CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Client Visit Transportation 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

Slate Compass Measurement in Whitehorse is asking employees how manager Tunde should fund travel to client buildings within 25 km of the office. The company can either buy one shared all-wheel-drive vehicle, covering its fuel and maintenance, or increase kilometre reimbursements for staff using personal vehicles. Its transport budget cannot support both arrangements. A shared vehicle would require bookings, while reimbursement would leave employees responsible for arranging a vehicle and paying running costs upfront.

Which transportation arrangement should the company fund, considering employees' expenses and the practical demands of client visits?

Option A: Buy one shared vehicle with company-paid fuel and maintenance, requiring employees to coordinate bookings.
Option B: Increase kilometre reimbursements for personal vehicles, preserving scheduling freedom while employees cover running costs upfront.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

173 words

I support Option B because using my own car would make client visits easier to organise. I could leave when I was ready instead of waiting for the shared vehicle. This would be helpful when several employees need to go out.

Also, I know my own car well. I can keep the things I need in it and choose a route that fits my appointments. If the company vehicle was already booked, I might have to move a visit to another time. That could be inconvenient for a client.

The higher payment per kilometre would help with gas and maintenance costs. These costs can add up, even when the buildings are not far from the office. However, employees would still need to pay some expenses before receiving their money.

One shared vehicle would be useful for staff whose car are unavailable. Still, it would not be available for everyone at once. I think reimbursement is the better choice because it gives employees more control on their workday and makes visits easier to plan.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer clearly supports reimbursement and gives relevant reasons about scheduling and expenses. Compared with the stronger answers, it repeats its flexibility argument, develops the financial trade-off less fully, and contains noticeable grammar and word-choice errors.

That could be inconvenient for a client. — Content/Coherence: This connects vehicle availability to client service, but the consequence remains general. A higher-level answer would explain a concrete scheduling conflict and its effect, rather than repeatedly saying that personal vehicles make planning easier.
I can keep the things I need in it — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but “things I need” is broad. The level 11 answer identifies measuring equipment and explains why keeping it arranged matters, making the vocabulary more specific to these client visits.
One shared vehicle would be useful for staff whose car are unavailable. — Readability: The mismatch in “car are” interrupts otherwise straightforward reading. A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical control while expressing the same useful concession about employees' access to vehicles.
However, employees would still need to pay some expenses before receiving their money. — Task Fulfillment: This acknowledges the upfront expense requirement, so the response considers more than scheduling freedom. A higher-level answer would explain how that burden affects the recommendation, as level 11 does by calling for prompt payments.

Level 9 sample answer

190 words

I would choose Option A because transportation for company visits should be dependable even when an employee's personal car is unavailable. A shared vehicle would provide a useful backup and reduce the pressure to keep a private car ready for work.

Company-covered fuel and maintenance would also make expenses more predictable for staff. A higher kilometre payment sounds attractive, but employees would still have to pay for gas and servicing out of pocket before receiving reimbursement. If my November hydro bill and car servicing fell in the same month, paying work expenses upfront would stretch my budget.

A shared vehicle would separate work travel from personal vehicle use. I would appreciate finishing a client visit without calculating how much extra wear it had added to my own car. Having those costs handled directly would remove a small but recurring worry.

Booking conflicts are the obvious drawback, particularly when appointments overlap. Tunde could encourage staff to enter planned visits in a common calendar and combine nearby appointments where practical. One vehicle would require cooperation, but I believe its financial benefits and shared access would outweigh the loss of some scheduling flexibility.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops the case for a shared vehicle through clear financial explanations, a personal example, and practical booking suggestions. Compared with level 7, it is more detailed and controlled; compared with level 11, it repeats related financial benefits and tests its proposed solution less thoroughly.

Having those costs handled directly would remove a small but recurring worry. — Content/Coherence: This reinforces the employee benefit, although it partly overlaps the previous paragraph's financial argument. A higher-level answer would distinguish upfront cash pressure from vehicle wear more sharply or use the space to examine competing demands for shared access.
pay for gas and servicing out of pocket before receiving reimbursement. — Vocabulary: “Servicing,” “out of pocket,” and “reimbursement” express the financial process precisely and naturally. This is stronger than level 7's general references to expenses and money. A higher-level answer would sustain that precision while reducing repeated references to costs.
If my November hydro bill and car servicing fell in the same month, paying work expenses upfront would stretch my budget. — Readability: The conditional sentence is controlled and easy to follow, linking a concrete household example to work expenses. A higher-level answer would maintain this fluency while making each paragraph contribute a more distinct part of the argument.
Tunde could encourage staff to enter planned visits in a common calendar and combine nearby appointments where practical. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the booking requirement with workable coordination suggestions. A higher-level answer would also test their limits: a calendar can reveal overlapping appointments, but it cannot make one vehicle available for separate visits simultaneously.

Level 11 sample answer

187 words

Option B would better support employees who must coordinate visits to different client buildings. Within the stated 25 km service area, flexible departure times could be more valuable than access to one shared vehicle.

The main constraint is simultaneous demand. If two clients offer appointments at ten on Tuesday, a booking system cannot make one vehicle serve both visits independently. Employees might need to reschedule or wait for a colleague to return. Reimbursement would prevent that bottleneck from throwing a wrench in the day's plans.

Using my own vehicle would also let me keep measuring equipment arranged consistently. That continuity would be especially welcome during Whitehorse's colder months, when transferring equipment outdoors between bookings would consume time and effort.

The drawback is substantial for employees without ready access to personal vehicles: reimbursement alone does not solve their transportation problem. Tunde should establish whether staff can arrange vehicles before committing to this option. Employees would also carry running costs upfront, making prompt payments essential. Provided vehicle access is workable, I would favour the higher kilometre allowance because it would reduce scheduling conflicts and preserve flexibility for client visits.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer makes a precise, conditional case for reimbursement, connecting simultaneous appointments, equipment handling, vehicle access, and upfront expenses. Its strength is the way it tests its own recommendation and makes the conclusion depend on whether employees can actually arrange vehicles.

If two clients offer appointments at ten on Tuesday, a booking system cannot make one vehicle serve both visits independently. — Content/Coherence: The concrete example exposes the limit of booking coordination and explains why it matters for client visits. Compared with the other answers, the reasoning moves beyond naming inconvenience to showing exactly how the transport arrangement could constrain work.
Reimbursement would prevent that bottleneck from throwing a wrench in the day's plans. — Vocabulary: “Bottleneck” precisely names the capacity problem, while the idiom expresses its disruptive effect naturally. The wording supports an already explained argument; its effectiveness comes from that fit, rather than from using an idiom alone.
Provided vehicle access is workable, I would favour the higher kilometre allowance because it would reduce scheduling conflicts and preserve flexibility for client visits. — Readability: The sentence clearly combines a condition, a recommendation, and its reasons. Its controlled structure lets the conclusion remain decisive while carrying forward the important qualification about employees' access to vehicles.
The drawback is substantial for employees without ready access to personal vehicles: reimbursement alone does not solve their transportation problem. — Task Fulfillment: This directly confronts a serious limitation of the preferred option. Together with the call for prompt payments, it balances practical access and employee expenses, making the recommendation more carefully qualified than the other responses.

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