CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Music Rules at the Campground

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

Ama manages Cinder Hollow Campground near Medicine Hat, where campsites are close together and visitors include families and groups of friends. Amplified music is currently allowed until 10 p.m. Should Ama prohibit it throughout the day as well, or keep the evening cutoff? Explain which approach you support and why.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

190 words

I'd keep the rule that allows amplified music until ten at night. People use a campground in different ways, and listening to some music can be part of enjoying a vacation.

First, groups of friends might want music while they cook or sit together. A complete ban would remove something they enjoy, even if they play it quietly. Um, I don't think a small speaker during dinner is always a serious problem.

Also, the current cutoff gives everyone a clear time to become quiet. Families can plan around that rule. Because the campsites are close together, Ama should explain it clearly when people arrive and remind them to be considerate during the day.

Another reason is that a full ban could create more argument between visitors and staff. Someone might hear music from a phone and make a complaint even when the sound isn't very loud. Staff would spend time dealing with these situation.

I would add a daytime volume limit so music stays close to each campsite. Visitors should also be respectful to their neighbours. With those conditions, I think keeping the ten o'clock cutoff is a fair choice.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer takes a clear position and supports it with relevant reasons about enjoyment, quiet hours and staff workload. Its development is straightforward, but broad wording, a grammatical slip and an unclear daytime volume limit make it less precise than the higher-level answers.

Also, the current cutoff gives everyone a clear time to become quiet. — Content/Coherence: This connects the evening cutoff to predictable expectations. However, it leaves the need for daytime quiet largely unexplored. A higher-level answer would address that competing need before explaining why the cutoff remains preferable.
Visitors should also be respectful to their neighbours. — Vocabulary: The language is clear but general: being respectful could mean several things at closely spaced campsites. A higher-level answer would describe the specific behaviour expected, such as keeping amplified sound from disturbing neighbouring sites.
Staff would spend time dealing with these situation. — Listenability: The point about staff workload is easy to follow, but the mismatch between “these” and “situation” briefly disrupts the sentence. A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical control while explaining the likely disputes.
I would add a daytime volume limit so music stays close to each campsite. — Task Fulfillment: This directly supports keeping the cutoff while responding to the close spacing of campsites. However, the proposed limit is difficult to interpret. A higher-level answer would explain how Ama could apply it consistently.

Level 9 sample answer

233 words

I'd prohibit amplified music throughout the day at Cinder Hollow. With campsites so close together, a speaker can easily turn one group's entertainment into everyone else's background noise.

The first reason is that the existing cutoff only protects late evenings. A visitor might want to read after lunch, while a family might need a quiet afternoon break. They shouldn't have to wait until ten o'clock to enjoy some peace. Daytime relaxation is part of a camping trip too.

Another concern is the effect of several speakers operating at once. One group playing music quietly may seem harmless, but if neighbouring groups choose different songs, people could gradually turn up their volume to hear their own selection. That could become a real headache, especially when the sites provide little separation.

A complete rule would also be easier to explain than a vague instruction to keep music reasonable. Visitors have different ideas about an acceptable volume, so Ama could otherwise be drawn into repeated arguments. Saying that amplified music isn't allowed removes much of that uncertainty.

I understand why friends would want music while preparing a meal or celebrating their time away. Still, they can talk, play games and enjoy being together without using a speaker. Ama could explain the policy before people book, allowing anyone who considers shared music essential to choose another campground. Here, the close spacing makes quiet the more considerate default.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops its position through concrete daytime needs, competing speakers and clearer expectations for visitors. Compared with level 7, its reasoning and vocabulary are more specific; level 11 goes further by examining unequal control over shared sound and the consequences of enforcement decisions.

people could gradually turn up their volume to hear their own selection. — Content/Coherence: This explains how several individually quiet speakers could create an escalating problem, developing a causal argument beyond level 7's separate reasons. A higher-level answer would also examine why listeners bear consequences they cannot control.
one group's entertainment into everyone else's background noise. — Vocabulary: The contrast between entertainment and background noise captures the conflict between campsite neighbours efficiently. A higher-level answer would sustain this precision while discussing control, responsibility and consistent enforcement.
The first reason is that the existing cutoff only protects late evenings. — Listenability: The explicit signpost makes the argument easy to follow when spoken, and the sentence clearly introduces the daytime problem. A higher-level answer would vary these transitions and connect ideas more naturally, as level 11 does through its afternoon reading scenario.
Ama could explain the policy before people book, — Task Fulfillment: This makes the recommendation practical and acknowledges that some groups value shared music. A higher-level answer would make advance notice a condition of its support from the outset, integrating fairness into the main position.

Level 11 sample answer

244 words

I'd support an all-day ban on amplified music at Cinder Hollow, provided Ama makes the policy clear before visitors book. The deciding factor is the distance between campsites: when sound crosses those boundaries easily, individual choices have shared consequences.

A ten o'clock cutoff protects only one portion of the day. Imagine settling down to read at two in the afternoon, only to hear a neighbour's playlist until five. Moving indoors isn't much of a solution when the point of camping is to spend time outside. Quiet shouldn't become available only at bedtime.

There's also an imbalance between the benefits and the inconvenience. The people choosing the music control the selection, volume and duration; everyone within earshot has to accept those decisions. If several groups bring speakers, even modest volumes could combine into a distracting mix. A ban would prevent that competition from developing.

Finally, a clear rule could make Ama's job more manageable. A volume-based policy would require repeated judgements about what counts as excessive, potentially leaving visitors feeling that enforcement is inconsistent. A straightforward restriction, communicated with the booking information, would establish expectations before anyone unpacked.

I wouldn't dismiss the appeal of music around a campsite. For some groups, it's a favourite part of travelling together. Nevertheless, they would still have plenty of ways to socialize, and individual listening through headphones could remain an option. Given the close quarters, I'd prioritize an environment that every campsite can enjoy without negotiating someone else's soundtrack.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear recommendation with developed reasoning about shared space, unequal control over noise and consistent enforcement. Its precise language, concrete scenario and qualified support make the argument persuasive while acknowledging why some campers would prefer music.

when sound crosses those boundaries easily, individual choices have shared consequences. — Content/Coherence: This establishes a principle that unifies the later discussion of daytime relaxation, competing speakers and enforcement. The close spacing of campsites becomes the foundation of the argument rather than simply another supporting detail.
without negotiating someone else's soundtrack. — Vocabulary: This compact, memorable phrase captures the burden of repeatedly managing unwanted music. It gives the conclusion personality while remaining directly connected to the conflict between neighbouring campsites.
Quiet shouldn't become available only at bedtime. — Listenability: This short sentence provides a clear landing point after the afternoon reading example. The change in sentence length supports spoken rhythm and makes the central objection to the evening cutoff easy to remember.
provided Ama makes the policy clear before visitors book. — Task Fulfillment: The recommendation includes a practical condition immediately, balancing quiet with visitors' ability to choose a suitable campground. Later acknowledgement of shared music and individual headphone use reinforces that considered position.

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