CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Family Practice Booking Survey

Level 7 sample answer

172 words

I choose Option B. I think the practice should keep booking all appointments in advance.

The main reason is that many patients need regular visits. My mother has diabetes and she has to see her doctor every three month to check her blood sugar and change her medicine. If the wait becomes five weeks, it will be very hard to plan these visits, and she may run out of her pills. For people like her, a steady schedule is more important.

Another problem is that the same-day system is stressful. Everybody will call at 8 o'clock in the morning and the phone line will be busy. My friend's clinic in another city tried this, and she said she called twenty times and still did not get a appointment.

I know that sudden problems are a worry, but there are walk-in clinics in St. John's for things like a sore throat or a rash. They can help with quick problems.

In my opinion, Option B is fair and easy to plan for everyone.

Why this answer is at level 7

This answer presents a clear preference and supports it with relevant examples about regular care and telephone access. Compared with the higher-level answers, its vocabulary is simpler, its grammar is less consistent, and its claim that advance booking suits everyone needs qualification.

• If the wait becomes five weeks, it will be very hard to plan these visits, and she may run out of her pills. — Content/Coherence: The example connects longer waits with a concrete concern about ongoing treatment. However, it jumps from a longer wait to difficulty planning without fully explaining the connection. A higher-level answer would explain why booking earlier might not adequately protect these patients.
• They can help with quick problems. — Vocabulary: The meaning is understandable, but 'quick problems' is vague: it could describe problems that appear suddenly or problems that take little time to treat. A higher-level answer would distinguish sudden illnesses from conditions needing continuing care more precisely.
• she has to see her doctor every three month — Readability: The sentence communicates the appointment schedule clearly, but 'month' needs a plural ending after 'three.' The higher-level answers maintain more consistent grammatical control while expressing more complex ideas.
• In my opinion, Option B is fair and easy to plan for everyone. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion directly supports the chosen option, but 'everyone' overstates the case after acknowledging patients with sudden problems. A higher-level response would explain why predictable ongoing care deserves priority despite the inconvenience of using walk-in clinics.

Level 9 sample answer

197 words

I'd support Option A, reserving 40 percent of each day's appointments for patients who call that morning.

Most health problems don't arrive on schedule, and a three-week wait is too long when something flares up suddenly. Last November I woke up with a painful ear and a fever. My doctor's next opening was nineteen days away, so I spent four hours at a walk-in clinic across town, where the doctor had no access to my history and prescribed a medication I'd already tried without success. If I'd been able to see my own physician that day, the whole episode would have been avoided.

Same-day slots would also take pressure off the hospital. When people can't get in quickly, many of them head to emergency for problems a family doctor could handle in ten minutes, which makes waits longer for everyone in St. John's.

Of course, having routine visits stretch to five weeks is a real drawback, especially for check-ups and prescription renewals. However, those are the visits that can be planned ahead, and patients could book their next appointment before leaving the office. That small habit seems a fair price for getting care when it truly matters.

Why this answer is at level 9

This answer develops its preference with a detailed experience, a wider community benefit, and a practical response to longer routine waits. Its fluent language goes beyond the simpler answer, but some claims are more certain than the reasoning supports, making it less measured than the strongest response.

• If I'd been able to see my own physician that day, the whole episode would have been avoided. — Content/Coherence: The conditional connects the personal experience to the benefit of seeing a familiar doctor. However, it guarantees that the entire episode would have been avoided. A higher-level answer would distinguish a likely improvement in care from a certain outcome.
• when something flares up suddenly. — Vocabulary: The phrase naturally describes a sudden worsening of symptoms and makes the need for prompt care vivid. Compared with the simpler answer's wording, it is more expressive and precise. A higher-level response would sustain that precision when describing which routine visits can safely be planned ahead.
• However, those are the visits that can be planned ahead, and patients could book their next appointment before leaving the office. — Readability: The transition clearly moves from acknowledging the drawback to proposing a practical response. The sentence combines explanation and action smoothly. A higher-level answer would preserve this clarity while qualifying the suggestion for patients whose follow-up needs change unexpectedly.
• I'd support Option A, reserving 40 percent of each day's appointments for patients who call that morning. — Task Fulfillment: The opening states the choice and accurately identifies how appointments would be allocated. The answer also addresses longer routine waits. A higher-level response would examine whether the morning calling process distributes those reserved appointments fairly among patients with different access needs.

Level 11 sample answer

196 words

I would urge the practice to choose Option B and continue booking every appointment in advance.

My concern with the same-day model is that it quietly rewards whoever can drop everything at 8 a.m. to redial a busy line. I work early shifts at a bakery downtown, and my phone stays in my locker until ten, by which point every reserved slot would almost certainly be gone. My grandfather, who is eighty-three and hard of hearing, would fare even worse. A system in which persistence matters more than need seems unfair, however well-intentioned it may be.

Predictable booking also protects the ongoing care that keeps people out of trouble in the first place. Patients managing blood pressure or asthma rely on regular reviews, and pushing those visits from three weeks to five could allow small problems to grow into serious ones.

I understand that sudden illnesses are frustrating, and I've sat in walk-in waiting rooms myself. Nevertheless, those clinics exist precisely for short, one-off problems, whereas a patient's own family doctor, who already knows their history, is best placed to manage long-term conditions. Reserving same-day slots, meanwhile, would simply move the bottleneck rather than remove it.

Why this answer is at level 11

This answer builds a focused argument around fair access and continuity of care, using personal examples to explain who could lose out under morning booking. Precise vocabulary, controlled complex sentences, and a clear comparison of patient needs make it the strongest response.

• My grandfather, who is eighty-three and hard of hearing, would fare even worse. — Content/Coherence: This example extends the preceding bakery-shift example from a work constraint to a communication barrier. Together, they develop a coherent fairness argument: access to reserved appointments may depend on patients' ability to use the booking process.
• A system in which persistence matters more than need seems unfair, however well-intentioned it may be. — Vocabulary: The contrast between 'persistence' and 'need' precisely captures the allocation concern. 'However well-intentioned' acknowledges the purpose of same-day access while keeping attention on how the system could affect patients.
• whereas a patient's own family doctor, who already knows their history, is best placed to manage long-term conditions. — Readability: The writer handles an embedded relative clause and a comparison without losing the main point. The sentence makes the proposed division between walk-in care and continuing family-doctor care easy to follow.
• pushing those visits from three weeks to five could allow small problems to grow into serious ones. — Task Fulfillment: This passage directly evaluates the central trade-off using the stated waiting times. It explains why protecting routine appointments could benefit patients, and 'could' appropriately presents worsening health as a possibility rather than a guaranteed result.