CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Saturday Supper Format 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 Copper Lilt Restaurant in Regina is surveying customers about its Saturday supper service. Its 20-seat dining room can support either two 90-minute sittings with a $35 set menu or one three-hour sitting with a larger $55 set menu. The owner considers both formats financially workable, but the small kitchen cannot offer different menus or sitting lengths on the same evening.

Would you favour a shorter, lower-priced supper or a longer dining experience? Explain which arrangement would suit customers best.

Option A: Offer two 90-minute sittings with a $35 set menu, keeping meals affordable while limiting time at the table.
Option B: Offer one three-hour sitting with a larger $55 set menu, allowing a relaxed evening at a higher price.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

165 words

I would choose Option B because a Saturday supper should give people time to relax. The meal would cost more, but I would rather visit less often and enjoy a longer evening.

First, 90 minutes can feel short when people have not seen each other for a while. At a recent dinner with friends, we spend a long time talking before we ordered. We would have felt rushed if we had needed to leave soon afterwards. Three hours would give everyone enough time to eat and catch up.

Also, the larger menu could make the visit feel more special. I usually cook simple meals at home, so I enjoy trying several different dishes at a restaurant. It would be a good choice for a birthday or another small celebration.

The lower price is certainly attractive, especially for regular visits. However, I think this restaurant could offer a good place for an occasional evening out. Having more time would make the higher price worth for me.

Why this answer is at level 7

This answer clearly supports Option B and gives relevant reasons about conversation and a special meal. Compared with the stronger answers, its explanations are simpler, and errors in tense and phrasing reduce its control.

Also, the larger menu could make the visit feel more special. — Content/Coherence: This introduces a relevant benefit and leads into personal preferences and celebrations. The explanation remains fairly general; a higher-level answer would develop how the larger menu contributes to the longer dining experience.
Having more time would make the higher price worth for me. — Vocabulary: The intended judgment about value is clear, but “worth for me” is an awkward expression. A higher-level answer would use an accurate phrase such as “worthwhile for me” or explain what makes the extra cost worthwhile.
At a recent dinner with friends, we spend a long time talking before we ordered. — Readability: The example is easy to follow, but “spend” conflicts with the past event and “ordered.” A higher-level answer would maintain consistent past tense so the reader could focus entirely on the example.
The lower price is certainly attractive, especially for regular visits. — Task Fulfillment: This acknowledges Option A’s main advantage before reaffirming the preference for occasional longer visits. A higher-level answer would weigh affordability more fully against the benefits of extra time when explaining which customers the preferred format suits.

Level 9 sample answer

179 words

I prefer Option A because the $35 menu would make Saturday supper accessible for more regular visits. A restaurant can become part of someone's routine only if both the price and the schedule fit comfortably.

For two people, the difference between the menus would be $40 before any additional spending. That is enough to influence whether I suggest dinner out or invite a friend home instead. I would rather enjoy a smaller menu occasionally throughout the year than save the restaurant for a rare celebration.

The shorter sitting would also suit customers who have other evening plans. When I meet friends before a film, we want enough time to talk over dinner without turning the meal into the entire outing. Ninety minutes would give our evening a useful structure, provided we arrived ready to order.

A three-hour meal would be appealing for an anniversary or reunion. However, I would prioritize the option that fits a wider range of ordinary Saturdays. The lower price and shorter commitment would make me more likely to return and recommend the restaurant to friends.

Why this answer is at level 9

This answer develops Option A through a concrete cost comparison and a realistic evening schedule, with clear organization and consistently natural language. Compared with the strongest answer, it explores the competing benefits less deeply and relies more on straightforward statements of preference.

For two people, the difference between the menus would be $40 before any additional spending. — Content/Coherence: The accurate comparison makes affordability concrete, and the following explanation connects it to choosing dinner out. A higher-level answer would deepen the trade-off by exploring when the longer experience might justify that difference.
both the price and the schedule fit comfortably. — Vocabulary: This concise, natural phrasing brings the answer’s financial and scheduling arguments together. A higher-level answer would sustain similarly accurate language while expressing finer distinctions between convenience, frequency of visits, and the value of a special evening.
A three-hour meal would be appealing for an anniversary or reunion. — Readability: This clear concession makes the final preference easy to follow and keeps the tone balanced. A higher-level answer would connect the concession more closely to its reasoning about why ordinary visits deserve priority.
Ninety minutes would give our evening a useful structure, provided we arrived ready to order. — Task Fulfillment: This directly explains which customers benefit from the shorter sitting and sensibly qualifies the claim. A higher-level answer would explore the consequence of that condition for customers who prefer time to settle in and talk before ordering.

Level 11 sample answer

193 words

I would choose Option B because an unhurried meal offers something difficult to recreate within a 90-minute reservation. For an occasional Saturday outing, I would pay more for the confidence that conversation need not compete with the clock.

My friend Amara and I recently arranged dinner after several months of conflicting schedules. By the time we had exchanged news and considered the menu, much of the evening had passed. A three-hour sitting would allow a reunion like that to unfold naturally, rather than leave us calculating how long remained before the table was needed.

The larger menu would add another reason to make the restaurant our destination. If dishes were served at a comfortable pace, the meal itself could sustain the evening, giving us something to discuss between courses. That would make the additional $20 feel connected to an experience rather than simply a longer booking.

The cheaper option would undoubtedly encourage more frequent visits. Nevertheless, both arrangements are financially workable for the owner, so customers can judge the experience on its merits. I would visit less frequently and choose the format that makes each supper feel worth setting aside an evening for.

Why this answer is at level 11

This answer builds a sustained case for Option B by connecting time, conversation, menu size, and value. Its precise language, developed example, and balanced use of the restaurant’s financial circumstances make the preference persuasive and carefully qualified.

That would make the additional $20 feel connected to an experience rather than simply a longer booking. — Content/Coherence: This draws together the discussion of paced dishes and conversation, explaining why the extra cost could feel worthwhile. The reasoning develops beyond wanting more time into what customers would gain from that time.
conversation need not compete with the clock. — Vocabulary: This compact figurative expression captures the pressure of a limited reservation precisely. It gives the preference a distinctive voice while staying directly relevant to the choice between sitting lengths.
My friend Amara and I recently arranged dinner after several months of conflicting schedules. — Readability: This clear opening establishes why the reunion matters. The following sentences move naturally from the personal situation to the effect of a time limit, making the developed example easy to follow.
Nevertheless, both arrangements are financially workable for the owner, so customers can judge the experience on its merits. — Task Fulfillment: This accurately uses the survey’s financial premise to support a customer-focused judgment. Alongside the concession about cheaper, more frequent visits, it shows a considered preference for the longer experience while recognizing the alternative’s appeal.

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