CELPIP® Speaking Task 6 sample: Deposits for Dental Appointments

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 supervise the reception desk at a dental office in Oshawa. Hiroshi, the dentist, proposes a $40 deposit for every appointment because empty appointment slots are costing the office money. The deposit would count towards the final bill. Obinna, a regular patient who always attends, says paying ahead is difficult because his work hours and income vary. He has asked whether you support the proposal. Hiroshi has requested your recommendation before introducing it. Choose your conversation: explain to Hiroshi why reliable returning patients should be exempt, or explain to Obinna why you support requiring the deposit from everyone.

Talk to Hiroshi and recommend exempting reliable returning patients from the deposit
Talk to Obinna and explain why you support a deposit for every patient

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

120 words

Obinna, I understand that paying forty dollars before your visit is difficult when your income changes. I've decided to support the deposit for everyone, though. Empty appointments cost the office money, and having the same rule for everyone seems fair. I know you always attend, so this isn't because we don't trust you. The forty dollars would come off your final bill. It isn't a extra charge. Um, could we look for an appointment after a week when you expect more work? That might make the early payment easier. I'll also ask Hiroshi how much notice patients would get before a deposit is due. You deserve clear information before you makes a booking, and I appreciate you explaining your situation.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer clearly supports the universal deposit, acknowledges Obinna's difficulty, and offers practical help. Its straightforward reasoning, basic vocabulary, and grammar slips keep it below the more developed and precise arguments in the higher-level answers.

Empty appointments cost the office money, and having the same rule for everyone seems fair. — Content/Coherence: This gives clear financial and fairness reasons for supporting the deposit. However, it assumes that identical treatment is fair without developing why reliable patients should also pay. A higher-level answer would address that tension more fully.
That might make the early payment easier. — Vocabulary: The wording is clear but basic. A higher-level answer would describe Obinna's difficulty more precisely by distinguishing the timing of payment from the total cost of treatment.
You deserve clear information before you makes a booking — Listenability: The supportive message is easy to understand, but the verb error interrupts the otherwise natural conversational flow. The higher-level answers maintain smoother grammatical control while discussing the same sensitive payment issue.
I know you always attend, so this isn't because we don't trust you. — Task Fulfillment: This directly recognizes Obinna's reliable attendance and softens an unwelcome decision. A higher-level response supporting the same policy would connect that reassurance to a stronger explanation of why everyone still needs to pay.

Level 9 sample answer

140 words

Hiroshi, I understand why you're considering deposits. When an appointment goes unused, the office loses income that it still needs to cover staff and operating costs. However, I'd recommend exempting returning patients with a reliable attendance record. Obinna is a good example: he always comes, but his changing work hours make an advance payment difficult. Asking him for forty dollars wouldn't address a problem he's caused; it would create another hurdle to booking care. We could establish clear eligibility rules so reception staff aren't making exceptions based on personal preference. For example, we could agree on an attendance period and explain that missed appointments would affect the exemption. I'd also suggest reviewing the approach after a trial period to see whether empty slots actually decrease. That would let us protect the schedule while recognizing patients who've consistently kept their commitments.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a persuasive exemption proposal with clear reasons, eligibility rules, and a review process. Compared with level 7, it offers stronger organization and policy detail; level 11 adds more explicit analysis of payment timing and administrative tradeoffs.

Asking him for forty dollars wouldn't address a problem he's caused; it would create another hurdle to booking care. — Content/Coherence: This connects Obinna's attendance record to the purpose of the deposit and explains an unintended consequence. The level 11 answer develops the distinction further by explaining why crediting the deposit to the bill does not resolve the immediate payment difficulty.
We could establish clear eligibility rules — Vocabulary: The policy vocabulary is precise and appropriate for a recommendation to Hiroshi. The level 11 answer goes further by referring to a documented attendance record, making the basis for administering the exemption more concrete.
However, I'd recommend exempting returning patients with a reliable attendance record. — Listenability: The transition clearly signals the recommendation after acknowledging the office's financial concern. This is smoother than level 7's error-prone phrasing, while level 11 states its recommendation immediately and then develops the supporting argument.
I'd also suggest reviewing the approach after a trial period to see whether empty slots actually decrease. — Task Fulfillment: This gives Hiroshi a practical way to evaluate the exemption against the scheduling problem. The level 11 answer adds appointment confirmations and acknowledges administrative work, making the recommendation more operationally complete.

Level 11 sample answer

165 words

Hiroshi, I'd recommend a clearly defined exemption for reliable returning patients. I agree that empty appointment slots have a real financial cost, and reception needs a policy we can apply consistently. However, a universal deposit could place the greatest burden on people whose payment timing is unpredictable, even when their attendance isn't. Obinna always attends; his concern is finding forty dollars in advance when his work hours fluctuate. Although the deposit would be credited to his bill, that doesn't solve the immediate cash-flow problem. Could we base the exemption on a documented attendance record, with the same criteria available to every returning patient? Anyone who stopped meeting those criteria would then require a deposit. We could also pair the exemption with appointment confirmations and review the results before making it permanent. There would be some administrative work, but we'd be targeting the scheduling problem while preserving trust with patients who already honour their bookings. I'd be happy to draft the reception guidelines for your review.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear recommendation with precise reasoning about attendance, payment timing, and consistent treatment. It strengthens the proposal through documented criteria, appointment confirmations, a review process, and an explicit acknowledgment of administrative work.

Although the deposit would be credited to his bill, that doesn't solve the immediate cash-flow problem. — Content/Coherence: This addresses a central detail of the proposal directly. It explains why a deposit can create difficulty even without increasing the final bill, making the argument more explicit than level 9 and more developed than level 7.
a documented attendance record — Vocabulary: This compact phrase identifies a concrete source of evidence for granting exemptions. It gives the recommendation greater precision by showing how reception could distinguish reliable attendance from personal impressions.
Obinna always attends; his concern is finding forty dollars in advance when his work hours fluctuate. — Listenability: The balanced sentence makes the distinction between attendance and payment timing easy to follow. It moves naturally from Obinna's reliability to his difficulty, keeping a nuanced argument clear and conversational.
There would be some administrative work — Task Fulfillment: Acknowledging this drawback makes the recommendation more credible for Hiroshi and reception staff. The answer weighs implementation effort alongside scheduling benefits and patient trust, then offers to draft guidelines.

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