CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Compulsory Transport for Weekend Trips

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

Sigrid coordinates a weekend travel club in Burnaby that is considering requiring members to use a rented minibus for trips within British Columbia. It would be cheaper per person only if every seat were filled, and departures would follow one fixed schedule. Should shared transport be compulsory? State your position and explain the reasons for it.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

190 words

I wouldn't make the minibus compulsory. Travelling together could be fun, but members should be able to decide whether the shared schedule works for them.

First, people have different things to do on the weekend. Someone might need to finish work before leaving, while another person might want to return early. If everyone must take the minibus, some members could miss the whole trip because of one departure time.

Also, the cheaper price depends on filling every seat. That could be difficult if someone cancels close to the trip. The other members might have to pay more than they expected. Um, I think people would prefer to know their cost before they agree to go.

Another reason is that driving separately gives members more choice during the trip. Someone might want to stop at a small town or visit a friend after the club activity. They shouldn't have to give that up just to remain part of the group.

Sigrid could offer the minibus when enough people is interested and explain the price clearly. Travelling together has advantages, but members need a choice of how they get to the destination.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 model gives a clear position and relevant reasons about scheduling, costs and personal flexibility. Compared with the other answers, its explanations are simpler, its vocabulary is less precise, and its proposed booking arrangements need more detail.

some members could miss the whole trip because of one departure time. — Content/Coherence: This connects the fixed departure directly to a consequence for members. The explanation is easy to follow, but a higher-level answer would examine more closely why compulsory transport excludes people who could otherwise attend.
the cheaper price depends on filling every seat. — Vocabulary: The everyday wording communicates the cost condition clearly. A higher-level answer would use more precise language to distinguish the promised saving from the financial uncertainty created by cancellations.
Sigrid could offer the minibus when enough people is interested and explain the price clearly. — Listenability: The sentence presents a practical suggestion in an easy-to-follow sequence, but “people is” creates a grammatical stumble. A higher-level answer would maintain smoother grammatical control while explaining the booking conditions.
They shouldn't have to give that up just to remain part of the group. — Task Fulfillment: This directly supports the position against compulsory transport by linking individual flexibility to club participation. A higher-level answer would also explain how optional transport could preserve coordination and social benefits.

Level 9 sample answer

235 words

I'd support compulsory shared transport for trips organized around the minibus, as long as Sigrid confirms a full vehicle before booking. For a travel club, the journey can be a useful part of the group experience.

One advantage is coordination. If members drive separately, they could arrive at different times or need different parking arrangements. With one departure and one vehicle, Sigrid could plan activities around a clear arrival time. That would reduce the chance of the group spending its first hour waiting for people to catch up.

There's also a social benefit. Suppose someone joins without knowing any other members. Sitting together during the drive could give that person an easy way to start conversations before the main activity. If everyone arrives in separate cars with existing friends, a newcomer might find it harder to break the ice.

The financial advantage matters as well, although the full-seat condition can't be ignored. I'd suggest collecting firm commitments before confirming a trip. If there weren't enough members to fill the minibus, Sigrid could postpone that particular outing rather than quietly increase everyone's share.

A fixed schedule would inconvenience some people, and that should be stated clearly before they sign up. However, organized trips usually involve accepting some shared arrangements. I'd favour a consistent minibus policy for these club outings because it could simplify planning, support introductions and deliver the lower price when the vehicle is full.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 model develops a qualified position through concrete examples of coordination, social inclusion and booking costs. It is more developed than the level 7 answer, but below the level 11 answer in examining financial uncertainty and the participation costs of a compulsory schedule.

Sitting together during the drive could give that person an easy way to start conversations before the main activity. — Content/Coherence: The newcomer example explains how shared travel could benefit this particular club. This develops the social argument beyond a general claim, although a higher-level answer would consider whether the same benefit requires compulsory participation.
If everyone arrives in separate cars with existing friends, a newcomer might find it harder to break the ice. — Vocabulary: “Break the ice” naturally expresses the newcomer's social difficulty, while “existing friends” makes the situation concrete. A higher-level answer would combine this accessible vocabulary with more precise distinctions between encouraging shared travel and requiring it.
The financial advantage matters as well, although the full-seat condition can't be ignored. — Listenability: This transition clearly announces the cost argument and immediately qualifies it, helping a listener follow the reasoning. A higher-level answer would sustain that clarity while tracing what happens if a confirmed passenger later cancels.
I'd support compulsory shared transport for trips organized around the minibus, as long as Sigrid confirms a full vehicle before booking. — Task Fulfillment: The opening answers the question directly and makes support conditional on filling the minibus. However, it narrows the policy to minibus-based outings; a higher-level answer would examine more fully what compulsory transport means for access to club trips.

Level 11 sample answer

260 words

I'd keep the minibus optional. It could be a useful service, but making it compulsory would tie access to the club's trips to a transport arrangement that won't suit every member.

The scheduling issue is more significant than a preference for travelling independently. Suppose a member could join the entire Saturday activity but couldn't leave Burnaby at the minibus departure time. Under a compulsory policy, that person would lose an otherwise workable outing. Another member might want to extend the weekend with a separate visit. A single timetable would make coordination simpler while narrowing who could participate comfortably.

The financial case is also unusually fragile. The minibus becomes cheaper per person only when every seat is occupied, so one cancellation could remove the very saving used to justify the rule. Sigrid would need to decide whether the remaining passengers paid more, the club absorbed the difference or the trip was cancelled. Requiring participation wouldn't eliminate that uncertainty; it would distribute it across everyone.

Finally, shared travel isn't the only way to create a cohesive group. A clear meeting point, an agreed arrival window and a planned opening activity could bring members together at the destination. Those who enjoyed the social side of the journey could still choose the minibus, while others retained flexibility.

I'd publish the transport price and minimum booking conditions before each outing, then let members opt in. If insufficient seats were requested, Sigrid could explore voluntary carpools or reconsider the rental. That approach would preserve the minibus's benefits without making one travel schedule a condition of belonging.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 model builds a sustained case by distinguishing simpler coordination from wider participation and guaranteed savings from financial uncertainty. Its precise language, connected reasoning and practical alternatives address both the appeal of shared transport and the consequences of making it compulsory.

Sigrid would need to decide whether the remaining passengers paid more, the club absorbed the difference or the trip was cancelled. — Content/Coherence: The answer traces the full-seat condition into concrete decisions about who bears the cost or whether the outing proceeds. This develops the financial argument further than simply recommending firm commitments before booking.
Requiring participation wouldn't eliminate that uncertainty; it would distribute it across everyone. — Vocabulary: “Eliminate” and “distribute” express different effects of the policy precisely. The sentence explains why compulsory participation does not itself solve the rental's financial weakness, using compact language tied directly to the argument.
Finally, shared travel isn't the only way to create a cohesive group. — Listenability: The signpost marks a clear shift from financial concerns to group cohesion. The short sentence states the new argument before the answer supplies meeting arrangements, making the reasoning easy to follow.
I'd publish the transport price and minimum booking conditions before each outing, then let members opt in. — Task Fulfillment: The recommendation turns the optional-transport position into a workable policy for Sigrid. It addresses price transparency and participation directly, while the following alternatives explain how the club could respond to insufficient demand.

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