Original practice material, not an official CELPIP question or scored answer. The neighbourhood and proposal are fictional. There is no promised level or required opinion.
Draft a survey response for free →Know the task before planning
Task 2 gives you 26 minutes to write 150–200 words in response to a survey. Select an option and explain your reasons. The official overview says this task does not need email formatting.
Source: CELPIP — General Overview study pack, Writing ↗Original survey: which community service?
A neighbourhood recreation centre can fund one new service. Option A is a shared tool-lending programme for household repairs and hobbies. Option B is longer weekend opening hours for existing recreation facilities. Which option should the centre choose? Explain your preference.
Find reasons that belong to this situation
Before writing, connect your preference to the people who would use the service. “It is better” gives the reader no basis for comparison. A reason about equipment cost, apartment storage or access tells the reader what changes for residents.
| Part of the plan | What to put there |
|---|---|
| Position | Choose tool lending and identify the need it meets. |
| Reason with an example | Occasional use makes buying and storing equipment inefficient. |
| Fair comparison | Longer hours help some residents; check existing use before expanding. |
| Practical ending | Suggest a small pilot and clear return rules. |
Read a complete response
Original illustrative survey response — not examiner-rated
I would support a shared tool-lending service rather than extending the weekend opening hours of our neighbourhood recreation centre. Both ideas would benefit residents, but borrowing equipment would solve a problem that is difficult for individual households to address.
Many people need a drill, a sewing machine or gardening tools only occasionally. Buying these items can be expensive, and storing them is inconvenient in a small apartment. A lending service would let residents complete repairs without purchasing equipment they may use only once. For example, someone replacing a loose cupboard handle could borrow a suitable drill instead of delaying the repair.
Longer opening hours would certainly help people who work late. However, the centre could first examine whether its current weekend sessions are fully booked before expanding them. By contrast, tool lending would address an occasional household need rather than expand an existing service.
To keep the lending programme manageable, I suggest starting with a small collection and clear return rules. Staff could review demand before adding more items. This would give residents a practical new service while keeping the initial commitment limited.
Follow the argument
The sample uses an everyday repair to explain the benefit. It does not invent survey results or claim that every household agrees. The discussion of longer hours acknowledges a real advantage, then returns to the reason for choosing the lending service.
The response compares a proposed new service with an expansion of an existing one. It does not need attendance figures to explain that difference. In your own draft, avoid presenting invented statistics as research; when the prompt supplies little information, make the reasoning explicit.
Revise for clear support
Try drafting the opposite position: longer opening hours could help shift workers, families and residents who cannot visit on weekdays. A defensible response can support either option. The quality of the explanation matters more than sharing the sample’s preference.
- State your choice early and keep it consistent.
- Develop each reason with a relevant effect or example.
- Remove greeting and sign-off lines copied from an email template.
- Link the conclusion to the proposal rather than adding a new argument.
- Check length and language after checking the argument.