TARA Exam Syllabus Breakdown: Subject-by-Subject Guide with Sample Questions

TARA does not care what you know; it cares how you think. The TARA is a 2 hour test divided into 3 modules. The relief and panic that come with an exam with no facts to memorize can be daunting.

TARA at a glance

Module-wise breakdown:

Module 1: Critical Thinking: this section focuses on evaluating arguments by tracking how reasons logically support conclusions. For any given question, we must accept the premises provided as true. 

There are 7 Core Skills the TARA tests in this section:

• Identifying the Main Conclusion
• Drawing a Conclusion
• Identifying an Assumption
• Assessing the Impact of Additional Evidence
• Detecting Reasoning Errors
• Matching Arguments (identifying parallel structures)
• Applying Principles

Identifying the Main Conclusion

In this type of question, you have to judge which one of the options A to E best expresses the main conclusion of the argument. So, the first important step is to read the passage carefully and pick out the sentence which is the conclusion. Remember that the conclusion can appear anywhere within an argument, not necessarily at the end. Remember also that what you are looking for is the statement which follows from, or is supported by, the rest of the passage. 

#CTA#UAT-UK Strategy

Sample Question

The Royal Society, Britain’s leading science organisation, has millions of pounds invested in fossil fuel companies. At the same time, it has published many doom-laden reports on the impact of human activity on the environment, and many of its members are devoted to researching climate change. It is hypocritical for the Society’s money to be invested in companies whose operations are in conflict with many of its publications and the careers of its members. The Society should abandon its investments in fossil fuels. This would be following the example of other organisations such as the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Which one of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument? 
A. The Royal Society has millions of pounds invested in fossil fuel companies. 
B. The operations of fossil fuel companies are in conflict with the aims of the Royal Society. 
C. It is hypocritical for the Royal Society’s money to be invested in fossil fuel companies. 
D. The Royal Society should abandon its investments in fossil fuels. 
E. The Royal Society should follow the example of the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. 

Answer: D.

To find the main conclusion, we look for the ultimate point the author is trying to persuade us to accept. All the other statements in the passage act as building blocks (premises) to support this final recommendation.

Here is how the argument breaks down logically:

• Premise 1: The Royal Society has millions invested in fossil fuel companies.
• Premise 2: The Royal Society publishes reports on environmental damage, and its members research climate change.
• Premise 3 (Intermediate Conclusion): Because of Premises 1 and 2, the Society’s investments conflict with its work, making it hypocritical.
• Premise 4: Other organizations (like the National Theatre) have already successfully abandoned fossil fuel investments.
• Main Conclusion (The ultimate "Therefore..."): Therefore, the Royal Society should abandon its investments in fossil fuels.

Drawing a Conclusion

In this type of question, you are asked which of the options can be drawn as a conclusion from the passage. You need to consider each of the statements A to E, and to think about whether the information in the passage gives you good reasons to accept the statement. Note that this differs from the Identifying the Main Conclusion question type in that a conclusion does not appear in the passage. 

Sample Question

Since the late 1990s wolves have been seen in the Haute-France region of the Alps. This places them once again in conflict with the shepherds who farm this region. Due to the protected status of the European wolf, French farmers are awarded a compensation payment for the loss of any of their sheep to a wolf. This payment amounts to considerably more than the livestock value of the animal. In addition to this, it is very difficult to distinguish between evidence of a wolf attack and dog attack. France has a population of 8 million dogs; 8 000 of these are estimated to be wild compared to only 200 wolves. Which one of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage? 
A, The problem of wolves attacking sheep in the French Alps has been exaggerated. 

B. Any claim that a sheep has been attacked by a wolf should be treated with caution. 

C. The protected status of the European wolf is unpopular in the French farming community. D. The wolf’s reputation for killing sheep is undeserved. 

E. The compensation scheme should be discontinued. 

Answer: B.

To find the conclusion that can be safely drawn, we must look for a statement that is directly supported by combining the facts (premises) given in the passage, without making external assumptions.

