CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Hotel Applicant Assessment 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

Inés, the manager of Aster Loom Hotel in Prince George, is surveying staff about selecting applicants for six front-desk positions. Previous hotel experience is not required, and the hiring budget permits only one final assessment per applicant. The hotel can offer a structured 45-minute interview about guest situations or a paid two-hour supervised practice session using fictional guest requests. Each format would use clear instructions and common scoring criteria, but the longer session would be harder for some applicants to attend.

Which assessment should the hotel use to select its new front-desk employees, and what makes it preferable?

Option A: Use a structured 45-minute interview, allowing applicants to explain their judgement without demonstrating tasks directly.
Option B: Use a paid two-hour supervised practice session, observing practical skills but requiring more applicant time.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

174 words

I would choose Option A because a 45-minute interview is easier for applicants to attend. People may already have another job or other plans during the day. Finding two free hours could be difficult, even when the practice session is paid.

The interview questions could also show how someone thinks. A person could explain how they would handle a guest request and why they chose that answer. Inés could ask for more detail if anything was unclear. This seems a fair way to compare people without experience.

A practice session has benefits because applicants can show their skills. However, someone might be nervous doing unfamiliar tasks and make mistakes they would not make after training. I was nervous at a interview once, so I know a new situation can affect performance.

Both choices involve some pressure, but the shorter interview gives applicants a chance to explain themselves. The questions should be clear and allow time for answers. Overall, I think this option is more convenient and would help the hotel to finding suitable staff.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer presents a clear preference and follows an understandable argument about accessibility and judgement. Compared with the stronger answers, its support is more general, its personal example weakens the comparison, and grammatical errors reduce its polish.

I was nervous at a interview once, so I know a new situation can affect performance. — Content/Coherence: The personal example explains nervousness but concerns an interview, so it also weakens the preferred option. A higher-level answer would explain why unfamiliar practical duties could distort assessment more than discussing guest situations.
People may already have another job or other plans during the day. — Vocabulary: The everyday vocabulary communicates the scheduling concern clearly, but “other plans” is broad. A higher-level answer would describe limited availability more precisely and explain how it affects applicants’ ability to attend.
Overall, I think this option is more convenient and would help the hotel to finding suitable staff. — Readability: The conclusion is easy to understand, but “help the hotel to finding” disrupts grammatical fluency. A higher-level answer would use “help the hotel find” and finish with a more precise statement about selecting suitable applicants.
This seems a fair way to compare people without experience. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the fact that hotel experience is unnecessary. However, fairness is asserted briefly. A higher-level answer would explain how structured questions and common scoring criteria allow applicants’ reasoning to be compared consistently.

Level 9 sample answer

179 words

I prefer Option B because a paid practice session would show how applicants respond to the work itself. For front-desk positions, being able to organise requests and communicate clearly matters as much as giving a polished interview answer.

The fictional guest requests would provide useful evidence. An applicant might receive a booking question followed by a request for extra towels. Watching how that person listens, checks details and decides what to address first would reveal skills that a hypothetical discussion could easily miss.

This format could also give inexperienced applicants a fair shot. Someone whose previous responsibilities were outside a hotel may struggle to describe their abilities in formal interview language. A supervised exercise would let that person demonstrate patience and organisation directly, with payment recognising the time involved.

Two hours is harder to schedule than 45 minutes, so Inés should offer appointment choices if possible. Clear instructions would also be essential. With those arrangements, the practice session would give the hotel a stronger basis for selecting its six new employees and help applicants understand what front-desk work involves.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a convincing case through concrete front-desk examples, precise vocabulary and clear organisation. It is stronger than the level 7 answer, but its treatment of consistent scoring and the attendance trade-off is less developed than the level 11 answer’s integration of the hiring constraints.

Watching how that person listens, checks details and decides what to address first would reveal skills that a hypothetical discussion could easily miss. — Content/Coherence: The sequence turns the fictional requests into observable evidence of listening, accuracy and prioritisation. This develops the argument beyond the level 7 answer. A higher-level answer would also explain how assessors distinguish transferable skills from familiarity with hotel procedures.
being able to organise requests and communicate clearly matters as much as giving a polished interview answer. — Vocabulary: The work-related verbs identify relevant abilities, while “polished interview answer” neatly captures the competing format’s appeal. A higher-level answer would maintain this precision when explaining the limits of supervision and payment as safeguards.
Two hours is harder to schedule than 45 minutes, so Inés should offer appointment choices if possible. — Content/Coherence: The answer acknowledges the main disadvantage and proposes a practical response. However, appointment choices may still leave some applicants unable to attend. A higher-level answer would explain why the additional evidence justifies that remaining accessibility cost.
Clear instructions would also be essential. — Task Fulfillment: This recognises an important assessment condition, but clear instructions apply to both options. A higher-level answer would explain how those instructions and common scoring criteria make the practice session preferable when only a single final assessment is affordable.

Level 11 sample answer

186 words

I would choose Option A because the final assessment should distinguish sound judgement from familiarity with hotel routines. When previous experience is unnecessary, a structured interview offers a clearer opportunity to assess how applicants reason.

Consider a fictional situation in which a guest requests information about another guest's room. Inés could ask what the applicant would say and why. The explanation would reveal whether courtesy is balanced with discretion, even if the candidate has never worked behind a front desk. Common scoring criteria would help assessors compare that reasoning consistently.

The shorter appointment also matters. An applicant who can arrange a one-hour absence from another job might struggle to secure two hours plus travel. Payment recognises participation but cannot create additional time. A forty-five-minute interview would therefore help keep the door open to capable applicants with limited flexibility.

Admittedly, interviews can reward polished speakers while overlooking practical strengths. Clear scenarios and questions about the reasons behind each answer would reduce that weakness. Given that only one final assessment is affordable, I would favour an accessible conversation that examines judgement without requiring candidates to perform unfamiliar duties.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer builds a focused argument around assessing judgement fairly when experience is unnecessary. Its concrete scenario, precise language and careful treatment of accessibility connect the hotel’s constraints to the recommendation, while acknowledging a genuine weakness of interviews.

The explanation would reveal whether courtesy is balanced with discretion, even if the candidate has never worked behind a front desk. — Content/Coherence: The guest-information scenario leads to a specific assessment purpose: balancing helpfulness with privacy. The explanation connects that purpose directly to inexperienced applicants, giving the preference for an interview a clear foundation.
Payment recognises participation but cannot create additional time. — Vocabulary: This concise wording distinguishes compensation from availability. It sharpens the scheduling argument by explaining precisely why paying applicants does not fully resolve the longer session’s attendance disadvantage.
Admittedly, interviews can reward polished speakers while overlooking practical strengths. — Readability: The transition clearly introduces a concession, and the balanced sentence makes the competing considerations easy to follow. The following proposal about scenarios and explanations keeps the argument moving towards a reasoned recommendation.
Given that only one final assessment is affordable, I would favour an accessible conversation that examines judgement without requiring candidates to perform unfamiliar duties. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion brings together the budget limit, accessibility and the absence of an experience requirement. It explains why the interview should serve as the hotel’s sole assessment, completing the comparison with a decision tied to this hiring situation.

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