CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Phones as Building Keys

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

Qian’s condo board in Hamilton is considering replacing residents’ entry fobs with a cell phone app to reduce maintenance costs. Residents without working phones could borrow a key from the manager during office hours. Should condo buildings replace entry fobs with phone apps under this kind of arrangement? Explain your position and the reasons behind it.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

188 words

I'd keep the entry fobs because getting into your own building should be simple. Saving money is useful, but I don't think this change would work well for everyone.

First, phones sometimes stop working. Someone could finish a long day with an empty battery and then be unable to enter. The manager's key would help during office hours, but people also come home at night. Waiting outside in a cold day would be very unpleasant.

Also, some residents may not want to use their phones for everything. They might have an older phone or find new apps confusing. Um, they should still be able to enter their homes without asking someone for help.

Finally, changing the system could create more work than the board expects. Residents would need instructions, and someone would have to answer questions. Even helping people replace a lost phone take time. I know fobs also get lost, but residents already understand how those work.

So, I'd suggest keeping the current system. The board could look for other ways to reduce costs, or offer the app as a choice while residents continue using their fobs.

Why this answer is at level 7

This answer gives a clear position, relevant reasons, and a practical alternative. Its everyday vocabulary, broadly developed cost argument, and occasional awkward phrasing make it less precise and polished than the higher-level examples.

The manager's key would help during office hours, but people also come home at night. — Content/Coherence: This identifies the central weakness in the proposed backup and connects it clearly to residents' routines. The higher-level answers develop the consequence further, explaining why access needs protection whenever the main system fails.
Saving money is useful, but I don't think this change would work well for everyone. — Vocabulary: The familiar wording communicates the concern clearly, but 'useful' and 'work well' remain broad. The higher-level answers use more precise language to distinguish maintenance savings, technical support costs, and residents' access needs.
Even helping people replace a lost phone take time. — Listenability: The meaning is understandable, but the mismatch between 'helping' and 'take' briefly disrupts the sentence. The higher-level examples maintain smoother grammatical control while explaining similar practical problems.
or offer the app as a choice while residents continue using their fobs. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a workable alternative that preserves residents' access and follows the stated position. A higher-level response would connect this recommendation more explicitly to evidence about total costs and the limits of the proposed backup.

Level 9 sample answer

230 words

I'd support switching to the app, provided the board improves the backup arrangement before introducing it. The potential savings are worthwhile, but borrowing a key during office hours isn't enough.

One advantage is that residents would have one less item to carry. If I arrived home at six with two grocery bags and my phone already in my coat pocket, using it at the entrance would be convenient. For residents who regularly use their phones, the app could become part of their normal routine quite quickly.

There's also the maintenance budget to consider. Since reducing those costs is the purpose of the proposal, the board should show residents the expected savings. If those savings could help pay for shared repairs without increasing condo fees, that would be a meaningful benefit. However, the figures need to add up after technical support is included.

My third reason is that the change could offer residents more flexibility, as long as access doesn't depend entirely on one device. I'd want a backup key available outside office hours and a straightforward option for anyone whose phone cannot run the app. Otherwise, a dead battery could leave someone stuck at the door.

Overall, I think the board should move forward with a revised version of the plan. Introduce it gradually, explain the costs clearly, and make sure every resident has a reliable way to get home.

Why this answer is at level 9

This answer handles a conditional position clearly, supports it with a concrete example, and considers costs alongside reliable access. Compared with the top example, its flexibility argument is less distinct, and its analysis of who bears the costs is less developed.

My third reason is that the change could offer residents more flexibility, as long as access doesn't depend entirely on one device. — Content/Coherence: The signposting makes the structure easy to follow, but the paragraph develops backup requirements more than the promised flexibility. The top answer gives each argument a more distinct purpose, including the burden of repeatedly managing exceptions.
However, the figures need to add up after technical support is included. — Vocabulary: The natural phrase 'add up' combines effectively with the specific term 'technical support.' The top answer makes the cost discussion more precise by naming installation, ongoing support, and accommodations, then distinguishing board savings from overall savings.
If I arrived home at six with two grocery bags and my phone already in my coat pocket, — Listenability: This concrete scene is easy to picture and makes the convenience argument accessible. Its setup is somewhat extended for a modest benefit; the top answer uses its evening-shift scenario to establish a more consequential access failure.
I'd support switching to the app, provided the board improves the backup arrangement before introducing it. — Task Fulfillment: The opening clearly supports a revised proposal and makes approval conditional on a better backup. The top answer explains the underlying standard more fully: an essential service needs a fallback whenever the main system fails.

Level 11 sample answer

252 words

I'd vote against the proposal as it stands. Lower maintenance costs are attractive, but reliable access to your home shouldn't depend on a charged, compatible cell phone.

The main weakness is the backup arrangement. Imagine a resident returning from an evening shift at eleven, only to discover that their battery has died. A key held in an office that closed hours earlier provides no practical protection. Even if that happens rarely, the inconvenience falls entirely on the person standing outside. An essential building service needs a backup that works whenever the main system fails.

There's also a question of who actually bears the cost. The board might spend less maintaining fobs, while residents spend more replacing unsuitable phones or seeking technical help. Before calling this a saving, Qian should ask for a comparison that includes installation, ongoing support, and accommodations for residents who cannot use the app. A lower bill for the board doesn't automatically mean a cheaper system overall.

Finally, making the app compulsory could turn a useful convenience into a recurring source of friction. Someone who prefers a basic phone would have to justify that choice whenever access became an issue. Keeping a physical option would let neighbours use the method that suits them without creating exceptions that the manager must continually handle.

I'd be open to an optional app if its costs were justified. However, replacing everyone's fobs while offering only an office-hours fallback asks residents to accept too much inconvenience for savings that still need to be demonstrated.

Why this answer is at level 11

This answer combines a clear judgment with developed reasoning about access reliability, transferred costs, and residents' independence. Precise language and purposeful examples support a balanced recommendation that distinguishes compulsory replacement from an optional app.

A lower bill for the board doesn't automatically mean a cheaper system overall. — Content/Coherence: This draws a clear conclusion from the preceding examples of costs shifted to residents. It advances beyond checking the board's budget by explaining why apparent maintenance savings may fail to reduce the total burden.
making the app compulsory could turn a useful convenience into a recurring source of friction. — Vocabulary: The words 'compulsory' and 'recurring source of friction' precisely describe how an optional convenience could create repeated difficulties. The following example about basic phones gives this abstract concern a concrete meaning.
Imagine a resident returning from an evening shift at eleven, only to discover that their battery has died. — Listenability: The direct invitation and clear sequence make the written argument easy to follow. The specific return time prepares the next sentence's explanation of why an office-hours key offers no practical help.
I'd be open to an optional app if its costs were justified. — Task Fulfillment: This qualifies the opposition without weakening it. The answer rejects the proposed compulsory arrangement while identifying an acceptable alternative tied to the cost evidence and physical access concerns already developed.

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