CELPIP Speaking Task 5 requires you to compare options and persuade another person that your choice is more suitable. The strongest approach is to select relevant differences, connect them to the listener's needs, and explain why those benefits outweigh a reasonable disadvantage. Listing features alone does not complete the persuasive work.
The supplied official Listening and Speaking Study Guide describes two stages: a sixty-second choice stage with no speaking, followed by sixty seconds of preparation and sixty seconds of recording. In the second stage, your selected option is compared with another option. Follow the actual instructions and information shown on the screen. The official test format identifies the task as Comparing and Persuading.
This article uses original invented comparison data for learning. Prices, features, and sample choices below are hypothetical, not current product recommendations or authentic test material. Their purpose is to show how a feature becomes a reason and how a reason becomes a persuasive message for a particular listener.
Understand what changes between the two stages
The first stage helps you establish a preference. Read the options carefully and choose one you can discuss. Do not spend the entire period searching for a universally correct answer. In many comparison situations, different features suit different priorities, and the task gives you room to support a reasonable choice.
The second stage introduces the comparison you must actually address in your spoken response. Re-read the new information instead of assuming you are still comparing the original pair. A strong reason from the first stage may remain useful, but its value depends on the alternative now presented.
For example, a product that was cheaper than the first alternative might cost more than the new alternative. If you continue saying “mine is the cheapest” without checking, your main argument may contradict the displayed information. Treat the second-stage data as the basis for the final comparison.
Look for the listener and the shared purpose as well. Are you speaking to a family member, a friend, or a colleague? Are you choosing something for one person, a household, or a group? Those details help determine which benefits deserve emphasis and what tone will sound appropriate.
Your job is to speak directly to the person and make a case. “I would tell my colleague that my option is better” describes an intended conversation. “I think this option would work better for our team” begins that conversation. A direct opening saves time and establishes the persuasive relationship immediately.
Turn features into practical benefits
A feature is a fact about an option: its price, size, location, schedule, capacity, or included service. A benefit explains why that feature matters to the people using it. Persuasion happens when you connect the two. Without that connection, the response may sound like someone reading an advertisement aloud.
Suppose one meeting room is near public transit. The feature is its location. A relevant benefit might be that colleagues without cars can arrive more easily. An extended consequence could be that the group can begin on time without arranging several separate rides. Each step makes the comparison more useful.
The same feature can matter differently in another situation. A room near transit may be less decisive for a group transporting heavy equipment by van. In that case, loading access or storage could deserve more attention. Benefits come from the relationship between the option and the user's needs, not from the feature alone.
Use a simple planning chain: difference, user need, consequence. “Later opening / people work until five / fewer missed sessions” is a useful note. When speaking, turn it into natural language: “The later opening time would let everyone attend after work, so we wouldn't have to leave early or miss the beginning.”
Avoid repeating empty evaluations such as better, excellent, convenient, and perfect without explanation. “More convenient” becomes persuasive when you state what becomes easier. “This location would cut out the extra bus transfer” supplies a concrete reason the listener can assess.
Original comparison exercise: a workshop venue
Imagine you and a colleague are choosing a venue for a Saturday community workshop. Your preferred venue, Cedar Room, costs $180, seats twenty people, is five minutes from a transit stop, and includes a projector. Your colleague prefers Harbor Hall, which costs $140, seats thirty people, is twenty minutes from transit, and requires a separate projector rental. Your group expects sixteen participants, several of whom use public transit.
These details are invented for this exercise. The most relevant criteria are likely capacity, access, and equipment. Both rooms can accommodate the expected group. The cheaper room has more seats, but the extra capacity may not solve an actual need. The included projector and shorter walk may therefore support Cedar Room despite its higher listed price.
An original spoken response could be:
Alex, I think Cedar Room would be the more practical choice for our workshop. Harbor Hall is cheaper, but we only expect sixteen participants, so we don't really need the extra seats.
The biggest advantage is the location. Several people are coming by public transit, and Cedar Room is only a short walk from the stop. That would make the venue easier to find and reduce the chance of people arriving late, especially if the weather is poor.
It also includes a projector, which we need for the demonstrations. With Harbor Hall, we'd have to arrange a rental and check that the equipment works with our laptop. I don't know the rental cost, so the lower room price may not reflect the full expense.
I'd rather spend a little more on a space that already meets our needs and makes the day simpler for everyone.
The response acknowledges the real price advantage of the other option. It does not dismiss it or pretend the preferred room is better in every way. Instead, it explains why access and equipment are more important for this particular event. That is a reasoned preference rather than an unsupported declaration.
The projector argument also handles unknown information carefully. It does not invent a rental price to prove that Harbor Hall is more expensive overall. It says the total expense is uncertain. This is enough to raise a practical concern without making a false calculation.
Build a persuasive response with a clear direction
State your preference early. The listener should not have to wait until the final sentence to learn which option you support. A direct opening can still be polite: “I can see why you like the larger room, but I think the smaller venue suits our group better.”