Here is the argument laid out in logical form:

• Premise 1: Farmers receive a compensation payment for sheep lost to a wolf.
• Premise 2: This payment is considerably higher than the actual market value of the sheep (creating a strong financial incentive for farmers to claim an attack was by a wolf).
• Premise 3: It is highly difficult to physically distinguish between a wolf attack and a dog attack.
• Premise 4: Stray/wild dogs vastly outnumber wolves in France (8,000 wild dogs vs. 200 wolves).
• Conclusion (Inference): Because there is a high financial incentive to blame wolves, wild dogs are far more common, and the physical evidence looks the same, any specific claim that a wolf killed a sheep must be treated with caution.

Identifying an Assumption 
An assumption is something that is not stated in the argument, but which is taken for granted to reach the conclusion. So, to answer these questions, you first need to identify the conclusion of the argument. Ask yourself what the main point that the argument tries to get you to accept; then look for the reasoning it gives to support this conclusion, and think about any important point that is not actually stated in the reasoning. 

Sample Question
The definition of a faith school is a school that provides a general education within a framework of a specific religious belief. According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the National Secular Society, which campaigns for the separation of religion and the state, 21% of parents in England who put a non-faith secondary school as their first choice were assigned a faith school, the corresponding figure for primary schools being 14%. These figures show that many children are having religion imposed upon them against their parents’ wishes. They add to a growing weight of evidence showing that faith schools restrict choice for many parents, adding uncertainty and confusion to an already complex admissions system. Which one of the following is an underlying assumption of the above argument? 

A. The number of faith schools is roughly equal to the number of non-faith schools. 

B. Many of the parents whose first choice was a non-faith school did not want their children to attend a faith school. 

C. There are significantly more secondary faith schools than primary faith schools. 

D. People cannot make informed decisions about religion until adulthood. 

E. In most cases parents consult their children about which schools to put down as their preference. 

Answer: B.

An underlying assumption is an unstated premise: a missing link that the author must believe to be true for their conclusion to hold together. If you negate (prove false) the correct assumption, the argument completely collapses.

Here is how the argument breaks down logically:

• Premise 1: A faith school provides education within a specific religious framework.
• Premise 2 (Data): 21% of secondary parents and 14% of primary parents who selected a non-faith school as their first choice were instead assigned a faith school.
• Implicit Assumption: Choosing a non-faith school as a first choice means those parents actively objected to or did not want a faith school as a backup.
• Conclusion: Therefore, many children are having religion imposed upon them against their parents’ wishes, and faith schools restrict parental choice.

Assessing the Impact of Additional Evidence 

In this type of question, you are typically asked to identify, from five choices A to E, what might strengthen or weaken an argument. In the example below, you are asked to consider what would strengthen the argument. To answer this type of question, you first need to be clear about what the argument is trying to establish; then you need to consider what effect each of the possible answers would have on the argument. 

Sample Question
Next time you feel the flu coming on, you should think twice before reaching for painkillers because they could do more harm than good by increasing the transmission of flu. Obviously, painkillers can make you feel better by reducing muscle pains and headaches, but they also lower fever. Fever is thought to be an antiviral weapon, because many viruses find it hard to replicate at temperatures higher than the normal human body temperature. Some studies have shown that lowering fever can prolong viral infections and increase the amount of the virus that can be passed on to others. Which one of the following, if true, strengthens the above argument? 
A. Overuse of painkillers can reduce their effectiveness in curing headaches. 

B. Taking painkillers increases the likelihood that flu sufferers will return to work while still infectious. 

C. The studies of the effect of lowering fever were carried out on animals, not humans. 

D. The most effective defence against flu is an annual anti-flu injection. 

E. People are more likely to take an accidental overdose of painkillers when they have a virus. 

Answer: B.

To find the statement that strengthens the argument, we must first identify the core logic of the passage:

• Premise 1: Painkillers reduce fever.
• Premise 2: Fever is the body's natural defense that slows down virus replication.
• Premise 3: Lowering fever can prolong the infection and increase the amount of virus a person sheds.
• Main Conclusion: Therefore, taking painkillers can do more harm than good by increasing the transmission of flu to others.

