CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Sharing a Privacy Fence Cost

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

Lucía and her neighbour in St. John's agree their shared fence needs replacing: a low fence would cost $1,200, while a taller one would cost $1,800 and give both yards more privacy but more shade. Lucía favours the taller fence; her neighbour prefers lower costs and more sunlight. Should they split the taller fence's cost equally? Explain your position with reasons.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

192 words

I don't think they should split the taller fence's cost equally. Both neighbour need a replacement, but Lucía is the person asking for the more expensive choice. Um, I think she should pay the extra amount.

First, they can already get a new fence for $1,200. Sharing that cost would be fair because both of them need it. The extra height is something they disagree about, so it should be discussed separately from replacing the old fence.

Also, the neighbour wants to spend less. An equal share of the taller fence would be $900 instead of $600 for the lower one. That difference could be important to someone who has other bills to pay. They shouldn't feel pushed to spend more.

The shade matters too. More privacy could be useful, but the neighbour may enjoy sitting in the sunshine. A taller fence could make that part of their yard less comfortable for them.

I think they should agree for a design before ordering anything. If the neighbour accepts the taller fence, Lucía could cover the extra $600. Otherwise, choosing the lower fence seems like a reasonable way to get the replacement done.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear position, accurate cost comparisons, and relevant reasons about affordability and sunlight. Compared with the others, its language is less precise, occasional grammar errors interrupt the flow, and its argument gives less attention to when equal payment might become fair.

The extra height is something they disagree about, so it should be discussed separately from replacing the old fence. — Content/Coherence: This clearly separates the necessary replacement from the disputed height. A higher-level answer would develop that distinction by explaining how both neighbours could decide whether the privacy benefit justifies equal payment.
A taller fence could make that part of their yard less comfortable for them. — Vocabulary: The meaning is understandable, but “that part” and “less comfortable” describe the sunlight concern broadly. A higher-level answer would identify a concrete effect, such as losing sunshine in a favourite seating area.
I think they should agree for a design before ordering anything. — Listenability: The sentence is short and easy to follow, but “agree for a design” sounds awkward. A higher-level answer would use “agree on a design” to express the same practical step more naturally.
If the neighbour accepts the taller fence, Lucía could cover the extra $600. — Task Fulfillment: This directly answers the cost-sharing question with a workable alternative and requires the neighbour's acceptance. A higher-level answer would also explain when the neighbour's appreciation of privacy could make an equal split reasonable.

Level 9 sample answer

236 words

I'd favour an equal split for the taller fence, provided the neighbour agreed after discussing the shade. Both yards would gain privacy, so I think there's a reasonable case for sharing the price.

The first benefit is that privacy works in both directions. Even if Lucía wants it more, her neighbour could also enjoy eating outside without feeling watched. A fence serves both properties, and the person who first suggests an improvement isn't necessarily the only one who benefits from it.

There's also the question of choosing something they'll be happy with for years. Since the fence already needs replacing, this is a good time to consider the taller option. The difference would be $300 each compared with splitting the lower fence. If both could afford that, paying a little more now might avoid another discussion about changing the fence later.

Finally, an equal contribution could help both neighbours feel involved in the decision. They could choose the colour and materials together, instead of treating the project as something Lucía owns because she paid more. That could make future maintenance easier to discuss.

Still, they need to see where the shade would fall before committing. A temporary height marker could help them picture it. I'd support equal shares if the neighbour found the result acceptable and the extra payment manageable. Sharing the benefit makes sense, but keeping a good relationship means reaching an agreement without pressure.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer supports a conditional equal split with clear organisation, natural language, and practical suggestions. It develops shared benefits more fully than the level 7 answer, but some reasoning remains speculative, and it offers a less explicit fallback than the level 11 answer.

paying a little more now might avoid another discussion about changing the fence later. — Content/Coherence: This adds a useful long-term consideration, but a later disagreement is only a possibility, and “a little more” may understate the neighbour's budget concern. A higher-level answer would ground the recommendation more firmly in their stated priorities.
A temporary height marker could help them picture it. — Vocabulary: “Temporary height marker” gives the suggestion a concrete, practical form. A higher-level answer would describe more precisely what they should observe, connecting the proposed height to shadows and how they use their yards.
Finally, an equal contribution could help both neighbours feel involved in the decision. — Listenability: The clear transition and manageable sentence make the final supporting reason easy to follow. A higher-level answer would connect involvement more tightly to mutual agreement, since contributing different amounts need not prevent shared decision-making.
I'd favour an equal split for the taller fence, provided the neighbour agreed after discussing the shade. — Task Fulfillment: The opening answers the question directly while making consent essential. A higher-level answer would also state a clear fallback if the neighbour still preferred lower costs and more sunlight after that discussion.

Level 11 sample answer

254 words

I'd separate the necessary replacement from the optional upgrade. My starting proposal would be $600 each towards the lower fence, with Lucía covering the additional $600 if they agreed to build the taller one.

That approach gives them a clear basis for negotiation. They've already agreed that a replacement is needed, so neither should expect the other to carry that entire expense. What they haven't agreed on is whether additional privacy is worth additional money and shade. Dividing the full $1,800 equally would settle that disagreement in Lucía's favour before her neighbour had accepted the trade-off.

I'd also put the sunlight question ahead of the invoice. Before choosing a height, they could mark it temporarily and check the likely shadow around 4 p.m., when either might want to sit outside. If the taller design shaded a favourite seating area, Lucía's offer to pay extra wouldn't make that disadvantage disappear. Money can balance contributions; it can't restore afternoon sunshine.

There's nevertheless a legitimate argument for equal payment: both yards would gain privacy. If the neighbour tried the proposed height and decided that benefit outweighed the shade, a $900 contribution each could become reasonable. The crucial point is that shared benefit has to be valued by both people, rather than assumed because the fence borders both properties.

So I'd keep the lower replacement as their agreed fallback and negotiate from there. Lucía could offer $1,200 against her neighbour's $600 for the taller option, but construction should wait until both accepted the design and the payment arrangement.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer builds a nuanced position around the difference between necessary replacement and an optional upgrade. Precise language, concrete negotiation steps, and a fair treatment of the opposing view make its reasoning more developed and its proposed resolution more complete.

The crucial point is that shared benefit has to be valued by both people, — Content/Coherence: This resolves the central tension: privacy benefits both properties, but each neighbour may value it differently. It explains why a shared boundary alone does not establish that equal payment is fair.
I'd separate the necessary replacement from the optional upgrade. — Vocabulary: “Necessary replacement” and “optional upgrade” express the cost-sharing distinction precisely and economically. These terms give the whole response a clear framework without making the language difficult to understand.
Money can balance contributions; it can't restore afternoon sunshine. — Listenability: The balanced clauses create a clear, memorable contrast that works well aloud. The sentence condenses the sunlight objection into a practical point: paying more cannot remove the neighbour's loss of sunshine.
Lucía could offer $1,200 against her neighbour's $600 for the taller option, — Task Fulfillment: This turns the position into a specific payment proposal consistent with sharing the basic replacement and assigning the upgrade to Lucía. The surrounding conclusion also requires agreement on both design and payment before construction.

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