufficient if their timing creates unequal chances.

Keep the boundary visible between source material and your reasoning. Do not assign your own example to a source or present a plausible number as data. The strongest contribution may be a carefully justified distinction rather than an impressive external reference.

Keep going