CELPIP® Speaking Task 6 sample: Bikes or Lunchroom Seats

Dealing with a Difficult Situation · Preparation: 60 seconds · Response: 60 seconds · Published 23 October 2026

Original practice questions in CELPIP® task formats, created independently by CELPIP Study.

Practice question

You represent staff at an office in London, Ontario. There is funding for either an indoor bicycle enclosure or a cover over the existing outdoor bicycle rack. The enclosure would hold six bikes but remove six of the lunchroom's twelve seats; ten employees usually eat lunch together. Your cycling coworker Dmitri supports the enclosure because he worries about leaving his commuting bike outside. Your supervisor Naoko favours the outdoor cover to preserve lunchroom seating, although bikes would remain outside. You must recommend one option. Speak either to Naoko about choosing the indoor enclosure or to Dmitri about choosing the covered outdoor rack, explaining how you would address their concerns.

Talk to Naoko and explain why you recommend the indoor bicycle enclosure despite losing lunchroom seats.
Talk to Dmitri and explain why you recommend covering the outdoor bicycle rack instead of creating indoor storage.

Model answers

These are transcripts of a model response, provided for comparison with your own recording.

Level 7 sample answer

127 words

Dmitri, I understand why you'd prefer keeping your bike inside. You use it to get to work, so you want to know it's secure. But I'm recommending the cover for the outdoor rack. The indoor enclosure would take away six lunchroom seats, and ten people usually eat together. That means some people wouldn't have a place to sit with everyone else. People need a place to eat. I don't think that would work very good for the staff. The cover would at least protect bikes from some of the weather. Um, could we also ask Naoko about improving security around the rack? Maybe better lighting would be possible later. I know a cover doesn't solve everything, but it keep the lunchroom useful while giving cyclists some improvement.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 example makes a clear recommendation, acknowledges Dmitri's concern and explains the seating problem in straightforward language. Compared with the stronger examples, its reasoning is less precise, its security proposal is vague, and awkward wording sometimes interrupts the flow.

That means some people wouldn't have a place to sit with everyone else. — Content/Coherence: This clearly connects the enclosure to its effect on lunchroom users. A higher-level answer would identify the four people affected and explain the disruption to their usual shared lunch.
I don't think that would work very good for the staff. — Vocabulary: The meaning is understandable, but 'work very good' is awkward and says little about the actual drawback. A higher-level answer would describe the loss of seating or disruption to lunch arrangements more precisely.
I know a cover doesn't solve everything, but it keep the lunchroom useful while giving cyclists some improvement. — Listenability: The closing sentence brings the recommendation together, but 'it keep' creates a grammatical stumble, and 'some improvement' makes the ending vague. A higher-level answer would use smoother grammar and name the benefit directly.
Um, could we also ask Naoko about improving security around the rack? — Task Fulfillment: The speaker addresses Dmitri directly and proposes a relevant response to his concern. However, the security request remains broad. A higher-level answer would identify features to review and clarify that additional funding cannot be promised.

Level 9 sample answer

151 words

Naoko, after considering both proposals, I'm recommending the indoor bicycle enclosure. I understand your concern about the lunchroom: reducing twelve seats to six would leave four of the ten regular lunch users without a seat at their usual time. That's a significant drawback, and I wouldn't want the change to be approved without discussing it with them. However, the outdoor cover mainly addresses weather exposure. It doesn't answer Dmitri's concern about leaving his commuting bike outside throughout the workday. An indoor enclosure would provide six cyclists with a more reassuring storage option. Could we consult the lunchroom users about two overlapping lunch periods before making a final commitment? If staff were willing and work coverage allowed it, that might preserve a shared break without requiring everyone to sit down simultaneously. I realize staggered lunches would involve a compromise. Still, I think it's worth exploring before we rule out the enclosure altogether.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 example develops a clear case for the enclosure, quantifies the seating problem and makes its proposed compromise conditional on staff agreement. Compared with the level 11 example, it leaves more uncertainty about whether the solution adequately addresses the loss of the usual group lunch.

