CELPIP® Writing Task 1 sample: A Deposit for Borrowed Gear

Level 7 sample answer

163 words

Dear Manpreet,

Thank you for asking our volunteer group to comment on the proposed equipment deposit. I am concerned that asking for $75 will make borrowing difficult for some residents, even though the money will be returned.

Several residents have told me they cannot pay this amount. They may have to stop borrowing sports equipment, so they would lose a useful way to stay active. Also, the centre would have fewer people using its equipment. I understand that missing items are expensive and that the centre cannot afford replacements.

Could we try a borrowing record instead of the deposit? Staff could write down each person's contact details and the date when equipment should be returned. A reminder could help people bring things back on time. If someone does not return an item, they could not borrow again until it is returned. This would make people responsible of what they borrow.

Please include these suggestion in the feedback you collect by Friday.

Sincerely,

Colton

Why this answer is at level 7

This illustrates level 7 through clear organization, relevant concerns, and practical borrowing rules. Compared with the higher-level answers, its reasoning is simpler, its recommendations lack a review process, and noticeable language errors reduce precision.

• Also, the centre would have fewer people using its equipment. — Content/Coherence: This identifies an effect on the centre, but leaves its significance unexplained. A higher-level answer would connect reduced participation more explicitly to the centre's purpose of providing accessible recreation.
• This would make people responsible of what they borrow. — Vocabulary: The intended meaning is clear, but the usual expression is responsible for. Higher-level writing would use accurate word combinations and explain more precisely how borrowing restrictions encourage equipment returns.
• Please include these suggestion in the feedback you collect by Friday. — Readability: The closing request acknowledges the deadline and is easy to understand, but these requires the plural suggestions. The higher-level answers maintain grammatical control through their closing requests.
• Staff could write down each person's contact details and the date when equipment should be returned. — Task Fulfillment: This directly recommends an affordable safeguard, addressing the equipment problem without requiring payment. The higher-level answers develop these procedures into a trial with a review, making the recommendation easier to evaluate.

Level 9 sample answer

171 words

Dear Manpreet,

Thank you for inviting feedback by Friday on the sports equipment deposit. I understand the need to protect the centre's limited resources, but I am concerned about the proposed $75 requirement.

Several residents have explained that they could not afford to leave that amount with the centre, even temporarily. For them, a refundable deposit would still be a barrier. They might miss opportunities to exercise or join activities simply because they cannot spare the cash. At the same time, equipment losses would reduce what the centre can offer everyone, so doing nothing is hardly a workable answer.

Could we introduce a borrowing agreement with clear return dates, verified contact details, and reminders? Residents could borrow one item at a time, with further borrowing paused whenever something is overdue. These steps would encourage responsibility without tying up money that people need for everyday expenses.

A short trial would let us see whether this approach keeps losses manageable before considering a deposit. Please include this option in your review.

Sincerely,

Colton

Why this answer is at level 9

This illustrates level 9 through fluent language, balanced reasoning, and a practical alternative to the deposit. Compared with the level 11 answer, it gives less detail about evaluating the trial and does not explore how a deposit waiver could protect residents' privacy.

• A short trial would let us see whether this approach keeps losses manageable before considering a deposit. — Content/Coherence: The trial logically follows the proposed safeguards and acknowledges uncertainty about their effectiveness. The higher-level answer makes the review more concrete by identifying return rates, losses, and the advisory group's role.
• without tying up money that people need for everyday expenses. — Vocabulary: Tying up money accurately explains why a refundable payment can still cause hardship. The higher-level answer adds precise policy vocabulary to distinguish affordability, accountability, and the proposed exemption.
• At the same time, equipment losses would reduce what the centre can offer everyone, so doing nothing is hardly a workable answer. — Readability: The transition and connected clauses smoothly balance residents' needs with the centre's constraints. The higher-level answer expresses this tension more compactly and turns it into an explicit principle for judging the policy.
• Residents could borrow one item at a time, with further borrowing paused whenever something is overdue. — Task Fulfillment: This supplies clear, enforceable safeguards while keeping borrowing affordable. The higher-level answer also explains how residents could privately request relief if a deposit policy proceeds.

Level 11 sample answer

179 words

Dear Manpreet,

Please consider this feedback on the proposed $75 deposit before your Friday deadline.

Although the payment would be refundable, several residents have told me they cannot spare $75, even temporarily. For them, borrowing would become unaffordable regardless of whether they have always returned equipment promptly.

The centre would consequently risk excluding residents who depend on inexpensive recreation. However, with no funds to replace missing items, it also needs more than borrowers' good intentions. A workable policy must address both access and accountability.

Could we trial a waiver that residents request privately from staff when borrowing, without having to explain their finances publicly? Everyone would sign the same agreement, provide confirmed contact details, and receive a clear return date. A limit of one item per borrower, reminders, and a pause on further loans while anything remains overdue would help protect the equipment.

After the trial, the advisory group could review return rates and losses before recommending a permanent arrangement. This would give the centre evidence of what works while allowing residents to participate from the outset.

Sincerely,

Colton

Why this answer is at level 11

This illustrates level 11 through precise reasoning, controlled language, and a recommendation that addresses affordability, privacy, and equipment protection together. Its concrete review process gives Manpreet a clear basis for deciding whether the arrangement should become permanent.

• After the trial, the advisory group could review return rates and losses before recommending a permanent arrangement. — Content/Coherence: The conclusion completes the proposal by identifying who would review it and what evidence they would examine. This develops the earlier safeguards into a coherent decision process for the centre.
• A workable policy must address both access and accountability. — Vocabulary: Access and accountability precisely name the competing needs established in the preceding sentences. The vocabulary condenses the problem without losing its connection to residents' finances and missing equipment.
• Although the payment would be refundable, several residents have told me they cannot spare $75, even temporarily. — Readability: The opening subordinate clause acknowledges the policy's apparent reassurance before explaining its practical limitation. The sentence is controlled and immediately clarifies why refundability does not resolve these residents' concern.
• Could we trial a waiver that residents request privately from staff when borrowing, without having to explain their finances publicly? — Task Fulfillment: This makes affordability operational through a specific waiver process and anticipates residents' privacy needs. The shared agreement, reminders, and borrowing restrictions that follow complement the waiver with equipment safeguards.