To strengthen this argument, we need a piece of evidence that reinforces the link between taking painkillers and the increased spread (transmission) of the virus to other people.

Detecting Reasoning Errors

In this type of question, you are asked to identify the flaw in the argument, which means that you must explain why the conclusion does not follow from the reasons that are given. To do this, you need to be clear about what the conclusion is, and what reasons are meant to support it. Ask yourself what the main point is that the argument is trying to establish, and how it tries to establish it. 

Sample Question
Two hundred years ago the average woman in a rich nation could expect to give birth to 8.5 children and to die around her fifty-fifth birthday. By 1920 the birth rate had halved to 4.2 children and women’s life expectancy had risen to almost seventy years. We can conclude, therefore, that the heavy biological toll of childbirth on women means that the more times they give birth, the faster they age and the more likely they are to die early. Which one of the following best expresses the flaw in the above argument? 

A. It assumes that, historically, women were ignorant of the toll childbirth takes. 

B. It draws conclusions which relate only to women in rich nations. 

C. It fails to note falling infant mortality rates in the given time period. 

D. It implies that all women who have multiple pregnancies will die early. 

E. It fails to consider other factors that might have improved women’s life expectancy. 

Answer: E.

To identify the flaw, let's look at how the argument attempts to connect its premises to its conclusion:

• Premise 1: In 1826 (two hundred years ago), women in rich nations had an average of 8.5 children and lived to about 55.
• Premise 2: By 1920, the birth rate dropped to 4.2 children, and life expectancy rose to nearly 70.
• Conclusion(confusing correlation for causation): Therefore, giving birth to more children causes women to age faster and die earlier.

Matching Arguments 

This type of question asks you to identify similarity between arguments, but not the sort of similarity where two arguments are about the same topic. The similarity you are looking for is in the structure or the pattern of the argument. Note that it is the relationship between the statements in the passage that is important, not necessarily the order in which they occur. The statements in the correct answer may be deliberately rearranged to make the similarity with the passage less obvious. Sometimes, the argument in the passage will be invalid, but you should ignore this because this type of question is solely about the structure of the argument, and not about whether the argument is valid or not. The example below contains an argument that is not valid. 

Sample Question
Any hospital which is serious about reducing its deficit and bringing its budget under control will examine carefully the land and buildings it owns, in order to see if any of them can be sold to raise money. Our local hospital is evidently determined to keep its finances under control, because it has recently cancelled a planned extension to the visitors’ car park and sold the ground for housing. Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the above argument? 
A. Any student who wants to gain a place at a top university should develop a special interest which will impress admissions tutors. Emily aims to secure a place at a top university. So she needs to develop an impressive special interest. 

B. Any parent who wishes to bring up children to be truthful should never lie to them. Natalie cannot want her children to grow up to be truthful, because she often deliberately tells them things which are not true. 

C. Any school which persistently gets poor examination results will be put into ‘special measures’ by the Government. Our local secondary school is sure to be put into special measures because its exam results have been dreadful for the last 5 years. 

D. Any worker at this company who is persistently late for work will be dismissed. Joe always arrives at work on time. So he is in no danger of losing his job. 

E. Anyone who wishes to study English at university needs to learn to read quickly. Vanessa has developed impressive speed-reading skills. So she must be planning to study English at university 

Answer: E.

To find the parallel argument, we need to map out the underlying structure of the original text. It commits a specific logical error known as affirming the consequent (or confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one).

The original passage follows this exact structure:

• Rule: If you are serious about goal X, you will do action Y. (If Serious then Sell Assets)
• Observation: The hospital has done action Y. (They sold assets)
• Conclusion: Therefore, the hospital must be serious about goal X

Applying Principles

When you are asked which statement illustrates the principle underlying the passage, you must first identify this principle. A principle is a general recommendation, which, in the passage, will be applied to just one particular case, but which could also be applied to other cases. For example, someone might use the principle ‘Killing is wrong’ in order to argue for pacifism, i.e. for refusing to go to war. If we are to accept the principle that killing is wrong, then it also follows that capital punishment is wrong, and even that killing in self-defence is wrong. In order to answer this type of question, you first need to understand the argument, so look for the conclusion, and for the reasons, in the usual way. This should enable you to see what general principle the argument relies on in order to draw its conclusion. You then need to consider each possible answer to see which one follows from the general principle you have identified. 

