CELPIP Writing Task 2: Responding to Survey Questions

CELPIP Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Sports field turf survey

Residents choose between a costly artificial turf field and keeping grass with new lights for evening play. The challenge is facing the $1.2 million price directly and showing why one option solves the real problem.

Time

26 minutes

Length

150–200 words

Structure

Choose Option A or B and support it

The question

Sports Field Survey

The grass soccer field at your local park is often muddy and closed after heavy rain. The city could replace it with artificial turf, which costs $1.2 million but can be used in almost any weather. Or, it could keep the grass and add lights so the field can be used in the evenings. The city is asking residents to complete an opinion survey.

Choose the option that you prefer. Why do you prefer your choice? Explain the reasons for your choice. Write about 150-200 words.

Option A: I would prefer to replace the grass with artificial turf.

Option B: I would prefer to keep the grass and add lights.

Explain the reasons for your choice. Write about 150-200 words.

How to plan your answer

What they want

Choose between artificial turf for $1.2 million (A) or keeping the grass and adding lights (B) at the muddy soccer field.

Plan (26 min)

State your choice. Option A is easier to argue: it solves the actual problem, the muddy, closed field.
Reason 1: turf can be used in almost any weather, so games and practices are not cancelled. Example: your child's team losing weeks of spring season to rain.
Reason 2: more playing hours for more teams; turf needs no mowing or watering, which lowers maintenance costs over time.
Optional nod: lights add evening hours, but a muddy field is still closed in the dark.
Conclusion: restate your choice and main benefit.

Useful vocabulary

artificial turf, muddy field, cancelled games, all-weather
maintenance costs, soccer league, playing time, drainage

Phrases

I would prefer artificial turf because...
This would allow teams to...
Although lights are cheaper, ...

Avoid

Choosing both options.
Ignoring the high $1.2 million cost; justify it.

Excellent answer: around CLB 11–12

I would prefer Option A, replacing the grass field with artificial turf. The central problem with our field is not when it can be used, but how often it is closed. My son plays in the local youth league, and last fall nearly a third of his practices were cancelled because the pitch was waterlogged. Every closure disrupts dozens of children, coaches and families, and in a climate as wet as ours, these cancellations are routine rather than exceptional. Artificial turf would solve this directly. It drains quickly and can be used in almost any weather, so teams could follow a reliable schedule from early spring until late fall. Turf also eliminates mowing, watering and reseeding, so the city would recover part of the investment through lower maintenance costs over the years. Admittedly, $1.2 million is a significant expense, and adding lights would cost far less while extending playing time. However, lights cannot dry a muddy field. Extra evening hours are of little use if the field remains closed after every heavy rain. For these reasons, artificial turf is the more practical long-term investment.

184 words

Why it scores high

Content/Coherence: the opening, 'not when it can be used, but how often it is closed', reframes the choice in one clear, persuasive sentence.
Vocabulary: 'waterlogged', 'routine rather than exceptional' and 'drains quickly' show precise vocabulary suited to the topic.
Readability: 'lights cannot dry a muddy field' is short and memorable, giving the counter-argument a strong ending.

Good answer: around CLB 7–8

I would prefer Option A, replacing the grass with artificial turf. The biggest problem with the current field is that it is often closed after heavy rain. My daughter plays in a youth soccer league, and last season about a third of her games and practices were cancelled because the field was too muddy. This is very disappointing for the children, and it makes it hard for coaches and families to plan. Artificial turf can be used in almost any weather, so the field would be available far more often. It also requires much less maintenance, since the city would not need to mow, water or repair it regularly. Over many years, these savings would help balance the high cost. I know that $1.2 million is a large amount of money, and adding lights would be much cheaper. However, lights would not solve the real problem. If the grass is muddy and closed, it doesn't matter whether people can play in the evening or not. For these reasons, I believe artificial turf is the better long-term investment for our community.

180 words

What works, and what's missing

Content/Coherence: 'about a third of her games and practices were cancelled' gives a specific measure of how serious the closures are.
Task Fulfillment: saying lights 'would not solve the real problem' directly answers Option B and makes the reason for choosing turf clear.
Vocabulary: 'requires much less maintenance' and 'balance the high cost' are suitable, but the wording is rather predictable.

Basic answer: around CLB 4–5

I prefer Option A. I think the city should change the grass to artificial turf. The main problem is the field is closed after rain. My son play soccer in a team, and many time the game is cancel because the field is muddy. The kids are very sad and the parents also. In our city it rain a lot in spring and fall, so this happen very often. With artificial turf, the kids can play almost every day. Also the city don't need to cut the grass or put water in summer, so it save money later. $1.2 million is very expensive, I know. But the field is use by many people for many years, so I think it is worth. The lights is also good idea, but if the field is muddy, the lights don't help. People still can't play. So Option A is better.

147 words

What holds it back

Readability: 'My son play soccer', 'the game is cancel' and 'it rain a lot' contain repeated verb errors in the central example.
Vocabulary: 'put water in summer' and 'I think it is worth' are unclear expressions that weaken the cost-saving argument.
Content/Coherence: the point that 'if the field is muddy, the lights don't help' is excellent but is placed briefly at the end.

These are original CELPass examples written at each level. The CLBs are our estimates, not official CELPIP scores. How we estimate CLB