CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Deposits for Borrowed Tools

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

Hodan is organizing a neighbourhood tool-lending cupboard in Cornwall. To help pay for lost or damaged tools, she proposes a refundable $40 deposit for every item borrowed. Should borrowers have to pay this deposit, even for inexpensive tools? Give your opinion with reasons and examples.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

190 words

I think a refundable deposit is a reasonable rule, even for cheaper tools. Um, the cupboard belongs to the neighbourhood, so borrowers should take some responsibility for keeping it useful for other people.

One reason is that the deposit may help people remember to return things. If someone borrows a rake and leaves it in their garage, another neighbour can't use it. Knowing that $40 is waiting for them could encourage a quicker return.

Also, the money would help if a tool was lost or damaged. Without a deposit, Hodan might have to ask to a neighbour for payment afterwards. That could be uncomfortable, especially if the person disagreed about what happened.

A single amount would also make the cupboard easier to run. Everyone have the same rule, and nobody needs to decide a different deposit for every hammer or small garden tool.

I understand that $40 might be more than an inexpensive tool is worth. However, the borrower gets it back when everything is returned properly. I would support the deposit, as long as Hodan explains the conditions clearly and checks the tool with the borrower before lending it.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 model gives a clear opinion, relevant reasons and an easy-to-follow borrowing example. Everyday vocabulary and grammatical slips limit its precision, while the affordability objection receives less development than in the higher-level answers.

Also, the money would help if a tool was lost or damaged. — Content/Coherence: This adds a relevant reason for collecting deposits, but leaves the payment arrangements unexplained. The level 9 answer develops the point through a concrete replacement-cost deduction and partial refund.
Knowing that $40 is waiting for them could encourage a quicker return. — Vocabulary: The wording communicates the incentive clearly using familiar language. The level 9 answer uses more precise vocabulary to connect returning tools with their continued availability to other neighbours.
Everyone have the same rule, and nobody needs to decide a different deposit for every hammer or small garden tool. — Listenability: The sentence is easy to follow, but the subject–verb agreement error interrupts its grammatical smoothness. The level 9 answer explains the same administrative benefit with more controlled sentence construction.
However, the borrower gets it back when everything is returned properly. — Task Fulfillment: This directly defends charging a deposit even for inexpensive tools. However, getting money back does not resolve difficulty paying upfront; the level 9 answer acknowledges that participation could suffer and proposes reviewing affordability.

Level 9 sample answer

242 words

I'd support a refundable $40 deposit for every item, including inexpensive tools, provided Hodan explained the conditions clearly and returned the money promptly. For a neighbourhood project, a consistent borrowing system could help everyone understand their responsibilities.

The main advantage is reliable circulation, because even an inexpensive hammer becomes useful only when it's available to the next borrower. Someone who forgets it in a basement for several weeks could hold up another neighbour's repair project. Having money to collect would provide an additional reminder, without requiring Hodan to chase every overdue item herself.

Deposits would also provide replacement money when something disappeared, instead of leaving the organizer to cover unexpected expenses or request donations. If a missing tool cost $15 to replace, for example, Hodan could deduct that amount and refund the remaining $25. Explaining that arrangement beforehand would reassure borrowers that the deposit wasn't automatically a penalty for the full amount.

Another benefit is simpler administration, since volunteers wouldn't have to calculate separate deposit amounts whenever someone selected a different tool. That consistency could make it easier for another neighbour to handle lending when Hodan was unavailable, keeping the cupboard running smoothly.

I recognize that setting aside $40 could discourage participation, particularly when someone needed several items for the same project. I'd therefore support a trial with immediate refunds, followed by a discussion about whether borrowing had become difficult. Overall, I'd give the deposit a chance while keeping affordability under review.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 model develops its position with precise vocabulary, practical examples and controlled complex sentences. Compared with level 7, it explains how the policy would work; compared with level 11, it examines proportionality less deeply and leaves its affordability response fairly tentative.

If a missing tool cost $15 to replace, for example, Hodan could deduct that amount and refund the remaining $25. — Content/Coherence: The calculation turns a general benefit into a clear, practical example. The level 11 answer extends this reasoning by asking whether calculating individual replacement costs weakens the claimed simplicity of a uniform deposit.
The main advantage is reliable circulation, because even an inexpensive hammer becomes useful only when it's available to the next borrower. — Vocabulary: Reliable circulation precisely names the shared cupboard's operational need, while the hammer example makes that phrase accessible. The level 11 answer uses similarly precise language to distinguish administrative convenience from proportionate financial responsibility.
That consistency could make it easier for another neighbour to handle lending when Hodan was unavailable, keeping the cupboard running smoothly. — Listenability: The sentence connects a policy feature, a volunteer scenario and its outcome smoothly. Its extended structure requires sustained attention; the level 11 answer varies the rhythm with shorter statements that introduce and emphasize key points.
I'd therefore support a trial with immediate refunds, followed by a discussion about whether borrowing had become difficult. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a practical condition for supporting the deposit and responds to affordability concerns. However, immediate refunds still require upfront payment; the level 11 answer proposes smaller deposits tied to selected tools' values.

Level 11 sample answer

254 words

I wouldn't require a $40 deposit for every item. Hodan is right to plan for losses, but a uniform deposit would confuse administrative simplicity with proportionate responsibility.

The immediate problem is access. A neighbour borrowing three modest tools for one afternoon would have to provide $120 upfront. Although that money would eventually be returned, it would be unavailable in the meantime. Someone trying to avoid buying equipment could therefore find that borrowing requires more spare cash than they can comfortably set aside. That would undermine the cupboard's usefulness without telling us anything about their reliability.

The policy also treats unlike risks as though they were identical. A basic hand tool and a more valuable piece of equipment don't create the same potential replacement cost. If the deposit substantially exceeded an item's value, retaining the full amount after a loss would be difficult to justify. If only the actual replacement cost were retained, Hodan would still need item-specific records, so the apparent simplicity would be limited.

There's a relationship cost as well. Deposits can provide reassurance, but disagreements about existing wear could quickly become personal. A brief condition record, acknowledged by both people at checkout, would address that problem more directly than money alone.

I'd establish clear return dates and a transparent replacement policy, then consider smaller, value-based deposits for selected items. Ordinary wear should also be distinguished from damage. That approach would protect shared property while keeping a neighbourly borrowing system practical and welcoming. Responsibility matters, but the financial requirement should fit the tool.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 model combines a clear position with sustained analysis of access, replacement costs and neighbourly relationships. Its precise vocabulary, varied sentence rhythm and practical alternative make the argument both nuanced and easy to follow.

If only the actual replacement cost were retained, Hodan would still need item-specific records, so the apparent simplicity would be limited. — Content/Coherence: This tests the deposit policy against its own administrative justification. It develops the partial-refund idea further than level 9 by identifying the recordkeeping that fair deductions would still require.
Hodan is right to plan for losses, but a uniform deposit would confuse administrative simplicity with proportionate responsibility. — Vocabulary: The vocabulary precisely distinguishes ease of administration from a fair financial requirement. This establishes the central issue for the later comparison between inexpensive tools and more valuable equipment.
The immediate problem is access. — Listenability: This short topic sentence clearly signals the next reason and gives the argument a distinct spoken beat. The following borrowing example then explains what access means in practical financial terms.
I'd establish clear return dates and a transparent replacement policy, then consider smaller, value-based deposits for selected items. — Task Fulfillment: The alternative directly addresses Hodan's concern about losses while answering whether every inexpensive tool should require the same deposit. It brings the earlier reasoning together into a practical borrowing policy.

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