Last checked
CELPIP Reading Part 4 practice with answers
Read a debate about office incentives in a fictional downtown, then complete a reader’s comment. This unofficial Part 4 set has ten questions with explanations and a 13-minute suggested timer.
What Reading for Viewpoints tests
Part 4 combines an article with a reader comment. Answer five questions about the article, then complete five blanks in the comment, with approximately 13 minutes for the part. You need to understand the overall issue and distinguish the views expressed within it. An article can report someone’s argument without making that argument the writer’s own position.
The comment introduces another voice. Its writer may agree with one person, qualify another claim and propose a condition. Read it as a connected argument before choosing its missing phrases. A phrase that accurately describes the article can still conflict with what the commenter is saying in that particular sentence.
The official interface uses drop-down answers and does not allow on-screen highlighting or annotation. Use paper and pen for a short record of names and positions if needed. This set concerns a fictional city’s proposed office incentive program. Keep the proposal, the speakers’ preferences and the council’s actual decision status separate. An argument in favour of an action does not establish that the action has been approved.
Track who supports what, and on which terms
Beside each named person, note their position and the condition that limits it. A simple label such as support or oppose can lose an important distinction. Someone may welcome a benefit while questioning how it is funded, or favour office attendance for some work while objecting to a general target.
Renée’s phrase “planned collaborative sessions” narrows the circumstances in which she supports attendance incentives. Read the surrounding explanation before interpreting her view as a position on all office work. Likewise, a person who benefits from a proposal can still reject a particular requirement attached to it. Attribute each reason to the person who gives it, rather than grouping everyone by whether they appear broadly favourable.
For questions about the article’s main issue or a paragraph’s purpose, consider how the points fit together. A detail about one stakeholder is narrower than the debate across the whole article. Separate the writer’s presentation of an evaluation gap from a quoted speaker’s preference. Avoid choosing an extreme summary merely because it uses a familiar term from the text; check whether it removes a qualification or adds certainty.
A 13-minute method and a focused speed exercise
Try this suggested allocation: three minutes to read the article and map the viewpoints, four minutes for the five article questions, four minutes for the comment blanks and two minutes for review. The official part time is approximate; these internal divisions are a study plan. Follow the displayed test timer during an actual sitting.
During the opening read, put a short condition beside each name. For each article question, identify whether it asks about the overall debate, a specific detail, a person’s attitude or the function of a paragraph. Search at that level. A main-issue question needs the article’s scope; a named-person question needs the relevant view and its qualification.
To build speed, review one speaker at a time and write a brief summary that preserves both support and reservation. Check it against the text, then compare it with a deliberately overbroad version. Notice the word that makes the broad version inaccurate. This exercise helps you reject distorted summaries without rereading every paragraph. Use the final review interval to resolve attribution and check unanswered blanks. Return to Part 3 for more evidence matching, or use the mock test guide to plan work across components.
Free Reading Part 4 practice set
Practice set: Who Benefits from the Downtown Return?
Original Part 4 set written for CLB Mock. Suggested time: 13 minutes.
The fictional mid-sized city of Elmbridge is proposing a six-month incentive program to bring more office workers downtown. Participating employers would receive a small grant for improving shared workspaces if they scheduled staff downtown at least three days a week. Employees would receive discounted transit passes. The proposal comes after a business survey found weekday lunch sales well below previous levels, even though weekend visits had largely recovered.
Economic development director Celia Ramos says the program is intended to test whether coordinated office days can restore dependable weekday demand. She rejects the suggestion that municipal support should continue indefinitely. Employers would submit attendance totals, without identifying individual employees, and grants would end after six months. However, the proposed evaluation measures attendance and merchant sales during the subsidy period, not whether either increase lasts once assistance stops.
Lunch counter owner Owen Patel welcomes the prospect of regular customers, particularly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, when his staffing exceeds demand. He would prefer predictable office schedules to occasional crowded promotional events. Yet he questions why grants would go to office employers rather than directly to struggling storefronts. "If the goal is helping businesses like mine, we should be able to compare this route with a simpler one," he says.