Sample Question
Many people knowingly buy fake brands because they are substantially cheaper than the genuine article would be. They may try to justify their behaviour, on the grounds that manufacturers and retailers are already rich enough because they charge customers excessively high prices while paying extremely low wages to their employees. As true as these claims may be, it doesn’t excuse the shopper for encouraging piracy. Which one of the following illustrates the principle used in the above argument? 

A. There is no justification for hotels charging inflated prices when demand for rooms is high. B. Jorge was wrong to spread lies about his ex-girlfriend even though she had cheated on him. 

C. Shops should not set high prices on articles just so that they can reduce them in the sales. 

D. No one should ever post a message on social media that they would not want posted about themselves. 

E. Footballers are entitled to criticise a referee for a bad decision only if it has advantaged the other side 

Answer: B.

To find the parallel principle, we must extract the core underlying moral rule used by the author. Let's look at the structure of the original argument:

• Context: People engage in bad/illegal behavior (buying fake brands).
• Counter-claim/Justification: They argue their action is okay because the victim of their behavior (the manufacturers) did something bad first (charging high prices and paying low wages).
• The Underlying Principle: One person's bad behavior does not justify or excuse another person's bad behavior in return.

Module 2: Problem Solving

There are three kinds of Problem Solving question in the TARA, each assessing a key aspect of insight into unfamiliar problems. The three kinds are Relevant Selection, Finding Procedures, and Identifying Similarity. Although most questions fall into one category, some questions fit into one or more of the categories. The following examples show the three kinds of Problem Solving questions you will find in the TARA. 

Relevant Selection

In real-world problems, it is unusual to have only the information that is required to reach the solution. Instead, there will usually be additional information, much of which is unimportant. The first step in solving the problem is to identify the information that is relevant. Questions testing Relevant Selection present you with information which is not important, perhaps redundant, and possibly distracting. The task is to select and apply only that information which is necessary and helpful in finding a solution. 

Sample Question
Jasper’s school bag can carry up to 5 books. He stores the rest of his school books in his locker. He can visit his locker before school, at break time, and at lunch time to change the books he carries in his bag. The tables below show his timetable and the number of books needed for each of his lessons. Each subject has completely different books. 

On which day does Jasper not need to visit his locker at break time? 

A. Monday 

B. Tuesday 

C. Wednesday 

D. Thursday 

E. Friday

Answer: D.

To find the day Jasper does not need to visit his locker at break time, we need to check if his bag can hold all the books required for his lessons before break time plus the lesson immediately after break time.

Constraints:

• Maximum bag capacity = 5 books
• Each subject uses completely different books.

On Thursday:

Before Break: music (1 book) + English (1 book) = 2 books

After Break: mathematics (3 books)

Total needed in bag from morning: 1 + 1 + 3

Result: Exactly 5 books! Jasper can pack his music, English, and math books in the morning before school starts, completely bypassing his locker at break time.

Finding Procedures

Sometimes you will find that even if you are presented with, or have selected, only the relevant information, the route to the solution is not immediately clear. You then have to devise a method or procedure that you can use to generate a solution 

Sample Question
The total price of a flight between two cities is made up of three parts: a basic cost, airport charges, and a booking fee. Last year, for a flight with a total price of $330, the basic cost and the airport charges were in the ratio 3 : 2 and the booking fee was $50. This year, the basic cost of a flight has been increased by 20%, the airport charges have been increased by 10% and the booking fee has been halved. What is the total price of the same flight this year? 

A. $335.00 

B. $344.20 

C. $349.80 

D. $374.80 

E. $407.80 

Answer: C.

