CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Paid Time Off to Exercise

Level 7 sample answer

195 words

I think employers should give paid exercise time, but they need to find a way for everyone to use it.

First, office workers sit at a desk for much of the day. A short walk gives them a break and a chance to move around. They may come back feeling more ready to work. Thirty minutes isn't very long, so it seems possible to fit it into the day.

Also, paid time could help people build a habit. Some employees wants to exercise after work, but they feel tired or have other things to do. If the time is already available, it becomes easier to start. In winter, having a planned activity might be especially helpful.

But the drivers and warehouse workers need something too. It's not fair if only the office people gets a benefit. Um, maybe the company could arrange longer breaks for them when someone can cover their work, or offer money toward a fitness pass.

The office staff should also take turns so someone is always there to answer calls.

So my opinion is yes, it's a good idea, as long as the company makes a fair plan for all employees.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 example presents a clear opinion and relevant reasons in a straightforward order. Its explanations remain fairly general, some wording is basic, and agreement errors interrupt the flow; the alternatives for drivers and warehouse staff also need fuller consideration.

• Also, paid time could help people build a habit. — Content/Coherence: This introduces a relevant reason and connects it to employees feeling tired after work. A higher-level answer would develop the distinction between having time to exercise and having money for fitness, making the reasoning more precise.
• They may come back feeling more ready to work. — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but “more ready to work” is broad and uses basic language. A higher-level answer would describe the expected effect more precisely while keeping the cautious wording.
• It's not fair if only the office people gets a benefit. — Listenability: The short sentence makes the fairness concern easy to follow, but “people gets” interrupts grammatical smoothness. A higher-level answer would maintain accurate agreement while expressing the same concern naturally.
• or offer money toward a fitness pass. — Task Fulfillment: This offers an alternative for staff who cannot leave their duties easily, directly addressing the prompt. However, it assumes money could fairly replace paid time. A higher-level answer would examine whether those benefits provide comparable value and access.

Level 9 sample answer

228 words

My view is that this policy sounds generous, but at this particular company it could cause more resentment than it's worth.

The biggest problem is fairness. Imagine a warehouse worker loading trailers early in the morning, watching people from the office head out for a jog on company time. Even if nobody complains directly, that difference could divide the workplace. Employees would reasonably ask why their health matters less just because their duties require them to stay on site.

There's also the question of who covers the work. If several office employees exercise at once, their coworkers might end up picking up the slack. My cousin Trevor's office tried something similar, and he found that taking his break often meant returning to a pile of unanswered calls. Without proper coverage, the benefit can become another source of pressure.

Instead, I'd suggest something everyone can access. The company could consider a fitness allowance that employees use for a recreation pass, exercise classes or suitable walking shoes. Before choosing an amount, it should compare the cost with the paid time it originally proposed. Drivers could then use the benefit when their schedules allow.

I support employers encouraging healthy habits, but I'd oppose this version. A shared benefit with flexible uses would be easier to defend and less likely to create tension between people who already have very different working days.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 example develops its position through a concrete fairness scenario, a relevant anecdote, and a practical alternative. Its vocabulary and progression are stronger than the level 7 example, but it examines the limits of its proposed fitness allowance less thoroughly than the level 11 answer examines its policy.

• Even if nobody complains directly, that difference could divide the workplace. — Content/Coherence: This explains how unequal access could lead to workplace tension, developing the warehouse example beyond a simple claim of unfairness. A higher-level answer would also explore whether practical changes could resolve that objection before settling on an alternative.
• their coworkers might end up picking up the slack. — Vocabulary: The idiom naturally conveys the extra workload created by absent colleagues. This is more expressive than the level 7 wording. A higher-level answer would combine such conversational language with precise distinctions between equal spending and comparable access to a benefit.
• There's also the question of who covers the work. — Listenability: This clear transition signals the move from fairness to staffing, helping a listener follow the argument. A higher-level answer would connect these concerns more closely within a developed proposal, as the level 11 answer does through coverage arrangements.
• Drivers could then use the benefit when their schedules allow. — Task Fulfillment: This explicitly includes drivers and supports the proposed flexible allowance. However, it leaves their lack of available time unresolved. A higher-level answer would acknowledge that purchasing fitness access does not necessarily make exercise easier to fit around work.

Level 11 sample answer

254 words

I'd support paid exercise time, provided the company treats the proposal as the beginning of a workplace benefit rather than a finished policy for office staff alone.

Its strongest feature is that it addresses a practical barrier: time. An employee might be able to afford a recreation pass yet struggle to use it between commuting and responsibilities at home. Three protected thirty-minute periods could make regular activity more achievable. For someone who spends most of the day at a desk, even a brisk neighbourhood walk would offer a useful change of pace.

There's also a potential benefit to workplace relationships. My friend Miyu once organised a lunchtime walking group where colleagues from different departments actually had time to talk. She found it easier to approach those colleagues about work afterwards. Exercise time wouldn't guarantee better teamwork, but voluntary shared activities could create connections that ordinary meetings rarely encourage.

The fairness objection is serious, though. Offering drivers a discounted gym membership while office workers receive paid time would hardly be an equivalent arrangement. I'd ask representatives from each group to help design alternatives, such as paid activity periods around shift changes where coverage can be arranged. Office participation would likewise need to be staggered so that colleagues aren't left handling everyone's calls.

A three-month trial would reveal whether those arrangements are workable. If comparable benefits genuinely couldn't be provided, I'd reconsider the policy. But rejecting the idea before exploring practical adjustments would mean losing an opportunity to make healthy routines easier for the whole workforce.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 example combines a clear conditional position with developed reasoning about time, workplace relationships, fairness, and coverage. Precise vocabulary and controlled sentence structures support a practical proposal, while the trial and willingness to reconsider make its conclusion persuasive without overstating the benefits.

• An employee might be able to afford a recreation pass yet struggle to use it — Content/Coherence: This distinguishes financial access from available time, explaining why an allowance might not replace paid exercise periods. That distinction strengthens both the initial support for the policy and the later discussion of fair alternatives.
• Offering drivers a discounted gym membership while office workers receive paid time would hardly be an equivalent arrangement. — Vocabulary: “Equivalent arrangement” precisely expresses the fairness problem: different benefits need comparable value. The wording captures a distinction that the level 7 suggestion leaves unexplored and the level 9 allowance proposal does not fully resolve.
• Exercise time wouldn't guarantee better teamwork, but voluntary shared activities could create connections — Listenability: The balanced sentence presents a limitation and a possible benefit in a clear sequence. Its conversational wording keeps the nuanced point accessible, and the caution fits naturally after the walking-group anecdote.
• If comparable benefits genuinely couldn't be provided, I'd reconsider the policy. — Task Fulfillment: This makes the position conditional on fairness across employee groups. Together with staff consultation, staggered participation, and a three-month trial, it directly addresses whether this particular employer could offer paid exercise time responsibly.