CELPIP® Speaking Task 1 sample: Making Room in the Garden

Level 7 sample answer

189 words

Moana, I think you should try sharing the two plots, but talk to the current members before you decide. A lottery is simple, but four people would still have to wait. Sharing would give everyone a chance to start gardening and meet their neighbours.

First, ask the six person whether they actually want a shared space. Some might prefer waiting for their own plot, so you need to know that before making plans. You could put three people in each plot and let them choose what to grow together.

Also, make a simple schedule for watering. Everyone have different free time, and a schedule could stop one person from doing all the work. Um, I'd write down how they will share the vegetables too, because that could cause arguments later.

For supplies, check what the garden already has and ask members if they can lend spare tools. That would help because there isn't extra money. Finally, arrange the beginner help on Sundays and tell newcomers about it clearly. I'd try this for one growing season, then ask everyone what worked. You can make changes after seeing how people manage.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives Moana a clear, inclusive plan and addresses the practical constraints. Its straightforward wording, occasional grammar slips, and less developed handling of competing preferences keep it below the level 9 answer.

• A lottery is simple, but four people would still have to wait. — Content/Coherence: This gives a clear reason for recommending sharing: more applicants can participate. The level 9 answer develops the trade-off further by acknowledging the extra planning and explaining how shared responsibilities could cause friction.
• I'd write down how they will share the vegetables too, because that could cause arguments later. — Vocabulary: The everyday wording communicates a relevant concern clearly. The level 9 answer uses more precise language about dividing the harvest and explains the frustration that unequal contributions could create.
• First, ask the six person whether they actually want a shared space. — Listenability: The opening signpost makes the advice easy to follow, but the singular noun after six creates a grammatical stumble. The level 9 answer expresses this same consultation step more smoothly and adds applicants' available time.
• For supplies, check what the garden already has and ask members if they can lend spare tools. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the lack of extra money with existing supplies and borrowed tools. The level 9 answer strengthens the recommendation by explaining why checking stock should come before requesting equipment.

Level 9 sample answer

226 words

Moana, I'd lean towards sharing the plots, provided the six newcomers are interested. That would open the garden to more neighbours, although it needs more planning than simply drawing two names.

Before announcing anything, ask the applicants whether they'd accept a shared plot and what time they could contribute. Someone who only wants an individual space might prefer to stay on the waiting list. If all six agree, you could suggest two groups of three and let each group plan its planting together. That gives people some ownership without creating six separate little gardens.

The part I'd settle early is responsibility. Have each group write a basic watering schedule and agree on how to divide the harvest. Otherwise, someone who waters every evening could understandably feel frustrated when everyone receives an equal share. A short conversation now could prevent that awkward situation.

Since money is tight, take stock of existing tools before asking for donations or loans. You don't want a pile of equipment nobody needs. I'd also make Sunday the regular time for beginner questions, so experienced members aren't expected to be available all week.

To address the lottery supporters' concerns, propose a trial for one growing season with a review afterwards. Explain that you're testing whether shared plots are manageable. That should make it easier for members to give the idea a fair chance.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer supports its recommendation with clear trade-offs, precise language, and realistic examples of shared gardening problems. Compared with level 11, it gives less attention to testing the physical arrangement and establishing a fallback if sharing proves unworkable.

• Otherwise, someone who waters every evening could understandably feel frustrated when everyone receives an equal share. — Content/Coherence: This develops the harvesting concern through a specific cause and consequence, going beyond the level 7 warning about arguments. The level 11 answer adds a preventive arrangement for absences, making the proposed responsibilities more actionable.
• That gives people some ownership without creating six separate little gardens. — Vocabulary: Ownership neatly expresses a sense of involvement and responsibility, while the rest stays conversational. The level 11 answer makes this idea more precise through agreed sections and a possible shared central strip.
• The part I'd settle early is responsibility. — Listenability: This short, conversational transition clearly signals a change from grouping applicants to managing their work. The level 11 answer gives listeners an even more concrete sequence through the garden visit, planning activity, and presentation to members.
• Explain that you're testing whether shared plots are manageable. — Task Fulfillment: Framing sharing as a trial addresses lottery supporters' concerns and gives members a reason to cooperate. The level 11 answer also explains what to do if sharing cannot work, giving Moana a more complete decision process.

Level 11 sample answer

252 words

Moana, before putting this to a vote, I'd invite the six applicants to walk through the garden on a Sunday. Sharing sounds generous on paper, but people need to see the space and understand the work before they sign up. An experienced member could demonstrate watering and explain what beginners can realistically grow.

Take a sketch of the two plots and ask the newcomers to design a workable arrangement. If all six are interested, suggest three people per plot, with each person responsible for an agreed section. They could share a central strip for something everyone wants, provided there's enough room. That gives each gardener a little ownership instead of leaving every decision up in the air.

I'd make participation conditional on a simple agreement about absences and harvesting. For example, if someone's away for a week, they should arrange a watering swap beforehand. Otherwise, one dependable neighbour could end up carrying the whole group. Keep a shared notebook for Sunday questions, too, so experienced members aren't being called throughout the week.

Before anyone buys seeds, check for spare supplies and borrowed tools. With no extra funding, an ambitious planting plan could quickly become an expense people hadn't expected.

Then present the members with the applicants' actual proposal. If sharing isn't workable, a transparent lottery is a reasonable fallback, with unsuccessful applicants keeping their waiting-list positions under the garden's rules. I'd rather give sharing a fair hearing than force six strangers into an arrangement that starts everyone off on the wrong foot.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer turns the disagreement into a practical decision process involving applicants and current members. Concrete arrangements, controlled conversational language, and a fair fallback make its recommendation especially strong while respecting the funding and Sunday support limits.

• Then present the members with the applicants' actual proposal. — Content/Coherence: This connects the earlier visit and planning discussion to the members' decision. The recommendation builds logically towards something concrete that lottery supporters can assess, giving the consultation a clear purpose.
• I'd rather give sharing a fair hearing than force six strangers into an arrangement that starts everyone off on the wrong foot. — Vocabulary: The idioms fit the neighbourly conversation and express a nuanced position: sharing deserves consideration, but participation must be workable. The closing language makes the social consequences of a rushed decision memorable.
• For example, if someone's away for a week, they should arrange a watering swap beforehand. — Listenability: The example translates the proposed agreement into a familiar situation. Its clear condition and response help listeners understand the advice immediately, while contractions keep the written speech conversational.
• If sharing isn't workable, a transparent lottery is a reasonable fallback, with unsuccessful applicants keeping their waiting-list positions under the garden's rules. — Task Fulfillment: This provides a practical alternative while respecting both sides of the disagreement. Referring to the garden's rules also avoids assuming Moana can independently change waiting-list arrangements.