CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Renting Visitor Parking Spaces

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

Yuki's townhouse complex in Saskatoon has six visitor parking spaces. Some residents want to convert three into spaces that residents can rent monthly, while neighbours who host visitors want to keep all six. Should the complex make this change? Give your position and explain your main reasons.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

196 words

I think the complex should keep all six visitor spaces. Renting three of them might help some residents, but it would leave very little room for everyone else's guests. Um, I don't think that's a fair exchange.

One reason is that visitors need somewhere convenient to park. A neighbour might invite someone for dinner or have a person come to help with a computer. If only three space remain, a few visits at the same time could fill them immediately.

Also, the benefit would go to only a small number of residents. Visitor parking can be used by different households throughout the month. A rented space would mostly serve the person paying for it, even when their vehicle wasn't there.

Finally, keeping enough visitor parking could prevent arguments. Neighbours shouldn't have to depend of finding a space before they can invite someone over. People may become upset if guests start using spaces that have already been rented.

I understand that extra parking would be useful for some households. Still, these spaces are shared by the whole complex now. I'd keep them available for visitors and ask residents to consider another solution for their regular parking needs.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear position and relevant, understandable reasons. Compared with the other answers, its development is more repetitive, its transitions are simpler, and occasional grammar errors weaken otherwise accessible language.

Visitor parking can be used by different households throughout the month. — Content/Coherence: This explains why shared spaces benefit more households. However, the fairness argument overlaps with the opening and conclusion. A higher-level answer would develop it through a specific example of different households using the same space, as the level 11 answer does.
Neighbours shouldn't have to depend of finding a space before they can invite someone over. — Vocabulary: The intended meaning is clear, but the expression requires “depend on,” showing uneven control of common word combinations. The higher-level answers use expressions such as reserving spaces and allocating rentals more accurately and precisely.
One reason is that visitors need somewhere convenient to park. — Listenability: This simple signpost makes the argument easy to follow. Together with “Also” and “Finally,” it creates a predictable list structure. A higher-level response would also guide listeners through relationships between benefits, objections, and consequences.
I'd keep them available for visitors and ask residents to consider another solution for their regular parking needs. — Task Fulfillment: The ending directly answers the question and acknowledges residents who need regular parking. However, “another solution” remains unspecified. The higher-level answers give the complex a clearer next step through a monitored trial or demand recording.

Level 9 sample answer

229 words

I'd be willing to convert three spaces, provided the complex introduced the change as a trial. Keeping half for visitors would preserve some shared access, while the other half could meet residents' regular parking needs.

The strongest argument is reliability. A resident who needs an additional parking space every day has a different problem from someone hosting an occasional guest. Being able to rent a dependable space could make daily life considerably easier, particularly when carrying groceries through snow or returning home late.

There's also a possible financial benefit. If the rent exceeded the cost of administering the spaces, the remaining money could help maintain the parking lot. That wouldn't justify any price or any arrangement, but it could allow the wider complex to benefit from a resource used by a few households.

However, visitor access shouldn't become an afterthought. During the trial, the complex could record how often all three remaining visitor spaces were occupied. If guests regularly couldn't park, that would be a strong reason to reverse the change. Residents should also agree on how rental spaces would be allocated if demand exceeded supply.

I wouldn't promise that three visitor spaces will definitely be enough. That's exactly why a trial makes sense. It would let neighbours test the trade-off, rather than argue from assumptions, and keep a practical option available for residents who need parking more consistently.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a balanced position with a conditional financial argument and practical trial safeguards. Compared with level 11, it relies more on general explanations and gives less attention to how residents' reliance on rented spaces could complicate reversing the change.

A resident who needs an additional parking space every day has a different problem from someone hosting an occasional guest. — Content/Coherence: This distinction gives the rental proposal a clear rationale based on frequency of need. It develops the trade-off beyond the level 7 answer's fairness argument. The level 11 answer makes competing needs more tangible through specific patterns of shared use and simultaneous arrivals.
If the rent exceeded the cost of administering the spaces, the remaining money could help maintain the parking lot. — Vocabulary: “Administering” and “maintain” express the financial argument precisely, while the conditional wording avoids assuming a profit. The level 11 answer adds expressive range through language about flexibility, commitments, and disrupted expectations.
I wouldn't promise that three visitor spaces will definitely be enough. — Listenability: This direct sentence gives listeners a clear return to the central uncertainty after the detailed trial proposal. It supports an accessible closing. The level 11 answer also uses compact, parallel sentences within a concrete parking scenario to make the consequences immediately easy to follow.
If guests regularly couldn't park, that would be a strong reason to reverse the change. — Task Fulfillment: This supplies a practical condition for ending the trial, so the position includes a safeguard for visitors. The level 11 answer goes further by considering how reversal could affect residents who had already begun depending on a rented space.

Level 11 sample answer

246 words

I'd keep all six spaces for visitors, at least until the complex has checked how they're actually used. Cutting visitor capacity in half seems premature when we haven't established that three spaces would be enough.

For me, the biggest advantage of visitor parking is how many households it can serve. One space could accommodate a dinner guest on Friday, someone helping with a furniture delivery on Saturday, and a visiting relative on Sunday. A monthly rental would reserve that space for one household even while its vehicle was elsewhere. We'd be giving up flexibility that benefits neighbours at different times.

The shortage could also arrive suddenly. Imagine four households expecting one visitor each at 6 p.m. With six spaces, everyone could park; with three, someone would immediately need another arrangement. If the alternative involved carrying bags from several blocks away through snow, that wouldn't be a minor inconvenience. Rental income would have to be weighed against those practical consequences.

Then there's the difficulty of reversing the decision. Suppose a resident rented a space and began relying on it for a second vehicle. Restoring visitor access later could pull the rug out from under that household, even if the original agreement allowed it.

I'd suggest recording demand over several ordinary weeks, including evenings and weekends, before making commitments. If spaces consistently stood empty, a smaller rental proposal might make sense. For now, though, I'd preserve shared access rather than create expectations that could be difficult to undo.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear position with concrete examples, flexible reasoning, and attention to consequences beyond the immediate parking shortage. Precise language and varied sentence structures support an argument that considers both shared access and residents' future expectations.

One space could accommodate a dinner guest on Friday, someone helping with a furniture delivery on Saturday, and a visiting relative on Sunday. — Content/Coherence: The sequence demonstrates how a shared space can serve different households over time. It turns the level 7 answer's general claim about shared use into a concrete explanation of the flexibility the complex would lose.
Restoring visitor access later could pull the rug out from under that household, even if the original agreement allowed it. — Vocabulary: The idiom conveys the disruption of losing parking that a household has come to rely on. The qualifying clause adds precision by distinguishing what an agreement permits from the practical effect on residents.
With six spaces, everyone could park; with three, someone would immediately need another arrangement. — Listenability: The parallel sentence structure makes the comparison easy to follow on hearing. Within the imagined evening scenario, it gives the capacity reduction an immediate consequence without requiring a lengthy explanation.
If spaces consistently stood empty, a smaller rental proposal might make sense. — Task Fulfillment: This condition keeps the recommendation responsive to evidence. Alongside the proposal to record demand during evenings and weekends, it provides a useful next step while acknowledging that some rental parking could eventually be justified.

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