In Task 7 you give your opinion on a question and support it. You have 30 seconds to prepare and 90 seconds to speak.
The questions are usually about public choices, such as how a town or province should use its budget. Strong answers state one clear position at the start and support it with two or three reasons and examples.
Task 7 practice prompts and sample answers
These are the 3 free Task 7 prompts on CELPIPReady. Each sample answer was written by CELPIPReady to show what a response can sound like at a target level. They are not official CELPIP answers or scores.
Prompt 1
Should Canadian municipalities move some weekday morning library hours to Sundays? One town with a fixed library budget is considering replacing Tuesday morning opening hours with Sunday afternoon service.
Basic sample answer (CLB 6-7)
I think the town should try opening its library on Sunday afternoons instead of Tuesday mornings. First, more working families could visit together. Parents who work during the week could help their children choose books on Sunday. Second, the library would offer a free weekend activity. Families could read together instead of paying for entertainment. I understand that some older residents enjoy quiet Tuesday visits and would lose that time. I'd ask them about other suitable hours and try the new schedule for three months before making a final decision.
Good sample answer (CLB 9)
I'd support moving those Tuesday morning hours to Sunday afternoons, at least for a trial. First, the change would help people whose work schedules prevent weekday visits. A parent working Monday to Friday could bring the children on Sunday and choose books with them. Second, a free indoor weekend activity would help families watching their spending, particularly during cold weather. They could spend an afternoon reading without buying anything. I recognise that retired residents or shift workers may depend on Tuesday mornings, so the change has a real cost. I'd ask those users about alternatives and compare attendance during a three-month trial. With a fixed budget, we should check who benefits and who loses access.
Excellent sample answer (CLB 11-12)
I'd support a trial of Sunday afternoon opening, provided the town consults people who currently use Tuesday mornings. First, Sunday access could remove a practical barrier for working families. A parent with weekday shifts could help a child choose books without rushing there after work. Second, libraries offer a free indoor weekend destination, which matters when families are cutting back on paid activities. An afternoon reading together would still be possible without an entertainment budget. However, Tuesday users would lose something valuable. Retired residents may rely on quieter mornings, and moving the hours could disrupt their routines. I'd ask whether another existing morning could meet their needs, then compare attendance and user feedback during a trial. Since the budget is fixed, I'd also check Sunday staffing costs before committing. I'd make the change permanent only if it improves access overall.
Record your answer to this prompt
Prompt 2
Should Canadian provinces cover undergraduate tuition for all residents, regardless of income? A province with a fixed education budget is considering replacing income-based tuition grants with universal tuition coverage.
Basic sample answer (CLB 6-7)
I'd keep tuition grants based on income instead of making tuition free for everyone. First, I'd use the limited money to help students who cannot afford college or university. For example, a student whose parents earn very little might need a larger grant to enrol. Second, tuition isn't the only cost. Students may also need help paying rent or buying books. I understand that free tuition for everyone sounds fair and would be simpler to explain. Still, with a fixed budget, I'd give more support to people who need it most.
Good sample answer (CLB 9)
I'd keep income-based tuition grants rather than replace them with free tuition for every resident. First, a fixed budget should provide meaningful help to students with the least money. For example, a larger grant could allow someone from a low-income household to enrol without taking extra work shifts. Second, covering tuition alone doesn't make studying affordable. A student who must move away may face rent and textbook costs that a wealthier student can manage easily. I understand the appeal of universal coverage: everyone receives the same benefit, and applications could be simpler. However, I'd rather simplify the grant process and target the funding carefully. Equal payments wouldn't necessarily give students an equal chance to study.
