CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Badminton League Format 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 Prairie Lantern Recreation Club in Moose Jaw is surveying players about its adult badminton league. It rents six courts for two hours each week and must choose between fixed skill divisions with season standings and mixed groups that change weekly without standings. The rental cannot be extended, so the club cannot offer separate competitive and social sessions.

Which league format would you prefer? Explain your choice in about 150–200 words, allowing 26 minutes to prepare and write your response.

Option A: Use fixed skill divisions and season standings, offering closer competition but fewer opportunities to meet players from other divisions.
Option B: Rotate mixed groups weekly without standings, encouraging new friendships but producing less evenly matched games.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

166 words

I would choose Option A because I mainly join a sports league to improve my game. Playing with people at a similar level would make the weekly session more useful for me.

First, close games keep everyone involved. When I played badminton with a much stronger friend, I spend most of the time collecting the shuttle. Neither of us had much fun. Fixed divisions would give beginners more confidence and let experienced players have a proper challenge. Players could also see what they need to practise before the next week.

Also, standings would give us reason to attend regularly. It is easier to stay motivated when each game matters a little. I would probably practise more often if I wanted to move higher in my division.

The mixed groups would be good for meeting people, but we can still talk before games. With only two hours available, I think fair matches are more important. This format would give players a better chance to improve their skill.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 model presents a clear preference, relevant reasons and a personal example. Compared with the other answers, its explanations are simpler, its vocabulary is more repetitive, and a noticeable tense error reduces grammatical control.

I would probably practise more often if I wanted to move higher in my division. — Content/Coherence: This connects standings with personal motivation, supporting the choice logically. However, it largely repeats the earlier point about regular attendance. A higher-level answer would develop how season standings help players recognize progress across the season.
This format would give players a better chance to improve their skill. — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but the broad phrase about improving skill repeats the opening idea about improving the writer's game. A higher-level answer would name the benefits more precisely, such as tactical decisions or useful feedback during rallies.
I spend most of the time collecting the shuttle. — Readability: The image makes the mismatch easy to understand, but 'spend' conflicts with the past-time introduction, 'When I played'. A higher-level answer would maintain the past tense consistently so the anecdote reads smoothly.
With only two hours available, I think fair matches are more important. — Task Fulfillment: This directly uses the rental limit to justify choosing fair competition over wider social contact. A higher-level answer would explain the consequence more fully: mismatched games consume scarce playing time, while conversations can happen around the matches.

Level 9 sample answer

177 words

Option B would make the league more welcoming, so I would support rotating groups without standings. For me, a recreation club should provide exercise and a chance to build connections beyond our usual circle.

Changing groups would help new members settle in. When I joined a recreational activity last winter, the established friendships made it difficult to start conversations. Regularly meeting different partners would break the ice naturally. Even someone arriving alone would soon recognize several friendly faces.

Mixed games could also encourage practical learning. A stronger partner might explain court positioning during a break, while a beginner could contribute enthusiasm and a willingness to practise. Although uneven matches can be frustrating, players can adjust their pace when the result does not affect a season ranking.

I understand why competitive players prefer divisions. However, the club has only one weekly session, and dividing everyone permanently would limit its social value. I would choose the format that helps more members feel they belong, even if some games are less closely contested. Those connections would keep me coming back.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 model develops a convincing social purpose for rotating groups, using fluent language, a relevant experience and a fair concession. Compared with the level 11 model, its reasoning is less precise about what players gain or sacrifice during the limited court time.

When I joined a recreational activity last winter, the established friendships made it difficult to start conversations. — Content/Coherence: The experience explains why weekly rotation could help newcomers, giving the friendship argument a clear cause and effect. A higher-level answer would connect this example more closely to how changing badminton partners helps newcomers participate during the session.
Regularly meeting different partners would break the ice naturally. — Vocabulary: The idiom is natural and suits the argument about welcoming new members. A higher-level answer would combine this accessible language with more precise descriptions of how shared play turns unfamiliar partners into regular social connections.
Although uneven matches can be frustrating, players can adjust their pace when the result does not affect a season ranking. — Readability: The concession and proposed response form a fluent, controlled complex sentence. A higher-level answer could make the response more immediate by tightening the final clause, leaving greater emphasis on how players would adjust their games.
However, the club has only one weekly session, and dividing everyone permanently would limit its social value. — Task Fulfillment: This uses the shared session constraint to support the social format and acknowledges the competing preference. A higher-level answer would weigh the exchange more explicitly, explaining why broader connections justify spending some of the limited playing time on uneven matches.

Level 11 sample answer

183 words

I favour Option A because a limited court rental makes the quality of each match especially important. Fixed divisions would give players a reasonable prospect of being challenged without being overwhelmed.

An evenly matched game offers more than a satisfying score. It creates longer rallies, demands tactical adjustments and gives both sides useful feedback. My friend Dustin, who recently started playing, is comfortable practising serves but struggles when an experienced opponent controls every rally. A beginner division would allow him to develop those skills under realistic pressure rather than merely watch the shuttle pass.

Season standings would also provide continuity. Although winning need not become an obsession, a visible record gives players something concrete to work towards between sessions. For someone whose progress feels gradual, moving up even one position could make practice worthwhile.

Rotating groups would undoubtedly widen our social circle. Nevertheless, conversation can extend beyond division boundaries before and after play, whereas a badly mismatched game cannot easily be repaired once court time has been allocated. Given the two-hour limit, I would prioritize meaningful competition and let friendships develop around it.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 model builds a focused argument around the limited rental, explaining both player development and sustained motivation. Precise vocabulary, controlled sentences and a practical comparison between playing time and social opportunities make its preference especially persuasive.

A beginner division would allow him to develop those skills under realistic pressure rather than merely watch the shuttle pass. — Content/Coherence: This completes the example about Dustin by explaining exactly how a beginner division would help him. Compared with the earlier models, the example more fully connects a player's difficulty, the proposed format and the resulting learning benefit.
It creates longer rallies, demands tactical adjustments and gives both sides useful feedback. — Vocabulary: These precise badminton benefits develop the meaning of a good match. The verbs describe distinct outcomes, giving the argument more substance than general references to improving skills or having a challenge.
Although winning need not become an obsession, a visible record gives players something concrete to work towards between sessions. — Readability: The sentence handles a qualification smoothly while keeping motivation as its main point. Its controlled structure presents standings as a useful encouragement without suggesting that every recreational player must focus on winning.
Given the two-hour limit, I would prioritize meaningful competition and let friendships develop around it. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion directly answers the survey and follows from the comparison immediately before it. Social contact can happen before and after play, while the limited court rental makes the quality of the matches especially consequential.

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