CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Neighbourhood Overflow Parking 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

Navdeep coordinates the Harbourcrest Townhouse Association in Saint John, where 24 households have limited parking for extra vehicles and visitors. A nearby property owner has offered to lease the association eight parking spaces, but its budget cannot cover a larger lot. The association could reserve four spaces for residents whose permit fees would reduce everyone's contribution, leaving four for visitors. Alternatively, all eight could serve visitors with a four-hour limit, requiring a higher contribution from every household.

How should the association divide the leased parking spaces between residents and visitors?

Option A: Reserve four spaces for paying resident permit holders and keep four available for visitors.
Option B: Use all eight spaces for visitors with a four-hour limit, funded by higher household contributions.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

168 words

I would select Option A because it helps residents and still leaves some parking for visitors. With only eight spaces available, sharing them between two groups seems fair to me.

Some neighbours may need an extra vehicle for work. For example, two adults in one home could work in different places and need separate cars. Having a space they can depend on would make daily life easier. They would pay for permit, so the other households would not cover the whole cost.

Also, four visitor spaces would still be useful. My friends do not all visit at the same time, and I think this is true for many people. We could tell guests about the limited parking before they arrive. This would make planning more easier.

Option B would give guests more room, but everyone would pay more, including people who rarely have visitors. I would rather keep the household contribution lower and offer a practical service to neighbours who need regular parking. Therefore, I support Option A.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 answer clearly supports the mixed allocation and gives relevant reasons about regular parking and household costs. Compared with the other answers, its visitor argument relies more on personal assumptions, its vocabulary is simpler, and occasional grammar errors reduce polish.

My friends do not all visit at the same time, and I think this is true for many people. — Content/Coherence: This connects personal experience to visitor demand, but the assumption does not establish how well four spaces would serve the neighbourhood. A higher-level answer would consider overlapping visits and weigh that pressure against residents' daily parking needs.
Having a space they can depend on would make daily life easier. — Vocabulary: The language communicates the benefit clearly but uses broad expressions such as “daily life easier.” The stronger answers describe parking convenience and competing needs with more precise wording.
This would make planning more easier. — Readability: The meaning is clear, but “more easier” combines two comparative forms incorrectly. A higher-level answer would use “easier” and maintain the grammatical control shown more consistently in the other responses.
I would rather keep the household contribution lower and offer a practical service to neighbours who need regular parking. — Task Fulfillment: This directly connects the choice to lower contributions and regular resident parking. A higher-level response would strengthen the comparison by explaining more fully why those benefits outweigh the additional visitor capacity under Option B.

Level 9 sample answer

181 words

I would choose Option B because the leased lot should provide flexible parking that all 24 households can share. Eight visitor spaces would be more useful to the wider community than four spaces reserved for individual residents.

Visits often happen at similar times. For example, if several neighbours invite friends for Sunday lunch, four visitor spaces could fill almost immediately. Having eight would give hosts more breathing room and reduce the need to explain complicated parking arrangements to their guests.

The four-hour limit is also reasonable for many everyday visits. A neighbour might receive a furniture delivery, arrange a tutoring session or have someone over for supper. These activities need convenient parking without requiring a permanent space. Although overnight guests would need another arrangement, the lot would still support many common needs.

I recognise that higher household contributions are a disadvantage, particularly for residents who entertain infrequently. Nevertheless, everyone would retain access when a visitor did come. I would pay somewhat more for a shared resource that remains available to every household, rather than funding a plan with fewer visitor spaces.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 answer develops a clear case for shared visitor parking through relevant examples, fluent sentences, and an explicit cost concession. It is stronger than the level 7 response, but its comparison is less searching than the level 11 answer's treatment of who benefits and who pays.

For example, if several neighbours invite friends for Sunday lunch, four visitor spaces could fill almost immediately. — Content/Coherence: The example explains how simultaneous visits could strain the smaller visitor allocation, making the argument more concrete than the level 7 response. A higher-level comparison would also weigh this occasional pressure against residents' recurring need for dependable parking.
Having eight would give hosts more breathing room — Vocabulary: “Breathing room” is a natural expression that conveys the practical benefit of extra capacity. Higher-level wording could identify the benefit more precisely, such as accommodating overlapping visits, instead of leaving it partly figurative.
Although overnight guests would need another arrangement, the lot would still support many common needs. — Readability: The concession is smoothly integrated into a controlled sentence, helping readers follow the qualification. A higher-level answer could make “many common needs” more pointed by tying the conclusion directly to why visitor access deserves priority.
I recognise that higher household contributions are a disadvantage, particularly for residents who entertain infrequently. — Task Fulfillment: This acknowledges a direct drawback of the chosen option and identifies households most affected. A higher-level response would also address the competing appeal of permit fees reducing everyone's contribution, making its defence of higher shared costs more complete.

Level 11 sample answer

178 words

I favour Option A because it gives four households dependable parking while retaining four visitor spaces and reducing everyone's contribution.

If two adults in my household returned from different workplaces at six and ten in the evening, a reserved space would spare the later arrival a nightly guessing game. That convenience would be paid for through a permit fee, which fairly links a particular benefit to the household receiving it.

The fees would also reduce what all 24 households must contribute. For a resident who usually walks and rarely hosts visitors, a lower contribution would be easier to justify than paying more for eight visitor spaces. Shared facilities should serve different needs without assuming that everyone uses them equally.

Option B would offer more room when several neighbours hosted supper simultaneously. However, its four-hour limit could interrupt a longer visit: a guest arriving at five would need another arrangement after nine. Four visitor spaces under Option A could still fill up, but the mixed allocation would balance occasional visits with daily parking needs. I would choose that compromise.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 answer combines precise language, controlled sentences, and a sustained comparison of the competing allocations. Its strength is the way concrete examples support a consistent judgment about dependable parking, shared costs, and the limits of visitor access.

That convenience would be paid for through a permit fee, which fairly links a particular benefit to the household receiving it. — Content/Coherence: This moves from the parking example to a clear principle about payment and benefit. The reasoning connects resident convenience with the funding arrangement, giving the argument greater depth than simply saying permits lower costs.
a reserved space would spare the later arrival a nightly guessing game. — Vocabulary: “Nightly guessing game” vividly conveys uncertainty about finding parking. The phrase is concise and fits the example of residents returning from different workplaces, making the benefit easy to picture.
For a resident who usually walks and rarely hosts visitors, a lower contribution would be easier to justify — Readability: The opening phrase identifies whose perspective matters before presenting the financial judgment. This controlled sentence structure makes the fairness argument easy to follow while accommodating a household with different parking needs.
Four visitor spaces under Option A could still fill up, but the mixed allocation would balance occasional visits with daily parking needs. — Task Fulfillment: The answer acknowledges a weakness in its own choice and still explains why that choice is preferable. This directly weighs visitor capacity against regular resident use and brings the response back to the allocation decision.

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