CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Courtyard Pet Access 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

Delphine chairs the Tessera Court Residents' Association in Windsor, where neighbours share a grassy courtyard used for relaxing and walking dogs on leashes. A renovation fund can cover either fencing one-third of the lawn for off-leash exercise or improving the whole lawn with level paths and picnic tables. The fenced area would require a small monthly maintenance charge for every apartment; the picnic plan would not. The courtyard and budget are too small to complete both projects.

Which courtyard improvement should residents choose, considering pets, shared space and ongoing costs?

Option A: Fence one-third of the lawn for off-leash dog exercise, with a small maintenance charge for every apartment.
Option B: Improve paths and add picnic tables across the shared lawn, keeping dogs on leashes and adding no monthly charge.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

170 words

I would choose Option B because the courtyard should remain useful to as many neighbours as possible. Better paths and picnic tables would give residents more ways to enjoy the space together.

First, tables would make it easier to spend time outside. I sometimes want to read or eat lunch outdoors, but sitting on grass is not always comfortable. Neighbours could also meet for coffee or play a board game. We would probably use the courtyard more often on summer.

Also, keeping the whole lawn shared seems fair. Dogs could still come outside with their owners, as long as they stay on leashes. People without pets would not lose part of the grass or have to pay a extra charge each month.

I understand that a fenced area would be convenient for dog owners. However, it would use one-third of a small courtyard for one activity. I think improving the paths and adding tables would bring more benefits to the whole building. For these reasons, Option B is my preference.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer presents a clear preference and supports it with familiar examples of courtyard use. Compared with the stronger answers, it gives less attention to how paths improve access, uses broader vocabulary and contains grammatical slips.

Neighbours could also meet for coffee or play a board game. — Content/Coherence: These examples explain how tables could encourage shared activities. However, the development concentrates on tables; a higher-level answer would also explain how level paths help residents use the courtyard.
would bring more benefits to the whole building — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but “more benefits” leaves the advantages broadly expressed. A higher-level answer would name the benefits more precisely, such as easier access, flexible use or opportunities for neighbours to socialise.
We would probably use the courtyard more often on summer. — Readability: The sentence is easy to understand, but “on summer” should be “in summer.” Together with “a extra charge” elsewhere, this shows less grammatical control than the stronger answers, which express their comparisons more accurately.
Dogs could still come outside with their owners, as long as they stay on leashes. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses pets and correctly explains their continued access under Option B. A higher-level answer would weigh that access against the particular benefit dogs would lose: a place to exercise freely.

Level 9 sample answer

183 words

I favour Option A because a separate exercise area could help neighbours share the courtyard more comfortably. It would give dogs somewhere to move freely while keeping most of the lawn available for other activities.

Walking a dog on a leash and allowing it to exercise are different things. When I look after a friend's dog, a slow walk does not always use much of its energy. A fenced space would let owners play with their pets close to home, making the courtyard more useful for those households.

The boundary would make this new activity predictable. Residents relaxing outside the enclosure would know where dogs could run freely, and owners would have a designated place for active play. Leaving two-thirds of the grass outside the fence seems a reasonable way to meet neighbours halfway.

The monthly maintenance charge is the main disadvantage, especially for people without pets. However, maintaining a clearly designated area could improve the shared space for everyone. Picnic tables would be welcome, but they would not provide this opportunity for dogs to exercise. I would therefore support the fenced area.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a clear case for separating off-leash exercise from other courtyard activities, using precise language and fluent sentences. Its main limitation compared with the level 11 answer is that it acknowledges the shared maintenance charge without fully explaining why non-pet households should accept it.

Leaving two-thirds of the grass outside the fence seems a reasonable way to meet neighbours halfway. — Content/Coherence: This connects the proposed division of space to compromise between residents. A higher-level answer would examine the compromise more closely, including whether the remaining lawn adequately serves other activities and what happens when the enclosure is unused.
Residents relaxing outside the enclosure would know where dogs could run freely — Vocabulary: “Enclosure” and the distinction between relaxing and running freely describe the proposed arrangement precisely. A higher-level answer would maintain this precision when explaining the claimed benefits of maintenance payments for residents without pets.
Walking a dog on a leash and allowing it to exercise are different things. — Readability: The parallel phrasing makes the distinction immediately understandable and introduces the supporting example smoothly. A higher-level answer would carry this clear explanatory structure into the cost discussion, making the connection between payment and shared benefit equally explicit.
However, maintaining a clearly designated area could improve the shared space for everyone. — Task Fulfillment: This responds to the objection that every apartment must pay, but the benefit to everyone remains asserted rather than demonstrated. A higher-level answer would explain how maintaining the enclosure benefits non-pet households enough to justify their continuing contribution.

Level 11 sample answer

192 words

I would select Option B because it improves access to the entire courtyard without creating an ongoing charge or permanently assigning a substantial portion of the lawn to one activity.

Level paths would make everyday use more convenient, whether a neighbour is pushing a stroller, pulling a grocery cart or simply avoiding wet grass. Picnic tables would then provide a reason to linger. A courtyard where residents can comfortably eat, read and talk has more potential to strengthen neighbourly relationships than a space used mainly for passing through.

The allocation also deserves scrutiny. One-third is a significant share of a small lawn, particularly when the remaining area must accommodate every other activity. Although a fence would establish a clear boundary, it would reduce everyone's flexibility when the dog area stood empty. The additional monthly charge would continue regardless of how often residents used it.

An off-leash enclosure would undoubtedly be valuable to dog owners. Nevertheless, Option B still permits dogs throughout the courtyard on leashes, preserving their access while expanding amenities for others. Given the limited space and renovation budget, I would prioritise improvements that residents can use in several different ways.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines a clear recommendation with detailed consideration of access, flexible use, pet needs and continuing costs. Its precise vocabulary and controlled sentences make the tradeoffs easy to follow, while its concession explains why Option B remains preferable despite the value of off-leash exercise.

it would reduce everyone's flexibility when the dog area stood empty. — Content/Coherence: This develops the space argument beyond the size of the enclosure. It explains how permanently reserving lawn for dogs affects other residents even when no dogs are using it, giving the recommendation a concrete consequence.
permanently assigning a substantial portion of the lawn to one activity — Vocabulary: The wording precisely identifies the allocation concern: a lasting commitment of limited shared space. “Permanently assigning” and “substantial portion” express the tradeoff economically and prepare the reader for the later discussion of flexibility.
Level paths would make everyday use more convenient, whether a neighbour is pushing a stroller, pulling a grocery cart or simply avoiding wet grass. — Readability: The parallel examples make a longer sentence easy to follow. Each example illustrates a practical use of level paths, so the sentence adds detail while keeping the central point about everyday access clear.
preserving their access while expanding amenities for others. — Task Fulfillment: This explicitly balances pets with other residents' needs. Together with the discussion of limited space and continuing charges, it shows why retaining leashed access supports the chosen plan while still acknowledging the alternative's value to dog owners.

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