CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Popular Library Books 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 Merrow Library Service in North Bay is surveying readers about long waiting lists for popular new books. It can introduce a one-week loan limit with no renewals for these books, or keep three-week loans and buy additional copies. The acquisitions budget is fixed, so buying duplicates would mean adding fewer different titles; the library cannot afford a third approach this year.

Which approach should the library take to borrowing popular new books, and what makes your choice preferable?

Option A: Limit popular new books to one-week loans without renewals, preserving funds for a wider range of titles.
Option B: Keep three-week loans and buy extra copies of popular new books, reducing the number of different titles purchased.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

172 words

I would choose Option B, keeping three-week loans and buying more copies of popular books. Reading should be enjoyable, and a week is not enough time for everyone to finish a whole book.

First, many readers have other things to do during the week. I usually read after supper, but sometimes I am too tired to read more than a few pages. If I had to return a book after one weeks, I might stop borrowing new titles because I could not finish them. Three weeks would give me a better chance.

Also, extra copies could help people who are interested on the same book. Friends might be able to borrow it around the same time and discuss it together. This would make the library more useful for people who enjoy reading with others.

I understand that buying more copies would leave less money for different titles. That is a difficult choice, but I think books should stay with readers long enough to be enjoyed. For that reason, I support Option B.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 example presents a clear choice, relevant personal support, and an understandable argument for longer loans. Compared with the higher-level examples, its language is simpler, some grammatical errors interrupt reading, and its treatment of the reduced variety of titles is less developed.

Friends might be able to borrow it around the same time and discuss it together. — Content/Coherence: This gives extra copies a relevant social benefit. The higher-level argument develops the comparison further by explaining why faster circulation of a single copy cannot provide the same opportunity to read together.
Reading should be enjoyable, and a week is not enough time for everyone to finish a whole book. — Vocabulary: The everyday vocabulary communicates the position clearly, but expressions such as 'enjoyable' and 'enough time' remain broad. A higher-level answer uses more precise language to explain how limited leisure affects access to popular books.
If I had to return a book after one weeks, — Readability: The conditional structure is easy to follow, but 'one weeks' contains a singular–plural error. A higher-level answer would maintain grammatical control while connecting this deadline to the reader's difficulty finishing.
That is a difficult choice, but I think books should stay with readers long enough to be enjoyed. — Task Fulfillment: This acknowledges the budget trade-off but mainly repeats the enjoyment argument. A higher-level response would explain more explicitly why sufficient reading time outweighs the loss of different titles for readers with other interests.

Level 9 sample answer

185 words

I favour Option A because shorter loans would address the waiting lists while protecting the variety of books the library buys. With a fixed budget, purchasing several copies of the same title comes at someone else's expense.

I often borrow books on gardening and local history, which may attract less attention than a newly released novel. If duplicate purchases reduced the number of different titles added, readers with interests like mine could gradually find less to choose from. A public collection should have room for those interests as well as the books everyone is discussing.

A one-week limit would also encourage readers to borrow a popular title when they have time for it. I have occasionally collected a book just before a busy week and left it untouched for days. A shorter deadline would make me think twice before doing that, allowing another reader a turn sooner.

The main disadvantage is that slower readers could feel rushed, particularly with longer books. Nevertheless, the restriction would apply to popular new books rather than the whole collection. I would accept that compromise to preserve a wider selection.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 example builds a coherent case for protecting collection variety, supported by specific reading interests and a relevant personal example. Its controlled language and concession distinguish it from level 7, while its assumption that shorter deadlines will improve borrowing habits receives less scrutiny than the competing effects examined at level 11.

A one-week limit would also encourage readers to borrow a popular title when they have time for it. — Content/Coherence: This connects shorter loans to more considerate borrowing, and the following personal example supports that connection. A higher-level argument would also examine readers whose schedules remain tight even when they plan carefully.
purchasing several copies of the same title comes at someone else's expense. — Vocabulary: The idiom expresses the fixed-budget trade-off effectively. However, 'someone else' is broad; a higher-level version could identify readers of less popular subjects immediately, giving the opening greater precision.
If duplicate purchases reduced the number of different titles added, readers with interests like mine could gradually find less to choose from. — Readability: The conditional sentence clearly connects duplicate purchases to reduced choice. A higher-level version could express this consequence more economically, as the top example does when introducing the sacrifice of breadth.
The main disadvantage is that slower readers could feel rushed, particularly with longer books. — Task Fulfillment: This directly acknowledges a relevant disadvantage of the chosen option. A higher-level response would weigh the practical consequence of returning an unfinished book without renewal more fully before concluding that preserving variety justifies the restriction.

Level 11 sample answer

192 words

Option B offers the more useful form of access: readers would receive popular new books and have three weeks to finish them. A waiting list is inconvenient, but rapid circulation means little if borrowers must return books halfway through.

My neighbour Rina reads during two short transit trips each weekday. A 300-page novel might comfortably fit a three-week loan, whereas a seven-day deadline would force her to find additional reading time that she does not necessarily have. The proposed one-week limit, particularly without renewals, would favour people with abundant leisure over equally enthusiastic readers with tighter schedules.

Additional copies would also allow more people to read a title simultaneously. That matters when friends want to discuss a new book while it is still fresh in their minds; faster turnover of a single copy cannot create the same overlap.

The sacrifice would be breadth: fewer different titles could be purchased. I would accept that constraint, although the library should explain it clearly to readers whose interests are less widely shared. On balance, maintaining a realistic reading period while expanding simultaneous access would serve borrowers better than imposing a deadline many cannot comfortably meet.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 example makes a precise comparison between obtaining a book, having time to finish it, and reading it alongside others. Its concrete example, controlled sentences, and explicit acceptance of reduced collection breadth create a persuasive argument that stays closely focused on the library's choice.

faster turnover of a single copy cannot create the same overlap. — Content/Coherence: This explains exactly why extra copies offer a benefit that shorter loans cannot fully reproduce. It develops the shared-reading point beyond the simpler suggestion that friends could discuss a book together.
would favour people with abundant leisure over equally enthusiastic readers with tighter schedules. — Vocabulary: The contrast between 'abundant leisure' and 'tighter schedules' precisely identifies who benefits from shorter loans. 'Equally enthusiastic' also separates willingness to read from available reading time, strengthening the fairness argument.
A 300-page novel might comfortably fit a three-week loan, whereas a seven-day deadline would force her to find additional reading time — Readability: The controlled comparison makes the practical difference between the loan periods easy to follow. The specific book length and Rina's transit routine turn an abstract concern about time into a clear example.
I would accept that constraint, although the library should explain it clearly to readers whose interests are less widely shared. — Task Fulfillment: This openly accepts the cost of purchasing duplicates and recognizes the readers affected. Explaining the trade-off supports the chosen approach while keeping the recommendation within the fixed budget and the available options.

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