CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Splitting the Bill at Group Celebrations

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

When a group of ten friends in Dartmouth goes out to a restaurant to celebrate someone's birthday, the bill is often divided equally, even though some ordered steak and drinks while others, including a friend on a tight student budget, had only a salad. Is splitting the bill evenly the fairest approach, or should everyone pay for what they ordered? Explain your thinking with examples.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

198 words

I believe everyone should pay for what they ordered. It's fairer, especially in a big group.

First, people have different budgets. Some friends are students or they are saving money, so they order something cheap, like a salad or soup. If they have to pay same as the person who had steak and three beers, that's not fair for them. Maybe they will stop coming to the birthday dinners, and that is sad.

Also, it can make people a bit angry, even if they don't say it. One time I had pasta and water, and the bill was split eight ways. I paid around $45 for a $20 meal. I didn't complain, but I was, um, not happy.

And then, today it is easy to pay separately. Most restaurants can make separate bills, or you can just tell the server at the beginning. It takes maybe five more minutes.

I know splitting evenly is faster and some people say it's more friendly. But I think real friends won't mind if you pay only your part.

So for me, paying for your own food is the best way, and everybody can share the cost of the birthday person's meal.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer gives a clear opinion, relevant reasons and a personal example that makes the unfairness easy to understand. Compared with level 9, its vocabulary is simpler, its transitions are more mechanical, and its response to the convenience argument is less developed.

I paid around $45 for a $20 meal. — Content/Coherence: The personal example makes the extra cost concrete and supports paying individually. A higher-level answer would connect this experience more fully to the wider consequences, such as budget-conscious friends avoiding future celebrations.
Maybe they will stop coming to the birthday dinners, and that is sad. — Vocabulary: The consequence is relevant, but 'that is sad' describes it in broad, simple terms. A higher-level answer would explain more precisely how equal splitting can exclude friends or damage relationships.
I didn't complain, but I was, um, not happy. — Listenability: The scripted hesitation sounds conversational, but the filler and vague ending weaken the point. A higher-level answer would express the frustration more precisely while keeping the natural speaking style.
everybody can share the cost of the birthday person's meal. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a relevant compromise: friends pay for their own orders while treating the birthday person. A higher-level answer would explain how that shared contribution fits the fairness argument, especially for the student.

Level 9 sample answer

237 words

Personally, I think splitting the bill evenly is usually the better option, as long as the group is reasonable about it.

For one thing, it keeps the focus on the celebration. When my friend Paola turned thirty, twelve of us went to a seafood place on the Dartmouth waterfront, and if we'd spent twenty minutes passing the bill around with a calculator, it would've really put a damper on the evening. Dividing it by twelve took about thirty seconds, and everyone went back to enjoying themselves.

Beyond that, things tend to even out over time. In a close group you'll be at dozens of dinners together. One night you're the one who ordered the lobster, next month it's someone else. Keeping a strict tab every single time feels a bit petty between friends.

It also makes it easy to treat the birthday person. If everyone's chipping in equally anyway, you just divide the total among everyone except them and nobody has to work out who owes what.

Having said that, I don't think it's fair to expect someone who only had a salad and tap water to cover another person's three cocktails. In that case, the polite thing is for the big spenders to offer to pay more, or for the group to agree on separate bills before ordering.

So overall, I'd go with an even split, but with a bit of common sense and good manners.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops its preference for equal splitting through a celebration example, several reasons and a meaningful exception for unequal orders. It is more fluent and nuanced than level 7, but its assumption that spending balances out and its loosely defined exceptions make the position less precise than level 11.

Beyond that, things tend to even out over time. — Content/Coherence: This adds a distinct reason for equal splitting, but assumes friends will take turns spending more. The student may consistently order less. A higher-level answer would address that limitation directly when developing this argument.
it would've really put a damper on the evening. — Vocabulary: The idiom naturally expresses how calculating individual shares could spoil the celebration. Compared with level 7, the wording is more expressive. A higher-level answer would sustain that precision when defining what a fair exception involves.
Having said that, I don't think it's fair — Listenability: The conversational transition clearly signals a concession, helping listeners follow the move from convenience to unequal spending. A higher-level answer would connect this exception more explicitly to the final recommendation so the position feels fully resolved.
So overall, I'd go with an even split, but with a bit of common sense and good manners. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion answers the question and preserves flexibility for the salad-ordering friend. However, 'common sense and good manners' leaves the payment rule vague. A higher-level answer would specify more clearly when individual payment should replace equal splitting.

Level 11 sample answer

257 words

My view is that each person should pay for what they ordered, with one exception: the whole table should quietly cover the guest of honour.

The core issue is that an even split looks fair but often isn't. Picture a table of ten where three people order the $42 rib-eye and a couple of craft beers, while someone else, perhaps a friend on a tight student budget, has a $16 salad. Split evenly with tax and tip, that person could easily end up paying close to $50 for a meal worth less than half that. Nobody wants to be the one who objects, so the cost is absorbed in silence, and that's precisely the kind of quiet resentment that wears friendships down.

What's more, the even split can gradually exclude people. If birthday dinners reliably cost $60 a head, the friends on tighter budgets start finding reasons to miss them, and the celebrations become smaller and less inclusive than they should be.

I'd also argue that the practical objection no longer holds much weight. Most servers in Dartmouth will happily run separate bills if you ask at the start, and if the restaurant can't, someone can settle up and everyone transfers their share within minutes.

I'll concede that splitting evenly feels more generous and spares everyone some arithmetic. But generosity should be offered, not assumed. That's why treating the birthday person works so well: everyone chips in a few extra dollars by choice.

So on balance, separate bills, plus a shared gift of dinner for whoever's celebrating.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a precise position with sustained reasoning about affordability, social pressure and inclusion. Its controlled concessions, practical payment options and memorable distinction between voluntary generosity and assumed generosity make the argument more cohesive and persuasive than the other answers.

the friends on tighter budgets start finding reasons to miss them — Content/Coherence: This extends the argument beyond an unfair restaurant charge to its effect on future participation. It develops the exclusion concern that level 7 mentions briefly and directly challenges level 9's assumption that spending differences balance out.
But generosity should be offered, not assumed. — Vocabulary: The concise contrast gives precise language to the central fairness issue: friends should choose whether to subsidize others. It also connects the objection to equal splitting with the proposal to treat the birthday person.
I'll concede that splitting evenly feels more generous and spares everyone some arithmetic. — Listenability: The clear concession acknowledges the opposing view in a manageable sentence. It prepares listeners for the short rebuttal that follows, giving the argument a controlled rhythm and making its central distinction easy to follow.
My view is that each person should pay for what they ordered, with one exception: the whole table should quietly cover the guest of honour. — Task Fulfillment: The opening immediately establishes both the payment rule and the birthday exception. The answer then supports this position with the student's budget, unequal orders and practical arrangements, keeping the response closely tied to the celebration scenario.

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