CELPIP Writing Task 2 (Survey): there is no right answer
Task 2 puts a situation in front of you — usually a community or workplace decision that people disagree about — and offers two options. It asks which you prefer and why. Paragon's own sample instruction is short: choose the option you prefer, explain the reasons for your choice, and write "about 150-200 words."
Here is what trips people up. Neither option is correct. There is no answer key. The marker is not checking whether you agreed with them. They are checking how well you defended the side you picked — and whether you actually picked one.
The commonest way to fail this task
Test-takers who write well in every other section still lose marks here, and it is almost always the same instinct: balance.
You have been taught, sensibly, that a good argument acknowledges the other side. So you write "both options have advantages", give two lines to each, and close with "it depends on the situation."
That is a thoughtful paragraph. It is also a survey response that did not respond to the survey.
And it runs straight into CELPIP's harshest rule:
A response giving insufficient information to assess scores 0 or 1.
If the marker cannot tell which option you chose, there is nothing to assess. Not a low score — the bottom of the scale, from an essay that may contain excellent English.
Choose in the first sentence. Then spend the rest of the response earning it.
A worked example
The prompt (original AlmiWorld practice prompt — same shape as the real task)
Your community centre has money to improve one thing this year. Members have been asked which they would prefer.
Option A — Extend the opening hours. The centre would open two hours earlier on weekdays. Option B — Renovate the main hall. The hall would get new flooring, lighting and seating.
Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons. Write about 150–200 words.
The response
I would prefer Option A, extending the opening hours.
The main reason is who it reaches. The centre currently opens at nine, which means anyone starting work at eight cannot use it before their shift. Opening at seven would put the gym and the pool within reach of shift workers, parents doing a school run, and people who simply cannot come in the evening. That is a group the centre does not serve at all at the moment.
The hall does need work, and I am not pretending otherwise. But it is used for perhaps two events a month, and it is usable now — the seating is tired, not broken. Longer hours would be felt every weekday by people who currently walk past a locked door.
There is also the cost. Renovations are spent once and then they age. Opening hours are a commitment the centre can review each year, and drop if the early slots turn out to be empty.
For those reasons I would put this year's money into hours rather than flooring.
Why this works.
- The choice is in sentence one. A marker knows within four words what is being defended.
- Three distinct reasons, not one reason three times — who it reaches, how often each option is used, and how the money behaves over time.
- The other option is acknowledged, then defeated. "The hall does need work, and I am not pretending otherwise" is not fence-sitting — it concedes and then explains why the concession does not change the answer. That is what a strong argument does, and it is the opposite of "it depends."
- Specifics carry it. Opens at nine, starting work at eight, two events a month, seating tired not broken. Every one of those is invented — and that is allowed. You are not being fact-checked. You are being read for how you argue.
Length: 197 words.
Three habits that lift this task
- Pick the side that is easier to argue, not the side you believe. You are not being asked for your soul. You are being asked to build a case in 200 words.
- Reasons must be different from each other. Three angles on the same reason reads as one thin reason padded out.
- Invent freely, and be concrete. Names, hours, numbers, small details. The marker is not verifying the community centre exists.