CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Booking Park Shelters for Parties

Expressing Opinions · Preparation: 30 seconds · Response: 90 seconds · Published 23 October 2026

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

Practice question

The parks department in Grande Prairie is considering letting residents reserve covered picnic shelters online for birthday parties and family reunions at $75 per day. Right now, the shelters are first come, first served, so families sometimes arrive at 7 a.m. to claim one, but a booking system could leave few free shelters on summer weekends. Should the shelters be reservable? Say what you think and why.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

195 words

I think the shelters should be reservable. It's a good idea for families who plans a big party.

First, when you plan a birthday party or a family reunion, you need to know where it will be. You send invitations to maybe thirty people. If you don't have a booking, you have to hope a shelter is free, and if it's not, all your guests are standing in the rain. That's very stressful.

Also, getting up at 7 a.m. to wait in the park is not fair. Some people work night shifts or have small babies, and they can't do that. With booking, everybody has same chance, you just go online earlier.

And then, $75 for a whole day is not too expensive if you split it with the family. Plus the city can use the money to clean the washrooms and fix the tables, because some of them are, um, quite old.

But I agree the city should keep a few shelters free for people who just want to have a picnic without planning. Maybe two or three in each big park.

So yes, I support the booking system, but not for every shelter.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear opinion, practical reasons and a relevant compromise. Compared with the higher-level answers, its language is simpler, some grammar is uneven, and its claims about fairness need more careful qualification.

If you don't have a booking, you have to hope a shelter is free — Content/Coherence: The answer connects reservations to a concrete problem: uncertainty when inviting guests. This is easy to follow. A higher-level answer would develop the competing needs of organized parties and spontaneous visitors more fully.
clean the washrooms and fix the tables — Vocabulary: These everyday words explain a practical use for booking revenue clearly. A higher-level answer would use more precise language to distinguish money that could support maintenance from money specifically reserved for that purpose.
It's a good idea for families who plans a big party. — Listenability: The short sentence makes the position easy to understand, but “families who plans” creates a grammatical bump. The higher-level answers maintain smoother sentence control while explaining more complex ideas.
With booking, everybody has same chance, you just go online earlier. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses whether reservations would improve access, but equal opportunity is asserted too broadly. A higher-level answer would acknowledge that online booking still favours people available when reservations open, as the level 11 answer does.

Level 9 sample answer

246 words

Honestly, I'd keep the shelters first come, first served. A booking system sounds organized, but I think it would end up shutting a lot of people out.

My biggest concern is that public parks should be open to everyone, not just people who plan months ahead. Grande Prairie summers are short — you get maybe ten or twelve really good weekends — and if most of the shelters are booked by March, the family that decides on a sunny Saturday morning to have a barbecue has nowhere to go. My neighbour Nasser takes his kids to the park almost every weekend in July, and he'd basically lose that option.

Second, $75 might not sound like much, but it adds up for families on a tight budget, especially if they're already paying for food and a cake. It turns something that's always been free into one more expense.

On top of that, I'm not convinced the early-morning rush is such a big problem. Yes, someone has to show up at 7 a.m. with a cooler and a tablecloth, but that's a small price to pay for a fair system, and in my experience people are pretty good about sharing tables when it gets busy.

I do get why people planning a big reunion would want certainty. Maybe the city could let people book one or two shelters on weekdays only, or set aside a single larger pavilion for reservations.

But overall, I'd rather keep the parks flexible and free.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer sustains a clear opposing position with specific examples, natural phrasing and an alternative proposal. Its main limitation compared with level 11 is uneven scrutiny: it challenges reservations carefully but treats the fairness of the existing system too confidently.

that's a small price to pay for a fair system — Content/Coherence: This supports keeping the current arrangement, but calling it fair leaves the burden of arriving early insufficiently examined. The level 11 answer develops that issue through examples of residents whose work or childcare responsibilities prevent early arrival.
It turns something that's always been free into one more expense. — Vocabulary: The concise phrasing makes the affordability concern memorable and connects naturally to food and cake costs. A higher-level answer would retain that accessibility while distinguishing the impact on a tight-budget family from the cost shared across a large reunion.
A booking system sounds organized, but I think it would end up shutting a lot of people out. — Listenability: The conversational opening and clear contrast make the argument easy to follow. “Shutting a lot of people out” communicates the concern naturally. A higher-level answer would preserve this fluency while qualifying more precisely who might lose access to covered shelters.
Maybe the city could let people book one or two shelters on weekdays only — Task Fulfillment: The answer acknowledges the need for certainty and offers a concrete alternative. However, weekday reservations leave the summer-weekend conflict largely unresolved. The level 11 proposal addresses that conflict more directly by dividing shelters between reservations and free access.

Level 11 sample answer

269 words

I'm in favour of a reservation system, although I'd want the city to limit it rather than convert every shelter overnight.

The strongest argument, to my mind, is reliability. Organizing a family reunion involves dozens of people, some of whom may be driving in from Edmonton, nearly five hours away. Asking them to commit to a date when the venue is a gamble is unreasonable. If someone's uncle has to stake out a shelter at dawn and another family has beaten him to it, the whole event unravels, and there's no backup plan for forty hungry relatives.

Just as importantly, the current system rewards a particular kind of person: someone who's free at 7 a.m. on a Saturday, lives close by and has a vehicle. A nurse coming off a night shift or a single parent with two toddlers is effectively excluded. Online booking opening on, say, April 1 would put everyone on a far more equal footing. Admittedly, it would still favour whoever's free the moment bookings open, but a few minutes online beats a dawn vigil.

As for the $75 fee, split among a dozen households it's barely the price of a fancy coffee each, and the revenue could be earmarked for maintenance, such as repainting tables.

I'll grant that the critics have a point about spontaneity. If every shelter were booked from June through August, a family hoping for a last-minute picnic would be left out in the cold. That's why I'd suggest reserving two-thirds of the shelters and leaving the rest first come, first served.

With that balance in place, I'd back the change wholeheartedly.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear position with developed reasoning, precise vocabulary and controlled, varied sentences. Its strength is evaluating weaknesses in its own proposal and offering a compromise that directly addresses both event planning and spontaneous weekend access.

Admittedly, it would still favour whoever's free the moment bookings open — Content/Coherence: This qualifies the earlier claim that online reservations improve fairness. Recognizing a weakness in its own preferred system makes the reasoning more balanced than the level 7 claim of equal chances or the level 9 description of the current system as fair.
the revenue could be earmarked for maintenance, such as repainting tables. — Vocabulary: “Earmarked” precisely expresses setting revenue aside for a particular purpose, while repainting tables keeps the explanation concrete. The conditional “could” also presents this as a proposed use of the fee rather than an established city commitment.
The strongest argument, to my mind, is reliability. — Listenability: This compact signpost identifies the main reason before the longer reunion example. The conversational aside softens the delivery, and the sentence gives listeners a clear anchor for the more detailed explanation that follows.
That's why I'd suggest reserving two-thirds of the shelters and leaving the rest first come, first served. — Task Fulfillment: The proposal directly answers the question and responds to the stated risk of losing free shelters on summer weekends. It also follows logically from the concession about spontaneous picnics, giving the final recommendation a clear practical basis.

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.

State your position and develop distinct reasons with concrete examples. Connect the argument and explain relevant trade-offs while keeping your position clear.

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