CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Reusable Dishes at a Festival

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

Amélie organizes a weekend food festival in Sydney, Nova Scotia. She proposes replacing disposable plates and cups with reusable dish sets that visitors borrow for a $10 refundable deposit, but volunteers would have to handle washing and returns. Should the festival require this system despite its limited volunteer team? Give your opinion with supporting reasons.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

188 words

I don't think the festival should require reusable dish sets yet. The idea is good, but a small volunteer team could have trouble managing the extra work.

First, washing plates and cups takes time. Volunteers would have to collect them, clean them and get them ready for another visitor. If there aren't enough clean sets, people could wait longer for their food. That would make the festival less enjoyable.

Also, the deposit could be inconvenient. Ten dollars isn't a final cost because people get it back, but they still need that money during their visit. Um, some visitors might only want a small snack and feel that borrowing a whole set is too much trouble.

Another problem is the return area. Many people could leave at the same time, so volunteers would have to work very quick to return the deposits. People might become annoyed if they have to stand in a long lineup.

I agree that reducing garbage is important. However, Amélie should try the system in a small area first. The volunteers need more experience of handling it before the festival makes every visitor use it.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 teaching example gives a clear opinion and understandable reasons about washing, deposits and returns. Compared with level 9, its explanations are simpler, its sentence patterns are less varied, and some phrasing is awkward.

If there aren't enough clean sets, people could wait longer for their food. — Content/Coherence: This connects limited washing capacity to a practical consequence for visitors. The reasoning is clear but brief; the level 9 answer develops its points with more detailed situations and proposed arrangements.
The volunteers need more experience of handling it — Vocabulary: The meaning is understandable, but the phrasing is awkward and “it” is broad. A higher-level answer would use more natural, specific wording about experience managing washing and returns.
First, washing plates and cups takes time. — Listenability: The clear transition and short sentence make the reason easy to follow aloud. The level 9 answer offers more varied sentence structures while keeping the connections between ideas clear.
However, Amélie should try the system in a small area first. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a relevant alternative to requiring the system immediately and responds to the volunteer constraint. A higher-level answer would explain more specifically how the trial would establish whether the team could manage.

Level 9 sample answer

234 words

I'd support the reusable dish system, but Amélie would need to organize the return process carefully. A limited volunteer team is a real constraint, although it doesn't automatically make disposables the better choice.

The clearest benefit is reducing the amount thrown away during a food-focused event. Imagine a visitor sampling three dishes and buying two drinks. With disposable service, that could mean several separate items going into the garbage during one visit. A reusable set would allow the same visitor to keep enjoying the festival without producing that pile.

The deposit also gives people a practical reason to bring dishes back. A request printed on a sign can be ignored; ten dollars is harder to forget. Since the payment is refundable, visitors who return their sets wouldn't face an additional permanent charge for participating.

Finally, a common system could make expectations clearer for vendors and visitors. Everyone would know which dishes were being used and where they belonged afterward. That seems more manageable than having different vendors introduce their own arrangements.

The washing and returns are the sticking point. I'd suggest testing the full process before the weekend and placing clear signs near the return area. Volunteers should have specific roles so that refunds don't interrupt washing. If that preparation shows the team can manage the workload, I'd make the system compulsory. It would be a worthwhile change with a practical structure behind it.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 teaching example develops its conditional support through concrete examples, natural vocabulary and practical preparation. Compared with level 11, it gives less detail about assessing volunteer capacity and how delays could spread through the festival.

Imagine a visitor sampling three dishes and buying two drinks. — Content/Coherence: The specific visitor scenario makes the waste-reduction argument easy to picture. The level 11 answer develops a more connected chain of consequences around the central constraint, showing how washing delays could disrupt food service.
The washing and returns are the sticking point. — Vocabulary: “Sticking point” is a natural expression that identifies the main practical obstacle efficiently. The level 11 answer adds greater precision through language describing capacity, bottlenecks and staffing.
A request printed on a sign can be ignored; ten dollars is harder to forget. — Listenability: The balanced contrast makes the deposit's purpose memorable and easy to follow aloud. The level 11 answer sustains similar clarity through longer explanations involving qualifications and competing visitor needs.
If that preparation shows the team can manage the workload, I'd make the system compulsory. — Task Fulfillment: The recommendation directly addresses whether the system should be required and makes support depend on feasibility. However, it leaves the capacity check fairly broad; the level 11 answer specifies measuring how many sets volunteers process during a busy hour.

Level 11 sample answer

252 words

I wouldn't make the reusable system compulsory for this festival yet. The environmental aim is worthwhile, but requiring every visitor to participate would make a limited volunteer team responsible for an essential service throughout the weekend.

The first concern is capacity. Dishes would have to be returned, washed and made available again quickly enough to keep food service moving. If washing fell behind during a busy lunch period, vendors could be ready to serve while visitors waited for clean sets. One overloaded station could therefore affect the whole event. Good intentions wouldn't resolve that bottleneck.

The deposit introduces a second pressure point. Although the ten dollars is refundable, the return still takes time, particularly if many visitors leave together. Someone trying to catch a ride might have to choose between waiting for a refund and leaving the set behind. That would weaken both the visitor experience and the financial incentive intended to support the system.

Finally, running a smaller trial would produce more useful information than committing everyone immediately. Amélie could invite a few willing vendors to participate and measure how many sets volunteers can process during a busy hour. She could also see whether the return location makes sense to people carrying food and drinks. Those observations would help her plan staffing realistically.

I'd therefore keep reusable dishes as a trial this time, with the possibility of a full requirement later. Reducing disposable waste deserves a workable plan; a successful limited launch would give the festival a firmer foundation for expansion.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 teaching example combines a clear position with closely connected operational reasoning, precise vocabulary and a practical trial proposal. It explains how washing capacity and refund delays affect the whole decision, then identifies evidence Amélie could collect before expanding.

One overloaded station could therefore affect the whole event. — Content/Coherence: This draws together the preceding explanation about washing delays, vendors and waiting visitors. The argument shows how a local capacity problem could become an event-wide disruption, giving the recommendation a clear causal foundation.
Good intentions wouldn't resolve that bottleneck. — Vocabulary: “Bottleneck” precisely describes washing capacity restricting food service. The concise sentence also connects the environmental aim to the operational problem without repeating the full explanation.
Although the ten dollars is refundable, the return still takes time — Listenability: The concession acknowledges the deposit's benefit before introducing its practical limitation. This structure helps a listener follow the distinction between getting money back and spending time waiting for it.
Amélie could invite a few willing vendors to participate and measure how many sets volunteers can process during a busy hour. — Task Fulfillment: The proposal directly addresses the limited volunteer team with a manageable trial and a specific capacity measure. It makes the recommendation actionable and explains what evidence would support a later requirement.

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