1. Find the components of last year's total price:

• Last year's total price = $330$
• Last year's booking fee = $50$
• Therefore, the combined cost of the basic cost and airport charges last year was:
  Basic Cost + Airport Charge = $330 - $50 = $280

2. Calculate the individual costs for last year using the given ratio (3 : 2):

• Total ratio parts = 3 + 2 = 5 parts.
• Value of one part = 280/5 = $56
• Basic cost last year = 3 * $56 = $168
• Airport charges last year = 2 * $56 = $112

3. Apply this year's changes to each component:

• New Basic Cost (increased by 20%):
• $168 * 1.20 = $201.60
• New Airport Charges (increased by 10%):
  $112 * 1.10 = $123.20
• New Booking Fee (halved):
  $50/2 = $25.00

4. Calculate this year's total flight price:

• Total Price = $201.60 + $123.20 + $25.00 = $349.80

Identifying Similarity 
In this type of question you will typically be presented with information or data represented in more than one way (including e.g. charts, tables, etc.). To answer the question, you will need to understand the relationships between these and to identify any similarities or differences in the data they represent. Some questions may require you to identify reflections or rotations of simple shapes, or manipulations of 2D and 3D objects. 

Sample Question
Terence drew the bar chart below to represent the sales from his shop on each day from Monday to Friday last week.

He also drew the following pie chart, but forgot to include one of the days.

Which day was missed out on the pie chart? 

A. Monday 

B. Tuesday 

C. Wednesday 

D. Thursday 

E. Friday

Answer: C.

Reading from the bar chart, the sales on each day are:

Monday: 80

Tuesday: 30

Wednesday: 100

Thursday: 120

Friday: 70

When initially comparing the bar chart and the pie chart, it appears likely that the smallest segment of the pie chart represents Tuesday, as the sales on Tuesday are much lower than on any of the other days.

Another key feature of the pie chart is that the two segments on the left make up half of the total area, and the two segments on the right make up the other half.

To solve this problem, you have to work out which four days, including Tuesday, can combine so that two of the days make half of the total, and the other two days make the other half.

By inspecting the sales for each day, and possibly by trial-and-error, it can be concluded that the only way that this can be achieved is if the two segments on the left are Tuesday and Thursday, and the two segments on the right are Monday and Friday. Both of these pairs of days add to give 150, with the four days together giving a total of 300.

Module 3: Writing Task 
In the Writing Task module of the TARA, you will be presented with three questions, of which you must answer only one. Each question will typically present a short statement and ask you to explain what you think is meant by the statement, give a reasoned argument against the statement, and discuss the extent to which you agree with the statement. The questions are designed to be suitable for applicants to a wide range of courses, coming from a variety of educational backgrounds; detailed knowledge of the subject of the statement is not expected or required. 

Sample Question
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? 

There is no single correct way to approach the Writing Task, but you should consider these recommendations: 

General 

• Ensure that all three parts of the question are clearly and fully addressed. • Make points as precisely as possible and avoid repetition. 

• Group similar points together, rather than splitting them across your answer.

Planning 

• It is a good idea to plan your answer for 5 to 10 minutes before starting to write. 

• In your plan, group your ideas around the three different parts of the task. 

• Use your plan to ensure you express your ideas as persuasively and concisely as possible. 

Engaging with the statement 

• Engage closely with the wording of the statement and the question. 

• Take a broad and nuanced view of any general or abstract terms. 

• Avoid discussing the topic area in an unfocused or overly general way. 

Arguing effectively 

• Always try to see both sides of the argument. 

• Use targeted, concrete examples to support your arguments. 

• Avoid arguments that rest solely on examples – examples should not be overly general or given without context. 

The counter-argument 

• Strengthen the counter-argument by including a range of points. 

• Cover different aspects of the same argument from different angles, where possible. 

• Avoid the inclusion of irrelevant background information. 

Expressing your view 

• Make sure that your view is clearly expressed and in enough depth. 

• Support your view by reference to your arguments in the rest of your answer. 

• Do not simply summarise what you have already said 

Conclusion:

We hope this TARA syllabus and Sample Question breakdown This breakdown should help students understand the structure of the TARA, the skills assessed in each module, and the kinds of questions they should practise before test day. For individualised learning programmes and support, contact Tutela Prep and learn more about our services.