CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Neighbourhood Tool Lending 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

Abdi coordinates the Crestwick Neighbours Club in Hamilton, which has received a grant for twelve shared household and gardening tools. Members can provide only six volunteer hours each week, so the club must choose one lending arrangement. It could keep all tools in a secure shed open for six hours on Saturdays, or divide them among three host households offering two hours of evening appointments each week. The second arrangement spreads access across evenings, but borrowers might need to visit several homes.

Which tool-lending arrangement would work better for club members and volunteer neighbours?

Option A: Keep all twelve tools in one secure shed, staffed during a six-hour opening window every Saturday.
Option B: Divide the tools among three host households, each offering two hours of evening appointments weekly.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

169 words

I would choose Option B because evening appointments would give neighbours more chances to borrow tools. Opening only on Saturday could be difficult for members who work or have other plans that day.

For example, I often do small jobs at home after work. If I needed a tool for a shelf, I would prefer to collect it during the week. My free time depends of my work schedule, so a Saturday visit would not always be possible. Other neighbours may have the same problem.

Also, meeting at a host's home could help members get to know each other. We could talk briefly about the tool and ask how to use it. This would be useful for people who does not have much experience with repairs or gardening.

Visiting several homes would take longer when someone needed different tools. However, most small jobs may only need one or two items. I think evening access and more contact between neighbours would be worth that inconvenience. Therefore, I support Option B.

Why this answer is at level 7

The answer clearly supports evening appointments and gives relevant reasons about access and neighbourly contact. Compared with the stronger answers, its explanations are more general, its treatment of volunteer work is thinner, and some grammar and word combinations need better control.

Also, meeting at a host's home could help members get to know each other. — Content/Coherence: This introduces a relevant social benefit and connects naturally to the discussion of borrowing tools. The strongest answer develops this idea further by explaining how handovers support tool care and personal accountability.
My free time depends of my work schedule — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but the correct word combination is “depends on.” A stronger answer would use common expressions accurately while describing the conflict between work schedules and Saturday access.
This would be useful for people who does not have much experience with repairs or gardening. — Readability: The sentence explains who would benefit from advice, but “people who does” should be “people who do.” The stronger answers control agreement more consistently, allowing readers to follow the argument without grammatical distractions.
However, most small jobs may only need one or two items. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a plausible reason to accept visits to different homes. However, the defence mainly considers borrowers; a stronger answer would also explain how household appointments affect volunteers working within the six available hours.

Level 9 sample answer

177 words

I prefer Option A because keeping all twelve tools together would make the lending service easier to use and manage. A single Saturday opening would offer less flexibility, but members could plan around a clear, consistent schedule.

Many household projects require several tools. If I were repairing a garden planter, for instance, I might need equipment for measuring, cutting and fastening. Collecting everything from one shed would save me from arranging appointments with different neighbours. It would also make returning the items much simpler.

Central storage would help volunteers keep track of the collection. When tools are returned, they could be checked and placed in the correct location immediately. With only six volunteer hours available, avoiding extra coordination would help the club make the most of its resources.

Evening appointments would certainly suit some members better, especially those working on Saturdays. However, dividing a small collection among three homes could turn a straightforward loan into several separate errands. I would rather have one dependable place to collect and return equipment, so the secure shed gets my vote.

Why this answer is at level 9

The answer develops a clear case for central storage through a concrete project example and direct use of the volunteer-hour limit. Its language is accurate and organized, but the strongest answer explores the consequences of restricted access and the final trade-off more deeply.

I might need equipment for measuring, cutting and fastening. — Content/Coherence: The planter example makes the benefit of collecting several tools together concrete. Compared with the more general examples in the level 7 answer, it supports the choice more directly; further development could connect simpler collection to completing the project.
turn a straightforward loan into several separate errands. — Vocabulary: This concise phrase makes the inconvenience of dispersed storage easy to picture. The vocabulary is more precise than the level 7 answer's general description of longer visits; the strongest answer sustains similar precision when discussing relationships and responsibility.
A single Saturday opening would offer less flexibility, but members could plan around a clear, consistent schedule. — Readability: The balanced sentence acknowledges a disadvantage while keeping the argument easy to follow. Grammar and punctuation are controlled. A stronger answer would maintain this clarity while using a wider range of sentence structures across the response.
With only six volunteer hours available, avoiding extra coordination would help the club make the most of its resources. — Task Fulfillment: This directly connects the proposed arrangement to the club's staffing constraint and explains a benefit for volunteers. A stronger response would weigh that efficiency more fully against the consequences for members who work Saturdays.

Level 11 sample answer

193 words

I support Option B because a neighbourhood lending program should fit around members' working lives. Concentrating all six volunteer hours on Saturday would make access straightforward, but only for people available that day.

Distributing appointments among three households would create several evening opportunities instead of a single weekly window. A member preparing a small repair could collect the required tool after work and begin before the weekend. If that person worked Saturdays, the difference would be more than convenience: it could determine whether the collection was usable at all.

The household arrangement could also build the relationships that make shared ownership successful. A brief handover gives neighbours an opportunity to explain a tool's operation, discuss its condition and establish personal accountability. Those conversations would be particularly helpful when someone borrowed unfamiliar gardening equipment for the first time.

The trade-off is coordination. Anyone needing tools stored at different homes might face several appointments, whereas the shed would offer a single collection point. Nevertheless, the grant covers only twelve tools, and many modest projects would require just one. I would accept occasional extra planning in exchange for broader access and more direct contact between neighbours.

Why this answer is at level 11

The answer develops evening access and neighbourly relationships into clear practical benefits, then weighs them against collection difficulties. Precise vocabulary, controlled complex sentences and a reasoned final judgement make its argument more developed than those in the other answers.

it could determine whether the collection was usable at all. — Content/Coherence: This explains why evening access matters especially to someone working Saturdays. It develops the scheduling argument beyond personal preference by showing how the arrangement could determine whether a member can participate.
explain a tool's operation, discuss its condition and establish personal accountability. — Vocabulary: These precise expressions distinguish instruction, tool care and responsibility. They give the social argument more substance than simply saying neighbours could meet or talk.
Anyone needing tools stored at different homes might face several appointments, whereas the shed would offer a single collection point. — Readability: The sentence handles a detailed comparison smoothly. The opening identifies affected borrowers, and “whereas” clearly contrasts the arrangements without making the sentence difficult to follow.
I would accept occasional extra planning in exchange for broader access and more direct contact between neighbours. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion explicitly weighs the acknowledged coordination cost against the benefits supporting the chosen arrangement. It gives a clear answer to the survey and follows from the reasons developed throughout the response.

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