CELPIP Writing Task 2 sample responses: 6 survey answers with examiner notes

CELPIP Writing Task 2 gives you a survey: a short situation, two options, and the instruction to choose one and explain why, in 150–200 words and about 26 minutes. It is not an essay. Nobody wants five paragraphs on both sides — the rater wants a decision in the first sentence, reasons that compare the two options, one honest sentence for the other side, and a close. The six responses below do exactly that on the survey types that appear: neighbourhood, workplace, city budget, school, company policy and public services.

What a band-9 survey response looks like

• The choice is stated in the first sentence, in the survey’s own words.
• Two or three reasons, each with a specific — a number, a place, an example — and each one comparing the chosen option with the other, not just praising it.
• One sentence that concedes what the other option does well, followed by why it still loses. This is what separates an opinion from an argument.
• Register: reasonable and civic, as if speaking at a meeting. Not academic, not casual.
• 170–195 words. Task 2 rewards completeness, and 150 is the floor, not the target.

1. Neighbourhood survey — a community garden or a parking lot

Survey: Your neighbourhood association is deciding how to use a vacant lot. Option A: a community garden. Option B: a small parking lot for residents. Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons.

I would choose the community garden, and I believe most of my neighbours would benefit more from it than from a parking lot. The first reason is how the space would be used. A parking lot serves the twenty or so households that own a second car; a garden serves everyone who wants a plot, including the many apartment residents on our street who have no outdoor space at all. Last summer a temporary garden on Elm Street had a waiting list within a month, which suggests the demand is real. Second, a garden changes how people treat the block. Neighbours who share plots talk to each other, watch each other’s children and notice when something is wrong. A parking lot is empty of people by design. I understand that parking is genuinely difficult on winter evenings, and the association could reserve a corner of the lot for six or eight permit spaces alongside the garden. But if the choice is one or the other, the garden gives the most residents the most value, and I would vote for it.

• Task Fulfillment: the choice is in sentence one, and every paragraph compares the two options rather than describing one.
• Content: “twenty or so households”, “Elm Street had a waiting list within a month” — evidence, not adjectives.
• Coherence: the concession paragraph proposes a compromise and then returns to the choice. That move is a band-10 habit.

2. Workplace survey — a four-day week or flexible hours

Survey: Your company is considering two changes to the work week. Option A: a four-day week with longer days. Option B: a five-day week with flexible start and finish times.

I would prefer the flexible five-day schedule. Although a four-day week sounds attractive, I think flexible hours would work better for more of us. My main reason is childcare. A four-day week means ten-hour days, and daycare in our area closes at six. For parents on the team, longer days are not a benefit; they are a problem to solve every week. Flexible start and finish times, on the other hand, let a parent begin at seven and leave at three, or start late after the school run, without changing the total hours. The second reason is customer coverage. Our clients contact us Monday to Friday, and a four-day week would leave a gap unless the team was split into two rotations, which complicates scheduling for everyone. Flexible hours keep the office reachable five days a week while still giving each person control over their day. I recognise that a three-day weekend is a real benefit for staff without family commitments, and perhaps it could be offered as an option later. For now, flexibility five days a week is the fairer change.

• Vocabulary: “rotations”, “coverage”, “commitments” — workplace words used naturally, and the register of someone answering an HR survey.
• Readability: sentence lengths vary from six words to thirty, and the semicolon in paragraph two is used correctly. Range with control is what Readability measures.
• Content: the childcare reason is a concrete mechanism (daycare closes at six), not a feeling.

3. City survey — bike lanes or more frequent buses

Survey: Your city has funding for one transportation project. Option A: protected bike lanes on the main streets. Option B: more frequent bus service on existing routes.

I would choose more frequent bus service. Bike lanes would help some residents, but better buses would help almost everyone. The most important reason is who uses each option. Cycling on main streets is realistic for people who are fit, live within a few kilometres of work and can ride in our winters; in practice that is a small share of the city. Buses are used by students, seniors, shift workers and families, and they run in January. A bus that comes every ten minutes instead of every twenty-five changes whether people can rely on it at all. Second, frequency solves the problem people actually complain about. In the last city survey, the top transit complaint was waiting, not routes. Adding buses to existing lines uses roads and stops that already exist, so the money goes into service rather than construction. Bike lanes are worth building eventually, and protected lanes do make streets safer. But given one budget and one choice, I would put it into buses that arrive when people need them.

• Coherence: “who uses each option” and “the problem people actually complain about” are the two reasons, announced and then developed. A rater never has to guess the structure.
• Content: “every ten minutes instead of every twenty-five” makes the abstract word “frequency” concrete.
• Task Fulfillment: the closing sentence restates the choice under the survey’s own constraint (“one budget and one choice”).

