CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: Work Messages After Hours

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

Fiona’s workplace in Prince George is considering holding routine work messages until each recipient’s next scheduled shift. Urgent matters could still be handled by phone, and employees work different shifts. Should the workplace adopt this rule? Share your opinion and explain what makes your approach preferable.

Model answers

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

Level 7 sample answer

191 words

I think the workplace should hold routine messages until the next shift. People need time away from work, even when a message only takes a minute to read.

First, messages can interrupt normal activities at home. Someone might be making dinner or talking with a friend when a work question appears. They may feel they should answer right away. Um, getting several messages at the evening could make it difficult to relax.

Also, everyone need a fair chance to receive information. Some employees may check their phones often, while others put them away after work. If routine messages arrive when their shifts begin, people won't feel they have to keep checking all the time. For example, an update about next week's supplies can usually wait.

The rule could also help people give better answers. During their shifts, they can look at the schedule or ask a coworker before replying. At home, they might answer too quickly and miss something important.

I understand that different shifts make communication harder. However, urgent matters could still be handled by phone. That seems like a fair way to do it, so I'd support the rule.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer clearly supports the rule and gives relevant reasons about relaxation, fairness, and better replies. Compared with the higher-level answers, its explanations are more straightforward, its wording is less precise, and occasional grammar problems interrupt the flow.

If routine messages arrive when their shifts begin, people won't feel they have to keep checking all the time. — Content/Coherence: This clearly connects delivery timing with reduced pressure to check messages. The higher-level answers develop the workplace implications further, explaining how expectations arise or how delivery choices might affect employees working different shifts.
At home, they might answer too quickly and miss something important. — Vocabulary: The everyday wording makes the point understandable, but “something important” leaves the possible mistake vague. A higher-level answer would identify what an employee might overlook, such as a schedule detail, and explain the consequence more precisely.
Um, getting several messages at the evening could make it difficult to relax. — Listenability: The meaning remains easy to follow, but “at the evening” is awkward phrasing. The hesitation is minor; the higher-level answers mainly sound smoother because their sentence structures and expressions are more consistently natural.
However, urgent matters could still be handled by phone. — Task Fulfillment: This directly acknowledges the phone exception and helps justify adopting the rule. A higher-level response would explain how the workplace should distinguish urgent matters from routine requests, especially when employees have different schedules.

Level 9 sample answer

232 words

I'd prefer a flexible guideline over an automatic rule that holds every routine message. Protecting personal time matters, but employees on different shifts may need some control over when they receive information.

For one thing, an early message can help someone plan their next workday. Suppose an employee wants to know whether a routine team discussion has been moved from the morning to the afternoon. They might appreciate seeing that update before leaving home, even though nobody needs an immediate reply. Holding it until their shift starts could make planning less convenient.

A second concern is that people have different preferences. I'd probably silence most work notifications after hours, but another employee might choose to check messages briefly after dinner. Allowing notification settings and scheduled delivery would give both people breathing room. The important point is that checking messages must remain a choice, rather than an unofficial expectation.

Finally, an automatic rule could encourage employees to label ordinary matters as urgent just to reach someone. If that happened, phone calls might become more frequent and disruptive. Clear examples of what deserves a call would be more useful than relying only on a delivery restriction.

I'd therefore ask Fiona's workplace to establish a firm rule against expecting routine replies outside scheduled hours, while letting staff choose when messages appear. That would protect employees' time without removing useful flexibility from people working different shifts.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a thoughtful alternative, using a planning example and a clear distinction between optional checking and expected replies. Compared with the level 11 answer, it leaves more practical questions unresolved, especially how delivery preferences would work without creating pressure to stay available.

Holding it until their shift starts could make planning less convenient. — Content/Coherence: This draws a clear consequence from the example of a rescheduled team discussion, giving the opposing position substance. A stronger answer would explain more fully when advance notice materially helps employees and how that benefit outweighs interruptions.
The important point is that checking messages must remain a choice, rather than an unofficial expectation. — Vocabulary: “Unofficial expectation” precisely describes pressure that can exist without a written requirement. A higher-level version could extend that precision by distinguishing receiving an update, choosing to read it, and feeling responsible for acting on it.
I'd therefore ask Fiona's workplace to establish a firm rule against expecting routine replies outside scheduled hours, — Listenability: “Therefore” clearly signals the conclusion, and the recommendation follows logically. However, this extended opening delays the delivery-preference part of the proposal. A higher-level version could give the reply boundary and delivery choice separate, more compact sentences.
Allowing notification settings and scheduled delivery would give both people breathing room. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a relevant alternative that accommodates different preferences instead of merely rejecting the proposal. A higher-level answer would specify the delivery default and explain how employees could choose it without pressure from supervisors or colleagues.

Level 11 sample answer

250 words

I'd adopt the rule because it would establish a clear boundary while preserving a direct route for genuinely urgent communication. With different shifts, that boundary needs to follow the recipient's schedule.

The strongest argument is that receiving a message can create work even when no reply is explicitly requested. If a supervisor sends a question about tomorrow's stock count at nine in the evening, an employee may mentally start solving it during dinner. Holding that question until the employee's shift begins removes the pressure at its source. It also avoids making each person negotiate an individual boundary with their supervisor.

The rule would make information more manageable as well. Consider someone returning after two days off: a stream of updates received throughout that break can be difficult to organize. Having routine communication arrive when the person is actually available would create a clearer starting point. Related updates could be reviewed together, with workplace records and colleagues available to clarify anything confusing.

A further benefit is that it would require senders to distinguish urgency from convenience. Wanting a quick answer isn't necessarily a reason to interrupt someone's evening. Since phone calls would remain available, a time-sensitive shift-coverage question could still be addressed without treating every small request as equally pressing.

Implementation would matter: schedules would need to be accurate, and Fiona's workplace should define urgent matters using ordinary examples. With those details settled, I'd support the change. It would give employees predictable personal time and encourage more deliberate communication across shifts.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear recommendation with developed explanations of mental workload, information management, and urgency. Precise language, natural phrasing, and practical conditions make its case more complete and closely tied to the recipient’s shift schedule.

Holding that question until the employee's shift begins removes the pressure at its source. — Content/Coherence: This completes a developed causal explanation: a routine stock-count question can trigger mental work during dinner, so delaying delivery prevents that interruption. The example explains why controlling delivery itself has value even when replies are not explicitly required.
It also avoids making each person negotiate an individual boundary with their supervisor. — Vocabulary: “Negotiate an individual boundary” precisely captures the effort involved in protecting personal time within a workplace relationship. It adds a distinct reason for a shared rule beyond the simpler benefit of receiving fewer notifications.
Wanting a quick answer isn't necessarily a reason to interrupt someone's evening. — Listenability: This compact, conversational sentence makes the distinction between convenience and urgency easy to follow. Its direct phrasing gives the argument emphasis without adding a complicated explanation.
With different shifts, that boundary needs to follow the recipient's schedule. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the scheduling condition in the prompt. The answer also preserves urgent phone contact and identifies accurate schedules and clear urgency examples as implementation needs, making the recommendation practical as well as persuasive.

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