Spoke 8 · Writing Task 2
CELPIP Writing Task 2 Survey: Tips and Examples
Last updated: June 2026
Task 2 asks you to respond to a survey question by stating and defending a position. The three prompt types — agree/disagree, two-option choice, and multi-part — each have a specific structure. This page covers all three with complete sample responses and analysis.
Part of the CELPIP Writing Module: Complete Guide.
6 tips to score 10–12 on Task 2
Take a position in the first sentence — no exceptions
Many test-takers hedge their opening: 'There are advantages and disadvantages to both positions.' This opener scores poorly on Task Response because it fails to state a position. Your first sentence must commit: 'I strongly believe that…', 'I prefer X to Y because…', 'I agree / disagree that…'. You can acknowledge complexity in the body or conclusion — not in the first sentence.
Give two reasons, not one broad reason
A single reason supported at length scores lower on Lexical Resource and Coherence than two distinct reasons. Each reason should address a different dimension: economic vs. social, personal vs. professional, short-term vs. long-term. If you catch yourself giving the same reason twice with different words, one of them is redundant.
Use specific details — not abstractions
The most common weak Task 2 response uses reasons like 'it is beneficial for society' or 'people would be happier'. These are not reasons — they are restatements of the conclusion. Raters reward specificity: 'reduces commuting costs by up to $300 per month', 'improves communication response times by X%', or personal experience ('in my experience as a nurse…'). You can make up reasonable statistics — the task does not require cited sources.
The counter-acknowledgement: one sentence, last body paragraph
Acknowledging the opposing view shows intellectual balance and raises your Coherence score. But over-developing the counter-argument undermines your own position. Formula: 'While some argue that [opposing view], I maintain that [your position] because [brief reason].' One sentence. No more.
Restate your conclusion in different words
A response that ends mid-argument — without a closing sentence — scores lower on Task Response than one that explicitly restates the position. Do not copy your first sentence. Use different vocabulary: if you opened with 'I strongly agree that remote work should be limited', close with 'Regular in-person attendance, therefore, remains the most effective approach for the majority of workplaces'.
Word count: 150 is the floor, 200 is the ceiling
Responses under 150 words consistently score below CELPIP 9 because they cannot adequately develop two reasons. Responses above 220 words introduce more opportunities for grammar errors and often repeat ideas unnecessarily. At 150–200 words, there is sufficient space to: state position (1 sentence), develop two reasons with detail (3–4 sentences each), counter-acknowledge (1 sentence), and conclude (1 sentence).
Free 30-Day CELPIP Study Schedule
A day-by-day plan covering all 4 sections — Reading, Listening, Writing, and Speaking. Download the PDF and follow it straight to test day.
CELPIP Writing Sample Answers Bundle
32 complete, annotated writing samples at CELPIP 10–12 level. Task 1 emails and Task 2 survey responses — the fastest way to see what a top-scoring answer looks like and internalize the pattern.
- ✓20 Task 1 email samples — all common scenario types (complaint, request, apology, inquiry, follow-up)
- ✓12 Task 2 survey responses — all 3 prompt types (agree/disagree, two-option, multi-part)
- ✓Scoring notes on every answer — why each response earns 10–12
- ✓Vocabulary substitution sheet — 120 formal phrase replacements
- ✓Self-scoring checklist — grade your own writing before test day
- ✓Printable PDF — study offline, print and annotate
Instant download · No subscription · 100% satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
Want free writing tips first? Read the free Writing Guide or browse 10 free Task 1 samples.
3 complete sample responses by prompt type
Each sample is written at CELPIP 10–12 level with analysis.
Prompt
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Employees should be required to work from the office at least three days per week. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Sample response
I strongly agree that employees should work from the office at least three days per week. While remote work offers certain conveniences, regular in-person attendance is essential for collaboration, professional development, and organizational culture.
Working in an office enables spontaneous collaboration that is difficult to replicate digitally. In my own experience as a project coordinator, many of our most productive problem-solving sessions arose from brief hallway conversations rather than scheduled video calls. This kind of informal interaction accelerates decision-making and fosters stronger working relationships among team members.
Furthermore, in-person attendance is particularly beneficial for less experienced employees. New hires require mentorship, observation, and direct feedback that is significantly harder to provide remotely. Requiring regular office attendance ensures that junior staff receive the guidance they need to develop competency at a reasonable pace.
While I acknowledge that fully remote arrangements can reduce commuting costs and improve work-life balance for some individuals, I maintain that a three-day minimum is a reasonable compromise that preserves these benefits while sustaining the collaborative environment that most workplaces depend on.
Why this scores well
Position stated in first sentence without hedging. Two distinct reasons (collaboration, professional development for juniors). Brief counter-acknowledgement in the final paragraph raises Coherence score without weakening the argument. ~190 words — ideal length.
Prompt
Some people prefer to live in a large city. Others prefer to live in a small town. Which do you prefer and why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Sample response
Given the choice, I strongly prefer living in a large city. The professional opportunities, cultural diversity, and access to services available in urban environments offer advantages that smaller communities simply cannot match.
In terms of career development, large cities provide access to a significantly broader job market. When I relocated to Toronto three years ago, I had access to positions in my field — environmental engineering — that simply did not exist in my hometown of 30,000 people. This career mobility has been transformative for my professional growth and earning potential.
Cities also offer an unparalleled diversity of experiences. The access to international cuisine, cultural events, and communities from every background enriches daily life in ways that are difficult to quantify but genuinely meaningful to me. I have learned more about the world through my neighbourhood in Toronto than I did through years of travel.
I recognize that small towns offer a quieter lifestyle and stronger community ties. However, for an individual at my stage of life and career, the opportunities a large city provides far outweigh the benefits of a slower pace.
Why this scores well
Preference is stated in the first sentence. Each body paragraph opens with a topic sentence and supports it with specific personal detail ('Toronto', 'environmental engineering', specific experience). Counter-acknowledgement is one sentence — not diluted by over-explaining.
Prompt
The community survey asks: (1) What do you think is the biggest challenge facing your neighbourhood? (2) What specific action would you recommend to address this challenge?
Sample response
In my neighbourhood of Westdale, the most significant challenge is the lack of safe, accessible green space for families. The area has three parks, but two have been closed for over a year due to funding constraints, and the remaining park lacks equipment suitable for young children.
To address this challenge, I would recommend that the city prioritize the reopening of Riverside Park by allocating a portion of the upcoming municipal infrastructure budget to its renovation. Specifically, the installation of a modern playground structure with inclusive equipment for children of varying abilities would serve the greatest number of residents. In addition, establishing a community stewardship program — in which local residents volunteer to assist with park maintenance — would reduce the ongoing cost of upkeep and build community ownership over the space.
These measures would not require the city to take on significant new expenses, and the social benefit to families in the area would be substantial.
Why this scores well
Both survey questions are answered in separate paragraphs — the most important structural rule for multi-part prompts. The recommended action is specific and implementable, not vague ('do something about the parks'). The closing sentence provides a brief cost-benefit justification.
One CELPIP tip per week
Free, from a 12/12 scorer.