reducing twelve seats to six would leave four of the ten regular lunch users without a seat at their usual time. — Content/Coherence: The precise calculation makes Naoko's concern concrete and strengthens the reasoning beyond the level 7 example. A higher-level answer would also give fuller attention to the social cost of separating colleagues who normally eat together.
However, the outdoor cover mainly addresses weather exposure. — Vocabulary: The phrase 'weather exposure' concisely distinguishes weather protection from Dmitri's concern about leaving his bike outside. A higher-level answer would sustain this precision when explaining what an enclosure could realistically offer and what concerns might remain.
I realize staggered lunches would involve a compromise. — Listenability: This short sentence gives the listener a clear pause after the longer proposal and signals awareness of its drawback. A higher-level answer would make that acknowledgment more informative by naming the loss of the full group's shared break.
If staff were willing and work coverage allowed it, that might preserve a shared break without requiring everyone to sit down simultaneously. — Task Fulfillment: The proposal respects staff consent and work coverage, directly addressing Naoko's seating concern. However, overlapping lunch periods would change the usual group lunch. A higher-level answer would explicitly distinguish partial overlap from everyone eating together.

Level 11 sample answer

164 words

Dmitri, I'm recommending the covered outdoor rack, although I recognize that it falls short of the indoor storage you wanted. Your bike is your way of getting to work, so concern about leaving it outside deserves to be taken seriously. My difficulty with the enclosure is its effect on a space that's already well used. We'd reduce seating from twelve to six when ten colleagues normally eat together. Unless they willingly changed their lunch arrangements, four people would lose their usual place at the table. I don't think we should build our recommendation around assuming they'll accept that disruption. The cover would offer some protection from the weather while preserving the lunchroom. Before anything is purchased, I'd like to ask Naoko whether the existing rack's location, visibility and locking points could be reviewed. I can't promise additional security funding, and a cover shouldn't be presented as theft prevention. However, we could document cyclists' remaining concerns and use that evidence to support a separate request.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 example combines a firm recommendation with careful attention to both cyclists and lunchroom users. Its strength is the realistic handling of competing needs: it explains the disruption, accurately limits the cover's benefits and offers specific follow-up without promising unavailable resources.

Unless they willingly changed their lunch arrangements, four people would lose their usual place at the table. — Content/Coherence: This connects the seating calculation to staff consent and the practical loss of a shared routine. It develops the tradeoff more fully than simply identifying insufficient seats or suggesting staggered lunches.
the existing rack's location, visibility and locking points could be reviewed. — Vocabulary: These concrete terms turn a broad request for better security into a focused review. The wording identifies relevant features while carefully avoiding a claim that any particular change would prevent theft.
I can't promise additional security funding, and a cover shouldn't be presented as theft prevention. — Listenability: The parallel clauses make the limits easy to follow aloud. Direct wording keeps a potentially complicated distinction clear: the recommendation offers weather protection while leaving Dmitri's security concern unresolved.
However, we could document cyclists' remaining concerns and use that evidence to support a separate request. — Task Fulfillment: The ending gives Dmitri a realistic next step after recommending the option he opposes. It acknowledges that his concern remains valid and explains how staff could pursue it beyond the current funding choice.

What moves an answer from 7 to 9 to 11

These are model answers written to show each level. The labels are practice estimates, not examiner scores.

Make a clear decision, explain it tactfully to the person addressed and develop the reasons. Acknowledge the other person’s needs and offer a practical way forward.

Content/Coherence: Level 7 models communicate the main ideas; level 9 models develop relevant details with clear connections; level 11 models sustain precise, well-integrated development.
Vocabulary: Compare adequate everyday wording with more varied, accurate choices at level 9 and flexible, precise expression at level 11.
Listenability: Higher-level delivery needs clear pronunciation, rhythm, intonation and controlled pauses. Transcripts suggest phrasing and organisation, but cannot demonstrate these audio features; a recording is needed.
Task Fulfillment: Compare how fully the response addresses the request, develops enough relevant detail and maintains an appropriate tone for the audience within the task limits.

Assess the criteria together. A longer answer or rarer words alone do not establish a higher level.

Answer this question and get your level