Excellent sample answer (CLB 11-12)
I'd retain income-based tuition grants because a fixed education budget forces the province to choose where support matters most. First, universal coverage would spend some of that budget on families already able to pay. I'd rather offer a larger grant to a student who might otherwise postpone enrolling or work so many shifts that studying becomes difficult. Second, tuition is only one barrier. Someone moving from a small community may also need rent and travel support, so I'd preserve room for those expenses instead of treating tuition as the whole problem. I recognise that universal coverage has advantages: it's easy to explain and could spare families a complicated financial assessment. I'd address that concern by simplifying grant applications and making eligibility clear. For me, fairness means giving students a realistic opportunity to attend, even when that requires different amounts of support.
Record your answer to this prompt
Prompt 3
Should Canadian school boards replace one professional development day with two evening training sessions for teachers? A board is considering this change to reduce families' weekday childcare needs while keeping the same amount of teacher training.
Basic sample answer (CLB 6-7)
I think the board should keep the professional development day. First, teachers could focus better on training during a day set aside for it. After spending the day with a busy class, they might be too tired to learn much in the evening. Second, teachers have families too. Two evening sessions could mean arranging childcare twice or missing family routines. I understand that parents struggle when school closes on a weekday. I'd rather the board explore a day camp for that day than move the childcare problem onto teachers' families.
Good sample answer (CLB 9)
I'd keep the professional development day because equal training hours don't necessarily mean equal learning. First, teachers need energy to discuss ideas and practise new methods. An evening session after teaching all day could make that harder, especially for someone managing a demanding class. Second, teachers have responsibilities outside school. Two evening sessions might require a teacher to arrange childcare twice or miss caring for an older relative. I understand the appeal for parents who must take time off when school closes. Their difficulty deserves a practical response. I'd ask the board to explore an affordable day camp with community partners before changing the schedule. That could help families without reducing teachers' ability to benefit from training.
Excellent sample answer (CLB 11-12)
I'd keep the professional development day, although I understand why families want fewer weekday closures. First, the quality of training depends on attention as well as hours. Teachers arriving after a full classroom day may struggle to practise a new approach or reflect thoughtfully with colleagues. Keeping the same training time wouldn't necessarily preserve its value. Second, two evening sessions shift scheduling pressure onto teachers' households. A teacher caring for a child or an older relative could need replacement care on two separate evenings. Parents who lose wages when school closes have a serious concern, though, and simply defending the existing arrangement wouldn't help them. I'd ask the board to investigate an affordable day camp with community partners and consult families about access. That approach could address the childcare gap while preserving a period when teachers have the energy to learn.
Record your answer to this prompt
A simple structure for Task 7
In my opinion, [stance]. I feel strongly about this for several reasons. First, [argument 1]. For example, [evidence]. Second, [argument 2]. Studies have shown that [support]. I understand that some people believe [counterargument], however, I think [rebuttal]. In conclusion, I firmly believe that [restate opinion].
Useful words for Task 7
- convinced: Completely certain about something. I am firmly convinced that this is right.
- furthermore: In addition to what has been said. Furthermore, studies support this view.
- contrary: Opposite in nature or direction. Contrary to popular belief, this works well.
- undeniable: Impossible to deny or argue against. The evidence is undeniable.
- advocate: A person who supports a cause. I am a strong advocate for this approach.
Task 7 FAQ
How long is CELPIP Speaking Task 7?
CELPIP Speaking Task 7 (Expressing Opinions) gives you 30 seconds to prepare and 90 seconds to speak. Your response is recorded on the computer and the recording stops when the time ends.
Are these CELPIP Speaking Task 7 sample answers official?
No. CELPIPReady wrote these sample answers to show what a response can sound like at each target level. They are not official CELPIP answers, and the CLB labels are targets, not scores from a CELPIP rater.
Can I practice CELPIP Speaking Task 7 for free?
Yes. The first 3 Task 7 prompts on CELPIPReady are free, with a timer and sample answers. With a free account you also get a few AI feedback scores each week.
CELPIP® is a registered trademark of Paragon Testing Enterprises. CELPIPReady is an independent study platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Paragon Testing Enterprises.