CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Permit Counter 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

The Wrenfield Permit Office in Stratford is surveying residents who need permits for small home projects, such as sheds and decks. It can fund one monthly weekday counter that rotates among three community centres, or open its central office every Saturday morning while keeping all counter service there. Weekday hours at the central office would continue under either plan, but the staffing budget allows only one additional service.

Which additional permit service should be introduced, and why would it be more useful to residents?

Option A: Add a weekday counter rotating among three community centres, bringing service closer to residents but operating only once a month.
Option B: Keep service centralized and add a counter every Saturday morning, offering more dates but requiring travel to the central office.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

176 words

I prefer Option B because Saturday service would be easier for people who cannot visit the permit office during the week. Keeping the same location would also make the service simple to understand.

First, people may need to take time away from work to ask questions about a home project. I once had to change my work schedule just to visit an office during business hours. If the permit office opened on Saturday, I could go without making this kind of arrangement. Other residents would probably find it useful too.

Also, a counter every Saturday would offer more chances to get help. If someone missed one morning, they could return the next week. A monthly service could mean a much longer wait, especially if a person forget the date.

The community centre option would reduce travelling for some residents. However, the counter would move between three places, so people would need to check where it was each time. I think a regular Saturday counter would be easier to plan for and more convenient in most people.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 example gives a clear preference, relevant reasons and a brief counterargument. Compared with the stronger answers, its examples are less specific to permit applications, its wording is more general, and grammatical errors reduce accuracy.

I once had to change my work schedule just to visit an office during business hours. — Content/Coherence: The personal example supports Saturday access by showing the difficulty of weekday visits. However, it stays at the level of visiting any office. A higher-level answer would connect the experience more closely to permit drawings, questions or repeat visits.
Other residents would probably find it useful too. — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but “useful” adds little precision to the claim about other residents. A higher-level answer would identify the particular benefit, such as avoiding weekday absences or arranging transportation more easily.
I think a regular Saturday counter would be easier to plan for and more convenient in most people. — Readability: The conclusion is understandable, but “in most people” should be “for most people.” A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical control through the closing recommendation, allowing the reader to focus entirely on the argument.
Also, a counter every Saturday would offer more chances to get help. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the advantage of weekly service over a monthly counter. A higher-level answer would also weigh those extra opportunities alongside the continuing weekday service, explaining why Saturday availability deserves the limited additional funding.

Level 9 sample answer

183 words

I would select Option A because a rotating counter would bring permit advice closer to residents who find the central office difficult to reach. Additional opening hours are helpful, but they do not solve every access problem.

For example, I can usually arrange a weekday off, yet travelling across town requires two bus rides in each direction. Carrying drawings for a shed project makes that journey even less convenient. If the counter visited a nearby community centre, I could plan a visit around the rotation and spend much less time travelling.

The proposal would also make use of places residents may already visit for classes or meetings. Combining a permit inquiry with another trip could be especially useful for someone who depends on a friend for transportation. Bringing the service into neighbourhoods could therefore remove a stumbling block for residents who find the central location inconvenient.

Saturday mornings would clearly suit many working residents, and I would miss that flexibility. However, the central office would retain its weekday hours. I therefore support using the extra funding to improve where people can obtain help.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 example develops a clear access argument through specific travel difficulties and practical neighbourhood benefits. It is more precise and controlled than the level 7 example, but its treatment of the monthly limitation is less developed than the level 11 answer’s comparison of service frequency and follow-up needs.

Carrying drawings for a shed project makes that journey even less convenient. — Content/Coherence: The shed drawings connect the travel example directly to permit applicants, making the inconvenience concrete. A higher-level answer would develop the comparison further by explaining why reduced travel outweighs having fewer opportunities to use the additional counter.
remove a stumbling block for residents who find the central location inconvenient. — Vocabulary: The expression “stumbling block” naturally describes an access barrier and gives the argument variety. However, “inconvenient” remains broad. A higher-level answer would use similarly natural language while identifying the transport burden more precisely.
I therefore support using the extra funding to improve where people can obtain help. — Readability: The closing sentence clearly signals the recommendation and reads smoothly. However, it repeats the location argument in general terms. A higher-level ending would bring the competing considerations together more tightly, giving the conclusion greater force.
However, the central office would retain its weekday hours. — Task Fulfillment: This correctly incorporates the continuing central service into the recommendation. However, that continuity applies under either plan. A higher-level answer would explain more explicitly why monthly neighbourhood access adds greater value than weekly Saturday access despite its limited frequency.

Level 11 sample answer

191 words

Option B would make the additional staffing money work harder by providing a dependable counter every Saturday morning. A rotating weekday service would shorten some journeys, but its monthly frequency would leave little room for delays or follow-up questions.

When my friend Manpreet planned a small deck, discussing the drawings raised questions that required another look at the measurements. A similar applicant using the rotating counter might have to wait for its next appearance or travel to the central office anyway. Weekly Saturday access would provide a more predictable route from an initial inquiry to the next conversation, without requiring repeated weekday absences.

Keeping all counter service at one location would also simplify planning. Residents would know where to bring documents, and anyone helping them with transportation could arrange a familiar trip rather than checking a changing venue. Consistency matters when a project already involves coordinating materials, costs and available time.

The trade-off is distance: a Saturday opening would not bring the office closer to outlying neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, with weekday service continuing, the larger gap is availability outside standard working hours. I would address that gap through a regular Saturday counter.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 example builds a sustained comparison around predictable access, follow-up questions and residents’ working hours. Its permit-specific example, precise language and direct acknowledgment of travel disadvantages make the recommendation persuasive and well controlled.

A similar applicant using the rotating counter might have to wait for its next appearance or travel to the central office anyway. — Content/Coherence: This turns the deck example into a clear comparison between the options. It explains how follow-up questions could weaken the rotating counter’s travel advantage, while “might” appropriately presents this as a possible outcome.
a more predictable route from an initial inquiry to the next conversation — Vocabulary: The wording precisely describes the practical benefit of weekly access: residents can plan successive permit discussions. It develops the idea of convenience through the application process rather than relying on broad claims that Saturday service is helpful.
The trade-off is distance: a Saturday opening would not bring the office closer to outlying neighbourhoods. — Readability: The short opening clause and colon introduce the disadvantage cleanly. Placing this acknowledgment after the supporting reasons gives the response a clear progression and prepares the reader for the final judgment.
Nevertheless, with weekday service continuing, the larger gap is availability outside standard working hours. — Task Fulfillment: The conclusion uses the continuing weekday hours to frame the funding decision around an unmet scheduling need. It makes a clear judgment about which additional service would be more useful while retaining the earlier acknowledgment of travel costs.

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