4. School survey — a uniform or the current dress code

Survey: The parent council is voting on a change for next year. Option A: introduce a school uniform. Option B: keep the current dress code with no uniform.

I support introducing a school uniform, mainly because of what it would do for the students who have the least. In our school, clothing has become a way of showing who can afford what. My daughter has told me about classmates who are teased for wearing the same jacket every week, and about the pressure to have particular brands of shoes. A uniform removes that comparison every morning. It does not end differences between families, but it takes them out of the classroom. There is also a practical benefit for parents. A uniform is bought once or twice a year, and used clothing can be passed between families through the parent council, as the neighbouring school already does. Compared with keeping up with fashion, that is cheaper for most households, not more expensive. I understand the concern that uniforms limit self-expression, and I would want the policy to allow choice in hairstyles, accessories and outerwear. With that flexibility, a uniform gives students a fairer start to the day, and I would vote for it.

• Content: the argument comes from a specific observed situation (the jacket, the shoes) rather than a general claim about discipline — which is what makes it persuasive.
• Vocabulary: “self-expression”, “outerwear”, “a fairer start” — precise without being showy.
• Coherence: the concession is answered with a condition (“with that flexibility”), so the writer concedes without weakening the choice.

5. Company survey — three office days or full choice

Survey: Your employer is deciding on a permanent policy. Option A: everyone works from the office at least three days a week. Option B: staff choose where they work each day.

I would choose the three-days-in-office policy, even though I enjoy working from home, because I think it protects the things a team cannot do remotely. The main reason is how new colleagues learn. Since we went fully remote last year, the two people who joined my team have never met most of us in person, and both have said in reviews that they feel unsure who to ask for help. When we shared an office, that knowledge came from sitting near people. Three overlapping days a week would give new staff that again without forcing anyone back full-time. The second reason is fairness across roles. Some jobs, such as the front-desk and warehouse teams, cannot be done from home at all. A policy where office staff never come in creates two classes of employee. A clear minimum applies the same expectation to everyone who can meet it. I would keep the two remaining days genuinely flexible and let teams choose which days overlap. That combination keeps the benefits of remote work while restoring the parts of the job that need a room.

• Task Fulfillment: choosing against your own preference (“even though I enjoy working from home”) and saying so is a strong opening — it signals reasoning rather than taste.
• Content: two named groups (new colleagues, front-desk and warehouse teams) carry the two reasons.
• Readability: the final paragraph is short and forward-looking; endings that add a new idea, not a summary, read as band 10.

6. Public-service survey — longer library hours or a laptop-lending program

Survey: Your town library has funding for one new service. Option A: extend opening hours into the evening. Option B: start a free laptop-lending program.

I would choose the laptop-lending program. Longer hours would be welcome, but lending laptops solves a bigger problem for more people. The first reason is who is currently excluded. Many of the services people need — job applications, government forms, school assignments — are online only, and the library’s six public computers are usually fully booked after school. A family without a computer at home cannot finish a school project in a one-hour session. A laptop they can borrow for two weeks changes what is possible for that student. Second, the value reaches beyond the building. Extended hours help people who can get to the library in the evening; a borrowed laptop helps people who cannot get there often at all, such as shift workers and parents of young children, because they use it at home. Evening hours would still be worth adding when the next budget allows, and staff time is the main cost there. For this funding, laptops that leave the building with the people who need them most are the better investment.

• Content: “six public computers”, “fully booked after school”, “a one-hour session” — the writer has pictured the situation and the rater can too.
• Coherence: reason two extends reason one (excluded people → people who cannot come at all) instead of starting a new topic.
• Vocabulary: “excluded”, “reaches beyond the building”, “investment” — the language of the situation, no memorised connectors.

The pattern behind all six

1. Sentence one: “I would choose…” plus the option in the survey’s words.
2. Reason one, with a specific, comparing both options.
3. Reason two, with a specific, comparing both options.
4. One sentence for the other side, then why the choice still stands — often with a compromise.
5. A closing line that restates the choice under the survey’s constraint.

Mistakes these responses avoid

• Discussing both options equally and choosing in the last line. The rater marks Task Fulfillment from the first sentence.
• Reasons without specifics — “it is more convenient”, “it is better for everyone” — which cap Content at band 7 or 8.
• A memorised opening (“In today’s modern world…”). It does not fit a neighbourhood survey and it wastes twelve words.
• Going under 150 words. A short response almost always means a reason was not developed.