Develop two strong comparisons rather than rushing through every feature. Each comparison should include a difference and its consequence for the listener. If time allows, acknowledge a drawback and explain why it is manageable. End by returning to the main shared goal, such as convenience, comfort, reliability, or staying within a realistic budget.
Your structure might be preference, main benefit, second benefit, tradeoff, and closing recommendation. Treat that as a flexible sequence. If the listener's concern is obvious, you may address it immediately after stating your choice. If the data contains one decisive difference, give that point more space rather than inventing weaker arguments to fill a template.
Use transitions that express the relationship between points. “The other advantage is” introduces another reason. “Although it costs more” acknowledges a tradeoff. “For our group” brings the discussion back to suitability. You do not need a formal debate opening or a series of academic connectors to sound organized.
Keep the close short and specific. “Let's choose Cedar Room so we can focus on the workshop instead of arranging extra equipment” reinforces the central benefit. A generic ending such as “Therefore, in conclusion, I strongly believe my choice is very good” repeats the preference without adding a useful final emphasis.
Acknowledge disadvantages without weakening the case
Persuasion does not require pretending your choice has no weakness. A credible response can recognize that it costs more, has less space, or takes longer to reach. The important question is whether the disadvantage outweighs the benefits for the situation described.
Suppose you prefer a smaller apartment because it is much closer to work. You might say, “The living room is smaller, but we don't often host large gatherings. Saving travel time every day would matter more to us.” The concession is real, and the answer explains why another criterion has greater weight.
Avoid concessions that accidentally reverse your argument. “Your option is cheaper, bigger, closer, and more reliable, but I still prefer mine” leaves little support for the preference. If the data seems to favour the alternative strongly, look for a legitimate need your choice serves. Do not fabricate benefits to rescue an unsupported decision.
Some drawbacks can be managed through a practical adjustment. A venue with fewer chairs might still fit the expected group. A product with limited storage may suit a small household. Explain the fit rather than claiming the limitation disappears. “We have enough space for our current group” is more accurate than “capacity doesn't matter.”
Use concessions selectively. A sixty-second response does not need a complete catalogue of weaknesses. Address the strongest relevant concern and return to the reason for your choice. Acknowledgement should strengthen the logic and tone, not consume all the time available for persuasion.
Speak to the listener's priorities
The listener may care about cost while you care about convenience. A persuasive response explains the connection between those priorities instead of simply repeating your preference more strongly. Ask what problem the listener is trying to avoid and show how your option addresses it.
If a colleague prefers a cheaper venue, acknowledge the budget concern: “I agree that we should keep the cost under control.” Then explain the fuller comparison: “The included equipment could save us an extra arrangement, and we still have enough money in the event budget.” Only mention budget details if the prompt provides them or clearly allows reasonable hypothetical context.
If a friend prefers an attractive product, you can recognize the design while emphasizing use: “The colour is appealing, but we'll be carrying it on the bus, so the lighter model would be easier to manage.” This respects the friend's preference while offering another relevant criterion.
Avoid language that attacks the listener's judgment. “Your choice makes no sense” creates unnecessary friction. “I think this feature would matter more for how we plan to use it” keeps the focus on the decision. Respectful persuasion can remain firm and direct.
Be careful with “we” when the item is for someone else. If you are helping a friend choose a course for their own needs, “you” may be more appropriate. Pronoun choice signals whether you understand whose decision and benefit are involved. Match it to the scenario rather than using the same wording in every response.
Practise comparative grammar in meaningful sentences
Comparative forms are useful because the task requires differences: cheaper, larger, quieter, more flexible, and easier to reach. Learn them in complete messages rather than isolated pairs. “This venue is easier to reach by bus” expresses a practical comparison; “easy, easier, easiest” alone does not prepare you to explain a benefit.
Avoid double comparisons such as “more cheaper” or “more easier.” Use “cheaper” and “easier.” For longer adjectives, forms such as “more convenient” are appropriate. If you are unsure of a comparative, use another accurate structure: “This option offers greater flexibility” or “We would have more flexibility with this option.”
“Whereas” and “while” can contrast parallel facts: “This plan includes weekend sessions, whereas the other one only offers weekday classes.” Make sure the comparison is accurate and not too long to deliver comfortably. A short sentence followed by an explanation may be clearer than one sentence containing every feature.
Use “as…as” for equal or unequal comparisons: “The smaller room is not as spacious, but it is large enough for our group.” This pattern is particularly useful for concessions because it recognizes a difference without treating it as decisive. The second clause explains the practical importance.
Check countable and uncountable comparisons. A venue may have fewer seats but less space. A plan may require fewer journeys but less travel time. These distinctions matter most when an error obscures your meaning, so practise the combinations you are likely to use in everyday comparisons.
Repair feature lists and unsupported claims
A weak response might say: “My option is $180. It has twenty seats. It has a projector. It is good. Your option is $140 and has thirty seats.” This repeats data but leaves the listener to do all the evaluation. The repair is to attach each relevant feature to a shared need.
For example: “The twenty seats are enough for our sixteen participants, and the projector is already included, so we can run the demonstrations without arranging extra equipment.” The numbers now support a decision. You do not need to mention every item in the table when only a few matter.
