CELPIP® Writing Task 1 sample: Parking Spaces and Repair Tables

Level 7 sample answer

175 words

Dear Nasser,

I am writing about the permit for our free bicycle repair event in Richmond next Saturday. We applied to use the community centre parking lot, but the approval requires us to leave six space available. Our current plan uses the whole lot for repair tables and bicycles waiting to be fixed.

Moving some tables onto the grass would leave more parking available. However, the tools need firm, level ground. People would find it harder to work if their equipment was not steady. We want to keep the parking spaces open, but we also need a suitable place to repair bicycles.

Could we put the repair tables together along one edge of the lot and use the grass for waiting bicycles? We could reduce the number of tables if necessary. Please tell us whether this arrangement could meet the permit condition, or suggest another layout. We must submit our revised plan by Tuesday, so please reply me before then. It would help us finish the plan correctly.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Juliette

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer covers the parking conflict, the difficulty with grass, and a practical revision in a clear formal email. Compared with the stronger answers, its explanation is more repetitive, its vocabulary is less precise, and grammatical errors interrupt otherwise straightforward reading.

• We want to keep the parking spaces open, but we also need a suitable place to repair bicycles. — Content/Coherence: This clearly summarizes the competing needs, but largely repeats the parking and surface problems already explained. The stronger answers develop the discussion by considering reduced repair capacity or managing waiting bicycles.
• People would find it harder to work if their equipment was not steady. — Vocabulary: The everyday wording makes the difficulty understandable, but “harder to work” is broad. The stronger answers connect the surface problem more precisely to repair requirements and the consequences of changing the layout.
• but the approval requires us to leave six space available. — Readability: The parking condition remains understandable, but “six space” contains a plural error. The later phrase “reply me” adds another grammatical distraction. The stronger answers express both the condition and the request more smoothly.
• Please tell us whether this arrangement could meet the permit condition, or suggest another layout. — Task Fulfillment: This directly requests guidance on the proposed revision, and the following sentence establishes the Tuesday deadline. The stronger answers make compliance more explicit by saying the six spaces will stay clear; the strongest also asks about access requirements.

Level 9 sample answer

183 words

Dear Nasser,

I am seeking advice on revising the layout for our free bicycle repair event next Saturday. The permit for the community centre parking lot requires six spaces to remain available, whereas our application currently assigns the entire lot to repair tables and waiting bicycles.

Using the adjoining grass for some tables would free up parking, but it would create a different problem. The tools need a firm, level surface, so placing the repair area on grass could make the work awkward. We need to preserve parking access without compromising the practical requirements of the event.

Would you consider a layout that keeps repair tables along the edge of the paved area and moves waiting bicycles onto the grass? If necessary, we could operate fewer tables to keep all six spaces clear. This may mean repairing fewer bicycles at once, but it seems a reasonable trade-off.

Since the revised plan is due Tuesday, please confirm whether this approach is acceptable before then. Your guidance would help us avoid submitting another layout that cannot be approved.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Juliette

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops the proposal beyond basic problem description by acknowledging that fewer tables could reduce repair capacity. Its controlled language and clear organization improve on level 7, while level 11 adds a more concrete layout, a response to longer waits, and a targeted request about access.

• This may mean repairing fewer bicycles at once, but it seems a reasonable trade-off. — Content/Coherence: The writer evaluates a consequence of reducing tables, giving the proposal more depth than the level 7 answer. The level 11 answer carries that reasoning further by explaining how staggered arrivals could prevent waiting bicycles from occupying the reserved spaces.
• We need to preserve parking access without compromising the practical requirements of the event. — Vocabulary: “Preserve” and “compromising” express the competing priorities efficiently and suit the formal request. However, “practical requirements” remains broad. The level 11 answer names concrete operational concerns, including repair stations, waiting times, and access.
• Using the adjoining grass for some tables would free up parking, but it would create a different problem. — Readability: The sentence clearly links the apparent solution to its drawback, preparing the reader for the explanation about firm, level ground. The level 11 answer maintains this clarity while also handling a fallback arrangement and its consequences.
• If necessary, we could operate fewer tables to keep all six spaces clear. — Task Fulfillment: This explicitly connects the revised layout to the permit condition, improving on the less specific assurance in level 7. The level 11 answer also protects access to those spaces and asks what the submitted drawing should show.

Level 11 sample answer

186 words

Dear Nasser,

I am requesting guidance on the revised layout for our free bicycle repair event next Saturday. The permit condition requires six parking spaces to stay open, yet our current plan uses the entire community centre lot for repair tables and waiting bicycles. A revised plan is due Tuesday.

Although moving tables onto the adjoining grass would release parking space, the tools require firm, level ground. That change would therefore meet one requirement while undermining the working conditions needed for repairs.

I propose keeping three repair tables on the pavement and moving waiting bicycles onto the grass, with the six spaces and access to them left clear. If three tables would still overcrowd the paved area, we could operate fewer stations. However, that would lengthen waits, so we would also need to stagger arrivals rather than allow a lineup to spill into the parking spaces.

Could you confirm before Tuesday whether this approach is acceptable and identify any access requirements our drawing should show? Your guidance would help us submit a workable plan and give participants realistic expectations.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Juliette

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a concrete layout with a fallback and a practical response to longer waits. Its precise language and focused request help Nasser assess both parking compliance and event operations before the Tuesday deadline.

• However, that would lengthen waits, so we would also need to stagger arrivals rather than allow a lineup to spill into the parking spaces. — Content/Coherence: The reasoning follows the proposal through to its operational consequences: fewer stations could increase waits, which could threaten the reserved parking. Staggered arrivals address that problem, extending the trade-off identified in level 9 into a workable response.
• That change would therefore meet one requirement while undermining the working conditions needed for repairs. — Vocabulary: “Meet one requirement” and “undermining the working conditions” precisely describe why moving tables onto grass is an incomplete solution. The language expresses the conflict economically and remains appropriate for a formal email.
• If three tables would still overcrowd the paved area, we could operate fewer stations. — Readability: The conditional sentence makes the fallback easy to follow. It connects directly to the proposed table arrangement and prepares the reader for the next sentence about longer waits, keeping a more developed plan readable.
• Could you confirm before Tuesday whether this approach is acceptable and identify any access requirements our drawing should show? — Task Fulfillment: The request specifies the response deadline and asks for guidance that can be incorporated into the revised drawing. It gives Nasser a clear action and addresses the access issue that the earlier answers develop less fully.