Last checked
CELPIP Writing Task 2 samples with answers
Study how three original survey answers support a choice, consider the alternative and stay within the question’s scope. Compare two simpler versions; all level labels are our teaching estimates.
How to use these Task 2 samples
Choose an option and write your response before reading the sample. In your plan, give each reason a different job: one might explain who benefits, while another addresses a practical difficulty. After writing, trace the connection between each reason and your choice. Compare that structure with the sample instead of collecting phrases to insert into unrelated surveys.
All three stronger answers state a preference immediately and develop it through a specific person or household. The cooperative answer distinguishes ownership from spending; the storage answer connects a bicycle to lost living space; the hospital answer links visiting flexibility to a work schedule. Each also gives the alternative a fair hearing before explaining why its own priority matters more. Their comparisons help the reader follow the decision even if the reader prefers the other option.
Use the simpler rewrites to locate a revision you can make yourself. Look for a repeated claim, an example that needs a consequence, or a comparison that stops too soon. Then rewrite that passage with your own details. The survey task guide offers a flexible outline; the final timed question lets you test it on a fresh decision.
Task 2 (Responding to Survey Questions) gives you 26 minutes for 150–200 words. Every question and answer here is original and unofficial; levels are our teaching estimates, not CELPIP ratings.
Sample 1: Distributing a Cooperative Surplus
A member-owned service cooperative in Regina has a one-time surplus after paying its expenses. Members contributed different amounts through service fees, but every household has one vote. The board is surveying members on two ways to distribute the surplus. Both would return the entire amount this year, with no change to future fees.
- Option A: Return money in proportion to the service fees each household paid during the year.
- Option B: Give every member household the same cash payment, regardless of its service use.
- Choose the option that you prefer.
- Explain the reasons for your choice.
- Write about 150–200 words.
An equal payment to every household is the distribution I would support because membership carries a shared stake in the cooperative, even when service use differs. This surplus can recognize that common ownership.
Some households can afford to purchase services frequently, while others use them sparingly to stay within a budget. A proportional refund would direct the largest payments toward those who spent the most. Equal payments would provide a useful amount to occasional users without requiring them to have made substantial purchases first.
The proportional option has a strong argument: households paying more fees contributed more revenue. However, revenue alone does not show how much each household contributed to the surplus, since different services may have different operating costs. A spending-based formula could appear more precise than it really is.
My neighbour Élodie uses only one service each season but participates in member decisions throughout the year. An equal payment would acknowledge that her membership matters alongside that of a frequent customer. The calculation would also be easily verified.
Here, equal treatment is preferable. Future fee planning can address service costs separately, without making this year's payment depend on household purchasing power.
Why it scores well:
- Content/Coherence: “shared stake” establishes the fairness principle; Élodie’s participation then illustrates membership beyond frequent purchases.
- Vocabulary: “revenue” and “operating costs” distinguish money received from the costs that affect the surplus.
- Readability: “However” marks the answer to the proportional option’s strongest argument; separate paragraphs develop access, comparison and the personal example.
- Task Fulfillment: “equal payment” states the choice immediately, and “this year’s payment” keeps the recommendation about the one-time distribution rather than turning it into a future fee change.
Sample 2: Making Better Use of a Storage Room
Management of an apartment building in Moncton plans to renovate an unused ground-floor room. Residents have suggested two uses, and either project would fit the renovation budget. There is no other indoor space available for expansion. Management is asking tenants which proposal would offer the greater benefit in their daily lives.
- Option A: Create secure bicycle storage with numbered racks and room for basic maintenance.
- Option B: Create a parcel room with lockable compartments and extended collection hours.
- Choose the option that you prefer.
- Explain the reasons for your choice.
- Write about 150–200 words.
Secure bicycle storage is my preferred use for the room because it would solve a persistent space problem inside residents' apartments. Bicycles are awkward to store when every square metre counts.
At present, my neighbour Mateo keeps his bicycle beside his dining table. Moving it downstairs would free up space and spare him the awkward task of carrying it through narrow doorways. Numbered racks would also make it clear where each bicycle belongs, reducing the chance of the room becoming cluttered.
A parcel room would be convenient, particularly for residents who receive frequent deliveries. Yet a parcel generally needs temporary storage, whereas a bicycle occupies space throughout the year. The renovation should address the more lasting problem. Residents could continue arranging deliveries for times when they expect to be home.
