CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Apartment Recycling Upgrade Survey

Responding to Survey Questions · 26 minutes · 150–200 words · Published 23 October 2026

Original practice questions in CELPIP® task formats, created independently by CELPIP Study.

Practice question

The Ternbrook Municipal Services Office in Cornwall is surveying apartment residents about overflowing shared recycling containers. Its available budget can either replace the containers with larger ones collected once a week or keep the existing containers and empty them twice a week. Larger containers would occupy one visitor parking space at each participating building, while the second weekly pickup would occur at 7 a.m. because no later truck slot is available. The office cannot afford both changes.

Which recycling arrangement would you choose for participating apartment buildings, and what trade-offs matter most to you?

Option A: Replace shared containers with larger ones emptied weekly, using one visitor parking space at each building.
Option B: Keep the existing containers and empty them twice weekly, including an additional pickup at 7 a.m.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

161 words

I choose Option A because larger recycling containers would help residents without adding another early pickup. Losing a visitor parking space would be inconvenient, but I think this choice would make daily life easier.

First, larger containers would give people more room for their recycling. In my building, I sometimes carry cardboard downstairs and find that the container is already full. Then I have to bring it back to my apartment. More space would make this less common and help people keep their homes tidy.

Also, an extra collection at 7 a.m. could disturb residents. Some people works late and need to sleep in the morning. My bedroom faces the parking area, so I would prefer fewer visits from a collection truck.

We would have one less parking space for visitor, which could cause problems on busy weekends. However, visitors do not all arrive together, while residents use the recycling containers every week. For these reasons, I support the larger containers.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer makes a clear choice and supports it with relevant personal examples. Compared with the others, its language is simpler, its grammar is less consistent, and its comparison of parking loss with early collection is less developed.

In my building, I sometimes carry cardboard downstairs and find that the container is already full. — Content/Coherence: The personal example makes overflowing containers easy to picture and connects clearly to the preference for larger containers. A higher-level answer would also explain when increased capacity would help more than increased collection frequency.
First, larger containers would give people more room for their recycling. — Vocabulary: The wording communicates the benefit clearly, but 'more room' is broad and basic. The higher-level answers use more precise language to discuss capacity, accumulation, and the timing of collection.
Some people works late and need to sleep in the morning. — Readability: The concern about residents sleeping after late work is understandable, but 'people works' has a subject–verb agreement error. A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical accuracy while explaining this same practical concern.
However, visitors do not all arrive together, while residents use the recycling containers every week. — Task Fulfillment: This directly weighs visitor parking against residents' recycling needs. However, different arrival times do not establish that losing a space would be manageable. A higher-level answer would acknowledge more carefully when that parking loss could matter.

Level 9 sample answer

178 words

I would select Option B because emptying the existing containers twice a week would address overflowing recycling while preserving visitor parking. Although the additional early pickup is a drawback, I would accept it for a more reliable routine.

In my apartment building, cardboard tends to accumulate quickly after the weekend. Once the container fills up, even residents who flatten their boxes struggle to find space. Larger containers would provide extra capacity, but a second collection would remove material sooner rather than leaving the entire week's recycling on site. That would be especially helpful during periods when several residents move.

Keeping the visitor space also matters. When a friend helps me carry groceries upstairs, having somewhere to park makes the visit much easier. Removing a space permanently could create a daily headache for residents expecting guests or practical help.

I recognize that a truck arriving at 7 a.m. could interrupt sleep, particularly for people working late shifts. Nevertheless, I would favour a regular additional collection over permanently giving up parking. Option B offers the better balance for our building.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a persuasive preference for frequent collection through clear examples, fluent language, and explicit consideration of parking and sleep. It is less nuanced than the level 11 answer about whether collection timing and container capacity would actually prevent overflow.

a second collection would remove material sooner rather than leaving the entire week's recycling on site. — Content/Coherence: This explains how frequent collection differs from simply adding storage, giving the preference a clear practical basis. A higher-level answer would also consider whether recycling could accumulate faster than the existing containers can accommodate between pickups.
Removing a space permanently could create a daily headache for residents expecting guests or practical help. — Vocabulary: The natural phrase 'daily headache' conveys inconvenience, while 'practical help' broadens the parking argument beyond social visits. A higher-level answer would use similarly fluent language with tighter qualification of how often the lost space would cause difficulty.
Although the additional early pickup is a drawback, I would accept it for a more reliable routine. — Readability: The concession is grammatically controlled and makes the writer's priority immediately clear. Compared with the level 11 answer, the sentence structure is more familiar; the stronger answer uses greater structural variety while keeping the reasoning accessible.
I recognize that a truck arriving at 7 a.m. could interrupt sleep, particularly for people working late shifts. — Task Fulfillment: The answer explicitly addresses the main disadvantage of the chosen option and identifies residents who could be affected. A higher-level response would explain more fully why preserving parking outweighs this recurring disturbance, rather than relying mainly on a stated preference.

Level 11 sample answer

188 words

Option A would be my preference: increase storage capacity while retaining weekly collection. The parking sacrifice is tangible, but an additional 7 a.m. pickup would impose a recurring disturbance on residents whose windows overlook the collection area.

My neighbour Cillian works evenings and usually sleeps until midmorning. Were another truck to arrive each week, he could lose valuable rest even though his household produces very little recycling. Larger containers would address the capacity problem without making a second early collection part of everyone's routine.

Additional space would also accommodate the uneven way recycling accumulates. If several households unpack deliveries on the same afternoon, twice-weekly collection would not necessarily prevent the existing containers from filling before the next pickup. A larger container offers a buffer at the moment residents need it, although its effectiveness would depend on how much additional capacity it provides.

Giving up a visitor space deserves serious consideration, particularly when guests need convenient parking. Even so, I would favour that clearly defined spatial compromise over another early truck visit. Provided the new containers offer a substantial increase in capacity, Option A is the more considerate investment.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines precise language and varied sentence structures with a careful comparison of storage capacity, collection timing, parking, and sleep. Its strength is a qualified recommendation that recognizes both uneven recycling demand and the conditions needed for larger containers to work.

twice-weekly collection would not necessarily prevent the existing containers from filling before the next pickup. — Content/Coherence: This identifies the distinction between total weekly collection and capacity available during a sudden surge. The delivery example supports that reasoning, making the comparison more developed than simply claiming that larger containers hold more.
The parking sacrifice is tangible, but an additional 7 a.m. pickup would impose a recurring disturbance — Vocabulary: The precise phrases 'parking sacrifice' and 'recurring disturbance' distinguish the costs of the competing arrangements. The vocabulary helps explain the decision by contrasting the use of physical space with repeated disruption to residents.
Were another truck to arrive each week, he could lose valuable rest even though his household produces very little recycling. — Readability: The inverted conditional and concessive clause are controlled and easy to follow. They connect the neighbour's circumstances to a fairness concern: the additional collection could disturb someone whose household contributes little recycling.
Provided the new containers offer a substantial increase in capacity, Option A is the more considerate investment. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion clearly chooses the larger containers while identifying the condition that makes the choice worthwhile. This qualification strengthens the recommendation by tying it to meaningful overflow relief after acknowledging the parking sacrifice.

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 a clear survey choice and develop reasons with concrete examples. Explain consequences, connect paragraphs and address the competing option where useful without losing your position.

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.
Readability: Look for increasingly controlled grammar, sentence variety, punctuation and paragraphing. Complexity helps when it keeps the message easy to read.
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