Choose one of three essay questions and write up to 750 words in 40 minutes. In the real TARA you choose one question and have 40 minutes.
All questions are written by Keiko Study in the official format; they are not official TARA papers.
Write your essay
Choose one question, start the 40-minute timer and write. Your draft is saved in this browser only; it is never sent to Keiko.
0 / 750 words · 40:00 left
What a strong answer does
Question 1: 'A government's first duty is to future generations, not to the people who elected it.' Do you agree?
Say what you take 'first duty' and 'future generations' to mean: people not yet born, or today's children, who cannot vote yet.
Take a clear position early and hold it, even if it is a qualified one (for example, that duties to the future set limits on what voters can demand but do not always come first).
Use concrete examples where the two duties pull apart, such as pensions, public debt, housing or climate policy.
Take the strongest objection seriously: a government that ignores its voters loses its democratic mandate, and nobody can be sure what future people will want.
Consider how the tension could be handled in practice, such as long-term spending rules or independent bodies, and whether those arrangements are themselves democratic.
Finish with a conclusion that follows from your argument, not a summary that sits on the fence.
Question 2: If a computer system could diagnose illness more accurately than doctors, should patients still have the right to insist on being diagnosed by a human?
Pin down what 'more accurately' means and what kind of 'right' you mean: a legal right, a moral one, or a preference the health service ought to respect.
State in your opening paragraph whether patients should have that right, and in what circumstances.
Weigh the costs of offering a human option (slower or less accurate diagnoses, and who pays for them) against values such as trust, consent, explanation and accountability when things go wrong.
Answer the best counter-argument directly: insisting on a less accurate diagnosis may harm the patient, or use up time that other patients need.
Use specific cases, such as reading scans, breaking bad news or spotting a rare condition, rather than general claims about technology.
Conclude by saying where you draw the line and why.
Question 3: 'Paying people to do the right thing, such as giving pupils cash for good exam results or paying people to give blood, does more harm than good.' Discuss.
Separate the cases: rewarding effort, rewarding results and paying for acts usually done out of generosity may work very differently.
Set out a clear view on whether, and when, money is a good way to encourage the right behaviour.
Explain how it might work on each side: money can change behaviour quickly, but it may also push out the motives people already had or change what the act means to them.
Deal with the strongest objection to your view, for example that if a scheme leads to more blood donated or more pupils passing, the motives behind it matter less than the results.
Back up your points with concrete examples or thought experiments, and be careful not to claim more than you know about what the evidence shows.
End with a conclusion that answers the question rather than a list of considerations.