The maintenance area adds another practical advantage. A small repair stand would let tenants adjust brakes or replace a tube without bringing dirt into their living rooms. Clear rules could prohibit lengthy projects and abandoned parts.
For these reasons, bicycle storage would make apartments easier to live in while providing a shared facility with a clear, consistent purpose.
Why it scores well:
- Content/Coherence: Mateo’s bicycle “beside his dining table” shows lost living space; numbered racks then address orderly shared storage.
- Vocabulary: “temporary storage” and “throughout the year” precisely express the duration comparison behind the choice.
- Readability: “whereas” contrasts parcels and bicycles in one controlled sentence; the maintenance paragraph adds a distinct practical reason.
- Task Fulfillment: “preferred use for the room” selects one project, while “prohibit lengthy projects and abandoned parts” addresses a drawback without proposing unavailable extra space.
Sample 3: A New Arrangement for Hospital Visiting
A community hospital in Owen Sound is consulting residents about visiting arrangements for a general recovery ward. Both proposals preserve quiet overnight hours and allow exceptions approved by staff. The survey concerns ordinary visits, not clinical care or emergency access.
- Option A: Allow two visitors to attend together during fixed afternoon and evening visiting hours.
- Option B: Allow one visitor at a time across a longer daytime window, with short quiet breaks.
- Choose the option that you prefer.
- Explain the reasons for your choice.
- Write about 150–200 words.
One visitor at a time across a longer window would be my preference for ordinary recovery-ward visits. It would give families more flexibility while limiting the number of people around each bed.
My cousin Habib works afternoons and would struggle to visit within a narrow afternoon and evening schedule. A longer daytime window would allow him to come before work. Patients whose relatives have different routines could also spread visits across the day instead of receiving everyone during the same busy period.
Two simultaneous visitors could provide comfort when relatives prefer to come together. It would also let a patient share news without repeating it. Yet several beds with two visitors each could create a crowded environment, particularly when people bring coats and bags. A single visitor would make quieter conversation easier.
The proposed breaks should be posted clearly at the entrance and included in appointment information. Visitors would then know when to step away without treating a request for quiet as a personal refusal. Staff-approved exceptions remain important for unusual circumstances.
Within the survey's limits, the longer window seems more adaptable. It combines individual company with a manageable level of activity on the ward.
Why it scores well:
- Content/Coherence: Habib’s afternoon work explains the value of visiting “before work”; “coats and bags” makes the crowding concern concrete.
- Vocabulary: “simultaneous visitors” distinguishes arriving together from spreading visits across a longer window.
- Readability: “Yet” turns from the alternative’s benefit to its drawback; separate paragraphs keep scheduling, crowding and quiet breaks easy to follow.
- Task Fulfillment: “ordinary recovery-ward visits” limits the argument appropriately, and “Staff-approved exceptions” preserves a condition already built into the proposals.
CLB 7 version of Sample 1: Distributing a Cooperative Surplus
I would choose the same payment for every household. We are all members of the cooperative and we all have one vote. I think the money should be shared in the same way because everyone belongs to the group.
Some people use the services a lot and other people use them less. A family may have small budget, so they cannot buy many services. They are still members and the payment would be useful for them. For example, a family could use this money for shopping that week. I think this is a good reason for giving the same amount. It is also easy to understand, everyone can see that the amount is equal. The other option gives more money to people who paid more fees. I understand this idea because they paid more during the year, but I still prefer the equal payment. It is good for all members and it is simple. Both options return all the money this year and the future fees stay the same. My choice is about sharing this extra money now.
- Content/Coherence: “everyone belongs to the group” gives a reason but repeats the opening. The CLB 10 sample develops shared ownership through Élodie’s participation in decisions despite limited purchases.
- Vocabulary: “people who paid more fees” communicates the alternative plainly. The stronger version distinguishes “revenue” from “operating costs” to explain why spending alone may be an imperfect measure.
- Readability: “have small budget” needs an article, while “It is also easy to understand, everyone can see” needs a sentence boundary. The CLB 10 sample gives the opposing argument its own paragraph.
- Task Fulfillment: “but I still prefer the equal payment” maintains the choice but barely answers the objection. The stronger answer explains why a proportional formula could appear more precise than it is.
The biggest revision would be to answer the fairness argument for proportional refunds. Explain why paying more fees does not settle how this surplus should be divided.
CLB 7 version of Sample 3: A New Arrangement for Hospital Visiting
I prefer one visitor at a time with a longer daytime visiting window. This would be better for families because they could choose a time that suits them. It would also keep fewer people beside each bed.
