CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Weekend Renovation Noise

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

A condo board in Guelph is considering banning noisy renovation work on weekends. Some residents work nights, while others can arrange renovations only on Saturdays. Should the board introduce this ban? State your view and explain the reasons that support it.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

189 words

I don't think the board should ban noisy renovations for the whole weekend. Um, I would allow a short period on Saturdays instead. That seems more useful for residents with different schedules.

First, many resident work during the week, so Saturday may be their only chance to stay home during repairs. If someone needs to replace a kitchen cupboard, they may want to be there while the work happens. Taking a day off could be difficult for them.

Also, a weekend ban doesn't solve the problem for people who work nights. They need to sleep during weekdays too. Moving every noisy job to Monday through Friday could actually make their situation worse.

Another reason is that clear hours would help neighbours plan. The board could discuss about a Saturday period, perhaps from late morning until midafternoon. People would know when to expect noise, and Sunday could stay quiet.

I understand that residents want peaceful weekends. However, a complete ban seems too strict. A limited Saturday schedule, with a message to nearby neighbours before work starts, would give people time to improve their homes while still protecting some quiet time.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 example gives a clear position, relevant reasons, and a workable Saturday compromise. Compared with level 9, its explanations are more straightforward, and occasional awkward wording makes the language less controlled.

Moving every noisy job to Monday through Friday could actually make their situation worse. — Content/Coherence: This connects the proposed ban to an unintended consequence for night workers. The reasoning is relevant and easy to follow; a higher-level answer would develop the fairness principle behind this concern and connect it more closely to the proposed restrictions.
The board could discuss about a Saturday period, perhaps from late morning until midafternoon. — Vocabulary: The proposed time window is understandable, but “discuss about” is an awkward verb combination. A higher-level answer would use “discuss a Saturday period” and choose more precise policy language, such as “a limited Saturday window.”
Um, I would allow a short period on Saturdays instead. — Listenability: The short sentence makes the alternative easy to grasp. The written filler suggests a moment of hesitation, although it alone does not establish a level. A higher-level answer would introduce the compromise more smoothly and specify what the period permits.
with a message to nearby neighbours before work starts — Task Fulfillment: Advance notice adds a practical safeguard to the position against a complete ban. A higher-level response would explain how the board could enforce the arrangement or prevent repeated Saturday projects from removing residents' dependable quiet time.

Level 9 sample answer

230 words

I'd support the weekend ban, mainly because residents should have a predictable period when noisy projects stop. With different work schedules in one building, nobody will get their ideal arrangement, but protecting both weekend days creates a clear boundary.

One benefit is that people could make plans at home without wondering whether drilling will interrupt them. For example, someone hosting a Saturday lunch shouldn't have to compete with renovation noise from the apartment above. Having dependable quiet time makes shared living more comfortable.

The rule could also prevent small projects from dragging on across several weekends. If residents had to organize noisy work within weekday hours, they might prepare materials beforehand and book the necessary help together. That could reduce the overall disruption, although the board would need to communicate the rule well before it took effect.

Finally, a simple rule is easier to apply fairly. Deciding which Saturday projects deserve permission could put the board in an awkward position, especially when neighbours disagree about how much noise is acceptable.

I recognize that weekday work creates difficulties for residents who can only supervise on Saturdays. They could still do quiet preparation then and arrange the noisy stages separately. Night workers would also need consideration through reasonable weekday hours. Even with those limits, I'd favour the ban because a guaranteed break from renovation noise would benefit the building as a whole.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 example sustains its position through distinct arguments about predictable quiet, project planning, and fair enforcement. Its language is smoother than the level 7 example, but the claimed planning benefits and solutions for Saturday-only residents are less fully worked through than the level 11 proposal.

they might prepare materials beforehand and book the necessary help together. — Content/Coherence: This supplies a plausible mechanism for reducing disruption, rather than simply claiming that a ban helps. However, weekday restrictions do not necessarily make projects more efficient. A higher-level answer would examine that assumption or build its case on a more directly supported consequence.
could put the board in an awkward position — Vocabulary: This natural expression captures the difficulty of deciding which residents deserve Saturday exceptions. Compared with level 7, the wording is more idiomatic. A higher-level answer could identify the precise difficulty, such as inconsistent decisions or disputes over exceptions.
nobody will get their ideal arrangement, but protecting both weekend days creates a clear boundary. — Listenability: The concession followed by “but” makes the argument easy to follow aloud: competing schedules are acknowledged before the proposed benefit is stated. A higher-level answer would make this transition more persuasive by explaining why that boundary remains fair to night workers.
They could still do quiet preparation then and arrange the noisy stages separately. — Task Fulfillment: This directly acknowledges residents who can supervise only on Saturdays and offers an accommodation. However, separating the stages does not explain who supervises weekday noise. A higher-level answer would resolve that practical obstacle or acknowledge the remaining burden more explicitly.

Level 11 sample answer

252 words

I'd vote against a blanket weekend ban. In a building where schedules already conflict, restricting all noisy renovations to weekdays would shift the inconvenience rather than distribute it fairly.

Take the residents who work nights. A rule intended to preserve weekend peace could concentrate drilling precisely when they're trying to sleep between shifts. Their need for rest deserves the same consideration as someone else's preference for a quiet Saturday. To me, that means limiting the duration and frequency of noise instead of assuming weekdays are convenient for everyone.

There's also the practical question of being home during repairs. If a resident can supervise work only on Saturdays, a total ban might mean postponing a useful improvement or taking unpaid leave. Neither consequence seems proportionate when a carefully controlled window could accommodate the work. For instance, the board could propose noisy work between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Saturdays, while keeping Sundays protected.

Predictability would be my third priority. Residents proposing a project could provide its expected dates and identify the particularly noisy stages. A neighbour planning an online course or a quiet gathering could then discuss a specific conflict before it becomes a complaint. Notice wouldn't eliminate inconvenience, but it would give people some room to manoeuvre.

I'd pair those arrangements with a limit on consecutive Saturdays and a clear complaints process. Otherwise, a modest allowance could turn into endless construction. Shared living requires compromise, and a narrow, enforceable Saturday window strikes a better balance than closing off the entire weekend.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 example builds a strong argument around fair distribution of inconvenience, then turns that principle into a specific Saturday policy. Precise vocabulary, clear spoken phrasing, and safeguards against repeated disruption make its compromise more thoroughly developed than the other answers.

would shift the inconvenience rather than distribute it fairly. — Content/Coherence: This establishes a central principle that connects the whole response. Night workers' sleep, Saturday supervision, advance notice, and limits on repeated work all become parts of the same argument about sharing inconvenience fairly.
Neither consequence seems proportionate when a carefully controlled window could accommodate the work. — Vocabulary: “Proportionate” precisely evaluates whether postponement or unpaid leave is justified, while “accommodate” expresses how a restricted window could meet residents' needs. The vocabulary sharpens the policy argument without making it difficult to understand.
Notice wouldn't eliminate inconvenience, but it would give people some room to manoeuvre. — Listenability: The balanced sentence clearly separates what advance notice can and cannot achieve. The conversational phrase “room to manoeuvre” keeps the explanation accessible, while the qualification makes the proposed benefit sound measured and credible.
I'd pair those arrangements with a limit on consecutive Saturdays and a clear complaints process. — Task Fulfillment: This anticipates how a limited allowance could become persistent disruption and adds safeguards. Together with the Saturday window and protected Sundays, it gives the board a concrete alternative that addresses both renovation access and residents' need for quiet.

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