CELPIP® Writing Task 2 sample: Shared Fence Replacement 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

Lakshmi coordinates the Strathmere Lane Neighbours Group in Waterloo, which is surveying households about replacing the fence between their backyards and a shared pedestrian lane. Residents want more privacy, but some backyards receive little afternoon sunlight. Two contractor proposals fit the available space: a tall solid fence with a higher initial household contribution, or a lower open fence with shrubs that residents would prune. The group can fund only one design, and the shrubs would take several years to provide much screening.

Which fence design would better balance neighbours' needs for privacy, sunlight and affordable upkeep?

Option A: Install a tall solid fence for immediate privacy, requiring a higher initial contribution from each household.
Option B: Install a lower open fence with shrubs, costing less initially but requiring pruning and several years to provide screening.

Model answers

Level 7 sample answer

160 words

I would choose Option B because a lower fence would keep our backyards brighter and cost households less at the start. The shrubs would take time to grow, but I think we could accept that.

First, sunlight makes a backyard more useful. I like sitting outside after finishing my daily tasks, and a tall fence could make that space feel dark. Neighbours who grow flowers would also want enough light. We should think about this before building something that will stay for years.

Also, the smaller contribution would help people manage their budgets. Some households may already be paying for repairs, so a higher charge could be difficult for them. Pruning shrubs would take work, but residents could help each other on the weekend.

Option A would give us privacy straight away and save gardening work. However, I would rather wait for plants to grow than lose sunlight every afternoons. For these reason, I support the lower fence and shrubs.

Why this answer is at level 7

This answer clearly supports the lower fence and develops relevant reasons about sunlight and household budgets. Compared with the stronger answers, its treatment of delayed privacy and shared maintenance is less developed, and grammatical errors reduce its polish.

Neighbours who grow flowers would also want enough light. — Content/Coherence: This gives a relevant example of why sunlight matters. A stronger answer would connect the concern more closely to households already receiving little afternoon sunlight and explain why their needs should influence the group's choice.
The shrubs would take time to grow, but I think we could accept that. — Vocabulary: The meaning is clear, but “accept that” expresses the trade-off broadly. The stronger answers use more precise language about screening, delayed benefits and recurring obligations to explain what residents would actually accept.
For these reason, I support the lower fence and shrubs. — Readability: The conclusion is easy to understand, but “these reason” has a number agreement error. The stronger answers maintain grammatical control through their conclusions, making the final recommendation smoother to read.
Pruning shrubs would take work, but residents could help each other on the weekend. — Task Fulfillment: This addresses upkeep and offers a practical possibility for sharing the work. The stronger answer supporting this option also acknowledges that each household would retain responsibility, giving a fuller account of the continuing burden.

Level 9 sample answer

174 words

I favour Option A because a solid fence would provide privacy as soon as it was installed. Although the higher contribution matters, I would rather pay more once than wait several years for an uncertain level of screening.

A backyard should be somewhere residents can relax without feeling on display. If I invited a neighbour over for supper outside, I would appreciate a clear barrier between our table and people using the lane. Shrubs might eventually offer that protection, but the benefit would be delayed.

The solid fence would also avoid a continuing pruning responsibility. Residents may enjoy planting flowers without wanting another regular gardening task. If one household fell behind, branches could spread towards the shared lane and create awkward conversations between neighbours.

I recognise that a tall fence could reduce afternoon light, particularly in backyards that are already shaded. That is a meaningful drawback. Nevertheless, privacy and fewer routine maintenance duties would make the higher contribution worthwhile for me. Option A would solve the screening problem immediately, so it gets my vote.

Why this answer is at level 9

This answer develops a convincing case for immediate privacy and avoiding pruning, with clear organisation and controlled language. Its main limitation compared with the strongest answer is that it acknowledges unequal sunlight and financial burdens but resolves the decision mainly through personal preference.

If one household fell behind, branches could spread towards the shared lane and create awkward conversations between neighbours. — Content/Coherence: This develops the maintenance argument through a plausible consequence affecting the shared lane and neighbour relationships. Compared with the simpler suggestion of weekend help, it explores cooperation more deeply. A stronger response would weigh this possibility more explicitly against the higher contribution and reduced sunlight.
A backyard should be somewhere residents can relax without feeling on display. — Vocabulary: “Feeling on display” naturally conveys the discomfort behind the demand for privacy. The strongest answer adds finer distinctions through expressions such as partial screening and recurring obligations, helping its vocabulary explain the competing needs more precisely.
I recognise that a tall fence could reduce afternoon light, particularly in backyards that are already shaded. — Readability: The sentence combines a clear concession with a precise qualification about the most affected backyards. Its structure is more controlled than the weaker answer's closing sentences. A stronger response would carry this qualification more fully into the final weighing of benefits and costs.
Nevertheless, privacy and fewer routine maintenance duties would make the higher contribution worthwhile for me. — Task Fulfillment: This directly weighs privacy and upkeep against the initial contribution. However, “for me” leaves the collective affordability question less resolved. A stronger answer would explain more fully why these benefits justify the financial and sunlight burdens across households.

Level 11 sample answer

190 words

I would select Option B because it preserves the light that makes these backyards usable while keeping the initial contribution more manageable. Privacy matters, but a permanent wall of shade would be a substantial price to pay for immediate screening.

For households whose backyards already receive little afternoon sunlight, a tall solid fence could narrow the hours when sitting outside feels pleasant. If I were choosing between a secluded but gloomy seating area and a brighter backyard with partial screening, I would choose the latter. The lower fence would also preserve a more open outlook beside the pedestrian lane.

The financial trade-off strengthens that preference. Residents would contribute less upfront, although the saving would come with a recurring pruning obligation. Helping a neighbour trim shrubs could turn that maintenance into a shared weekend task; however, each household would still need to take responsibility for its planting.

The strongest argument for Option A is speed: its privacy benefit would be immediate. Yet shrubs offer a gradual improvement without committing the backyards to a tall barrier. Since reduced sunlight cannot be pruned away, I would accept slower screening and ongoing gardening work.

Why this answer is at level 11

This answer weighs privacy, sunlight and cost throughout a coherent argument, giving particular attention to already shaded backyards. Precise vocabulary, controlled sentences and explicit acceptance of delayed screening and ongoing pruning make its recommendation especially well supported.

Since reduced sunlight cannot be pruned away, I would accept slower screening and ongoing gardening work. — Content/Coherence: The conclusion brings the competing consequences together in a memorable comparison. It explains why preserving sunlight outweighs immediate privacy while explicitly accepting the maintenance burden, giving the recommendation a clearer decision principle than the other answers.
If I were choosing between a secluded but gloomy seating area and a brighter backyard with partial screening, — Vocabulary: “Secluded,” “gloomy” and “partial screening” distinguish privacy, comfort and incomplete protection precisely. The language makes the practical trade-off easy to picture without suggesting that the lower fence would provide immediate full privacy.
Residents would contribute less upfront, although the saving would come with a recurring pruning obligation. — Readability: The sentence connects a financial benefit directly to its continuing cost. The controlled concession keeps both sides visible in a compact structure, allowing readers to follow the reasoning without having to connect separate claims themselves.
The strongest argument for Option A is speed: its privacy benefit would be immediate. — Task Fulfillment: This identifies the main advantage of the rejected design accurately and directly. The surrounding argument then explains why the writer accepts slower screening, showing a considered choice that addresses the survey's competing priorities.

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