Some people work in the afternoon and cannot come at the fixed visiting hours. For example, my brother starts work at two and he could visit in morning before going to work. This would be good for him and good for the person he visits. Two visitors together could be nice because relatives can come together, but there would be more people in the room. It can get noisy, patients may want to rest. I think one visitor is enough for a conversation. The quiet breaks are useful too and people should know when they are. The hospital could put the times on a notice near the door. Both choices keep the night quiet and staff can still allow exceptions. I choose the longer window because it gives families more choice during the day without having two visitors at each bed.
- Content/Coherence: “good for him and good for the person he visits” repeats a benefit loosely. The stronger answer explains how relatives with different routines can spread visits across the day.
- Vocabulary: “more people in the room” is understandable but broad. The CLB 10 sample adds “coats and bags” to make the crowded environment easier to picture.
- Readability: “in morning” needs “the”, and “It can get noisy, patients may want to rest” needs a sentence boundary. The stronger version separates the comparison from the quiet-break arrangements.
- Task Fulfillment: “relatives can come together” acknowledges the alternative briefly. The CLB 10 sample develops that benefit: a patient can share news without repeating it, then weighs it against crowding.
The biggest revision would be to develop the comparison: explain what two visitors offer the patient before showing why flexibility and fewer people still matter more.
What separates CLB 7 from CLB 10 in this task
| Dimension | Around CLB 7 | Around CLB 10 |
|---|---|---|
| Content/Coherence | States a choice and understandable reasons, but repeats benefits or leaves examples partly explained. | Develops distinct reasons and connects examples to the decision; weighs a meaningful benefit of the alternative. |
| Vocabulary | Relies on broad words such as good, useful or more people, with some repetition. | Uses accurate, varied words for the specific trade-off, such as ownership versus spending or simultaneous versus staggered visits. |
| Readability | Simple connections carry the argument, though crowded paragraphs and occasional grammar or punctuation errors slow reading. | Paragraphs organize reasons and comparisons; controlled sentence variety, transitions, spelling and punctuation clarify the reasoning. |
| Task Fulfillment | Makes a relevant choice in a suitable survey tone and meets the length, with limited explanation of competing priorities. | Supports the chosen option fully within the scenario’s conditions, sustains an appropriate tone and uses the word range effectively. |
These are our teaching descriptions of the sample differences, not official descriptors. See how CELPIP is scored for the four writing dimensions.
Task 2 checklist for the last three minutes
- Check the counter and bring the finished response within 150–200 words.
- Confirm that the first and last sentences support the same option.
- Check every instruction and scenario condition, including limits that both options share.
- Find the explanation after each main reason; replace a repeated claim with a useful consequence.
- Keep the tone measured and the comparison fair; remove any email greeting or sign-off.
- Split crowded paragraphs and repair sentence boundaries, articles and connectors that obscure your argument.
- Use spell-check, then reread for wrong words and unsupported claims it cannot resolve.
Your turn: an unseen Task 2 question
Write your answer in the timed pad below, then compare it with the samples above.
Try it now: timed writing
The transit authority in Saskatoon can fund additional bus operating hours. It can increase frequency on existing main routes or extend service into new suburbs with no current bus connection. Residents are asked which improvement should receive priority this year.
- Option A: Run buses more frequently on main routes.
- Option B: Extend bus service to new suburbs.
- Select the proposal you would support.
- Support your preference with reasons and examples.
- Write a response of about 150–200 words.
Your text stays in this browser tab and is gone when you leave. Nothing is sent or saved.
Frequently asked questions
Must I mention the other option in Task 2?
Follow the instructions in your question. For these practice responses, a brief comparison is useful because it explains why your reasons favour one proposal; you do not need to give both options equal space.
Can I use a survey template?
A choice, developed reasons and a brief comparison make a useful planning outline. Adapt the order to your argument and supply details specific to the survey.
How many paragraphs should a survey answer have?
Try a short opening followed by separate paragraphs for your main reasons or comparison. Adjust the divisions to your content; these samples are not a prescribed paragraph count.
Can I write more than 200 words?
The stated range is 150–200 words, and word count contributes to Task Fulfillment. Practise cutting repeated points so your complete argument fits the range.
Does choosing the sample’s option guarantee CLB 10?
No. The labels are our estimates of the complete teaching examples, not official ratings. Review how you support your preference, organize the response and control the language.
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.