Unsupported claims are another problem. “The more expensive product will last twice as long” is not justified unless the information establishes that difference. Price alone does not prove durability. Use the supplied feature accurately: “The longer warranty would give us more coverage if a problem occurs,” if a longer warranty is actually listed.
Avoid comparisons based on stereotypes. A certain colour, neighbourhood, or brand-like name does not establish quality, safety, or suitability. Work from the prompt's information and reasonable everyday consequences. If you add a hypothetical concern, make it clear that it is a possibility rather than a known fact.
When a response sounds forceful but unconvincing, ask which sentence explains the listener's benefit. If none does, adding more enthusiastic adjectives will not solve the problem. Replace evaluation with reasoning. The listener should hear why your choice fits the intended use.
Use preparation time as a decision filter
During the choice stage, identify the intended use and select an option with features you can discuss. During the later preparation stage, re-check the new comparison and mark the two most useful differences. Then add a short consequence for each and one response to the strongest disadvantage.
Your notes might read “transit: short walk / projector: included, less arranging / higher price: useful fit.” These notes cue reasoning. A copied list of all prices, colours, dimensions, and specifications may be harder to use because it does not tell you which details should become your spoken argument.
Do not write a full script if doing so prevents you from checking the comparison. A memorized opening cannot repair an inaccurate claim about the options. Accuracy comes first, followed by a clear preference and developed support. Once those are established, natural phrasing becomes easier.
If you notice two possible arguments, choose the one you can support most directly. For example, included equipment is a stronger point than a speculative claim that guests will prefer the room's appearance. Prioritize supplied facts and practical consequences over assumptions about other people's reactions.
Before recording, mentally finish this sentence: “For this listener, my choice is more suitable because…” If you can answer clearly, you have a central argument. If your answer is only “because it is better,” return to the features and needs until the relationship becomes specific.
Original practice variations
Create a comparison between two weekend courses. One has smaller classes and a higher price; the other has larger classes and more available dates. First imagine the learner needs individual feedback. Then change the learner's main difficulty to an unpredictable work schedule. Notice how the strongest argument changes even though the features stay the same.
Try a second exercise involving two picnic locations. One is nearby with limited shade; the other is farther away with covered tables. Add a group that includes people who cannot walk far. Then practise again with a group that mainly needs shelter for a planned activity. Use the changed need to reorder your comparisons.
For a third exercise, compare two storage shelves. One is taller and narrower; the other is lower and wider. Give the room a specific space limitation and decide what will be stored. Avoid declaring one shape universally better. Explain how dimensions affect access, fit, and intended use.
After each recording, switch sides and make the best reasonable case for the other option. This is a practice exercise, not a requirement to reverse your test answer. It helps you see tradeoffs and prevents you from relying on exaggerated claims that one option is perfect in every respect.
Review the argument before polishing delivery
The official results page lists Content/Coherence, Vocabulary, Listenability, and Task Fulfillment for Speaking. Start your review by checking whether the preference is clear and the comparisons are accurate. Then ask whether each major reason has a listener-focused benefit.
Check the response against the data. Mark any invented price, feature, or certainty. Review the concession to ensure it is real and that your explanation addresses it. These checks protect the argument's substance before you focus on smoother transitions or pronunciation.
For delivery, listen to the contrast in each comparison. Stress the meaningful difference naturally: included equipment, shorter walk, later sessions. Pause after a complete reason so that the listener can process it. Speaking faster will not make a weak comparison stronger, and it may hide the useful distinction you intended to emphasize.
Record again with one specific goal, such as turning every feature into a benefit or addressing the listener directly. Compare the versions on that goal. Your review can identify progress, but an original practice answer does not come with an official score prediction.
Frequently asked questions
Is the cheapest option always easiest to defend?
No. Cost is one relevant criterion, but suitability depends on the intended use and the other features. A higher price may be reasonable when the option includes something the listener needs. Explain the tradeoff accurately without inventing hidden savings or unsupported quality claims.
Should I mention the other option's advantages?
A brief acknowledgement can make the comparison more credible, especially when the advantage is obvious. Then explain why another criterion matters more in this situation. You do not need to give equal speaking time to both sides when the task is to persuade someone to choose your option.
Can I use facts beyond the comparison table?
Use reasonable everyday consequences, but do not invent product specifications, discounts, or guarantees. If the table says a venue is closer to transit, you can explain the shorter walk. You cannot assume it also has better staff, safer equipment, or free parking unless that information is supplied.
What if my first choice becomes harder to defend?
Read the new comparison carefully and identify the strongest genuine benefit of your selected option. The task allows you to support a preference; it does not require proving universal superiority. Focus on fit, acknowledge a relevant limitation, and keep the reasoning consistent with the displayed information.
Sources and further reading
- CELPIP, Listening and Speaking Study Guide, seventh edition, December 2025: Speaking overview and Task 5, Comparing and Persuading. Supplied source material.
- Official CELPIP test format and scoring
- Official CELPIP results and performance dimensions
- Official CELPIP free preparation resources