Office employee Renée Dufour values meeting colleagues in person when they are working on something together. She objects to a three-day target that treats presence as useful regardless of the work being done. A discounted bus pass would reduce her expenses, but her main concern is the time spent commuting to sit in online meetings. She would support attendance incentives linked to planned collaborative sessions, with flexibility for tasks that require uninterrupted concentration.
Property owner Marcus Lee favours the proposal because occupied offices could encourage employers to renew leases. He acknowledges that this benefit would reach landlords as well as merchants. Nevertheless, he opposes making grants conditional on a long lease renewal: some smaller firms would then be excluded precisely because their future space needs remain uncertain. His preferred approach is a short trial that leaves employers free to reassess their premises afterward.
Urban researcher Joëlle Grant argues that the city is asking an unnecessarily narrow question. Rather than trying only to recover office foot traffic, it could compare the program with evening classes, additional housing or services that attract different groups throughout the week. She does not dismiss office workers' spending. She doubts the wisdom of relying on one group again. Council has requested a revised evaluation that follows participating firms after the grants expire and estimates who receives the benefits. It has not yet agreed to fund either the office program or any of Joëlle's alternatives.
Reply with blanks
Predictable customers would help Owen Patel, but his question about (blank 1) ________ deserves an answer before money is committed. Renée Dufour's objection is also more specific than opposition to office work: she wants attendance to reflect (blank 2) ________. Marcus Lee, meanwhile, acknowledges a benefit to landlords but resists (blank 3) ________, partly because uncertain firms could be shut out. These are useful distinctions that a simple debate about returning to work tends to miss. I agree with Joëlle Grant that (blank 4) ________ could make downtown less dependent on a single routine. If council proceeds with the office trial, its revised evaluation should establish (blank 5) ________. A temporary increase while discounts are available would be interesting, but it would not settle whether the program creates a lasting change.
Arun, Elmbridge
How to review this set
Group errors by mistaken attribution, lost conditions, overly broad summaries or broken comment logic. “When attendance serves planned collaboration” keeps Renée’s condition, while “a lease-renewal requirement” identifies the restriction Marcus resists. The final answer, “whether gains survive the subsidies”, concerns persistence after assistance ends. For each error, note whose view you misread or which condition disappeared, then compare your choice with the explanation.
Frequently asked questions
How many questions are in Reading Part 4?
There are ten: five about an article and five blanks in a reader comment. The approximate part time is 13 minutes.
Is every opinion in the article the writer’s opinion?
No. Keep reported and quoted opinions attached to their speakers. Consider the article’s overall framing separately from each person’s position.
Does the comment always agree with the article?
Read the comment’s own argument rather than assuming agreement. In this set, Arun weighs several views and gives a condition for evaluating the proposed trial.
How should I take notes without highlighting?
Write names with short positions and conditions on the supplied paper. On-screen highlighting and annotation are unavailable.
Can I return to Part 4 after its timer ends?
You cannot return to a completed part. Include the comment blanks and a check for unanswered questions within the available time.
Sources
Checked October 19, 2026. Rules and fees change: check the official page before you act. celpip.ca pages were read from public archive snapshots because the site blocks automated access.
Complete the reader comment as a single argument
Read the comment once with the blanks still empty. Identify whose views it discusses, which ideas the commenter accepts and what question remains unresolved. Then work through the choices using both the article and the words around each blank. A reference to a person should preserve that person’s actual concern.
Look closely at connectors. Words such as “but” can introduce a reservation after a benefit, while “if” can make a recommendation conditional. Read through to the end of the sentence before selecting an option. The clause after a blank may explain why one interpretation fits and another changes the commenter’s reasoning.
Arun’s comment distinguishes a “temporary increase” from a “lasting change”. When reviewing the completed text, check that the selected wording preserves that distinction rather than treating any observed increase as a settled outcome. Also watch for choices that borrow a real issue from the wrong speaker. A phrase can belong somewhere in the article and still fail the particular comment sentence. Finish by reading the whole comment continuously to check the direction of its argument.