CELPIP Writing Task 2: Turn a Preference into a Developed Argument

1. Start with a clear choice and a manageable structure

Task 2 gives two options and asks which one you prefer and why. You have 27 minutes to write about 150–200 words. A useful practice target is 170–200 words, with about 3–5 minutes for planning and 2–3 minutes for checking. Leave enough time and space to explain the reasons, rather than simply list them.

The response is a short essay. It needs an introduction, developed body paragraphs and a conclusion. It does not need an email greeting or sign-off. Acknowledging the organization conducting the survey is possible within the introduction, but that is different from beginning with “Dear Manager.”

The position should be clear from the introduction and remain consistent in the conclusion. Ending with “Either one is fine” removes the preference the task asks the writer to explain. The selected option in the interface should also match the position in the response.

A practical structure is:

Two developed points are more useful than four thin ones. Before committing to a reason, consider what can be said after its topic sentence. A label that cannot be explained will not sustain a paragraph.

2. Read the decision in its context

The background explains who is asking, what needs to be decided and why the decision matters. Reading only the option labels can produce a reasonable-sounding response that misses the actual problem.

Example: funding an apartment swimming pool

The apartment manager needs to introduce pool fees next year because cleaning and maintenance costs have increased. Some tenants swim regularly, while others rarely use the pool. The manager wants to collect enough money to keep it open and properly maintained.

• Option A: All tenants should share the maintenance cost.
• Option B: Only pool users should pay the maintenance cost.

Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons in about 150–200 words.

The issue is who should pay, not whether swimming is enjoyable. Both options support the same facility. “A clean pool is good for residents” could support either, so it does not explain the choice between them.

The funding requirement is equally important. A proposal for a very low user fee that never addresses maintenance costs leaves the manager's main concern unanswered. The argument must remain connected to keeping the pool open.

A complete response

Thank you for asking tenants how the swimming pool should be funded. Personally, I prefer charging pool users rather than requiring every tenant to share the maintenance costs.

First of all, this would be fairer to residents who rarely or never swim. Some tenants may have health conditions that prevent them from using the pool, while others simply prefer different activities. Requiring these residents to pay the same amount as regular swimmers would place an extra expense on them without giving them a service they actually use. A user fee would connect the cost more directly to the benefit.

Moreover, charging swimmers would make the cost of running the facility clearer. For example, the manager could explain that the fees pay for cleaning and routine maintenance. Regular users would then understand what their payments support. However, the fee would need to be calculated carefully so that the building still collects enough money to keep the pool open.

For these reasons, I believe asking pool users to cover the maintenance costs is the more suitable option. It respects tenants' different habits while making the purpose of the fee clear.

How the argument develops

The introduction identifies the survey and states a preference for user fees. The first body paragraph develops fairness to residents who do not use the facility. Health conditions and different interests explain why some residents may receive little benefit from a service they would still be asked to fund.

The paragraph moves from the general claim to the people affected and then back to the payment arrangement. A user fee connects the expense more directly to the benefit received. That final connection is what makes the examples relevant.

The second body paragraph addresses a different concern: making the purpose of the charge clear. It explains how fees could be associated with cleaning and maintenance, while preserving the requirement to collect enough money. The conclusion returns to the same preference without adding an unrelated argument.

The body follows the 3-1 Principle: a topic sentence establishes the point, and explanation and examples develop it. A relevant contrast can also provide further support. The form of the support can vary; what matters is that it develops the paragraph's main idea. The principle is not satisfied by writing one broad statement and moving immediately to another reason. The reader must be able to see what the first statement means.

3. Plan both sides before choosing one

A two-column plan makes the strengths and limitations of the options visible before drafting begins. List possible benefits, concerns and examples for each side. The purpose is to find usable material, not to include every idea in the final response.

Test the scope of each topic sentence as well. It should identify a clear benefit while leaving room to explain it. If it only names a narrow fact, the rest of the paragraph may repeat that fact in different words. A point about protecting employees' working time, for example, gives room to explain interruptions and deadlines; the supporting details must still stay within that point.

The best option to write about may differ from the writer's personal preference. If one side offers two clear reasons with relevant support and the other offers only “I like it more,” the first is a more workable choice for the task.

For the pool survey, charging users could be developed through fairness to residents who rarely swim. Shared funding could be developed through spreading maintenance costs across more households. Each argument also has a limitation to consider: user fees must still fund the pool, while shared charges need a convincing justification for non-users.

The plan is a place to test possible reasons. The final response uses only the strongest, most relevant ones.

Use reason categories as starting points

When brainstorming, consider whether an option is cost-effective, environmentally friendly, educational, fairer, time-efficient, safer, healthier, convenient, comfortable and easier. These are brainstorming categories, not finished arguments.

“Cost-effective” needs an explanation of whose money is saved and how. “Fairer” needs the people being treated more fairly and the reason. A safety argument only helps when safety is relevant to the decision. The category should lead to a concrete explanation rather than replace one.

A relevant example can make a reason convincing. In the pool response, the situations of regular swimmers and residents who rarely use the facility make the fairness argument clear. Explain how the example supports the point; a number or a reference to a study adds little unless it provides relevant evidence. Statistics are only one possible form of support and will not suit every question. Use a relevant example or explanation when that makes the reason clearer.

Compare the actual difference

The distinction between “apples and apples” and “apples and oranges” helps identify what is being compared. Some choices are different rules for the same thing; others are different activities or ways of meeting a need. The argument should address the distinction the task actually presents.

The pool options concern the same pool under different payment arrangements. A feature both options share does not, by itself, justify preferring one. In a choice between different activities, the relevant differences may concern what participants can do and how that serves the stated purpose.

Comparison is useful when it strengthens the reason already being explained. It is not compulsory to criticize the alternative in every paragraph. Two developed benefits of the preferred option can form a clear response. If a comparison is included, it should remain connected to the same concern rather than jump from fairness to convenience to an unrelated complaint.

4. Both options can be reasonable: dinner or a film

The question

A company manager is organizing an after-work activity next month to help employees get to know one another. The company will pay for one activity and is asking employees before making a group booking.

• Option A: Have dinner together at a restaurant.
• Option B: Watch a film together at a cinema.

Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons in about 150–200 words.

The purpose of the event provides the basis for the argument: colleagues should get to know one another. A response supporting dinner can explain that people are able to talk during the meal and sit with colleagues they do not usually work beside. These details connect the activity to the manager's aim.

There is no need to claim that watching a film is a bad activity. It can be enjoyable while still being less suitable for the particular reason the writer has chosen. A balanced explanation of a preference is more useful than a dramatic attack on the alternative.

Fixed conditions must remain fixed. The company is paying, so an argument about employees being unable to afford their own tickets would change the situation. The event takes place after work. The response should discuss the dinner or cinema visit offered, rather than quietly turn one into a different event with extra features. The same distinction applies to a talk and a workshop: listening to a presentation does not automatically include hands-on activity.

Before selecting a side, test two possible reasons. Is there enough to explain after each topic sentence? Can an example make each one concrete? Are the two reasons genuinely different? If not, the plan needs more work before drafting.

5. Develop a practical reason: lunchroom cleaning

The question

The company lunchroom is used by more employees and needs regular cleaning. The manager wants a new plan next month. Employees have busy work schedules, and the company has a limited budget for office services.

• Option A: Employees should organize and carry out the cleaning themselves.
• Option B: The company should hire professional cleaners.

Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons in about 150–200 words.

The question contains two constraints, and neither should disappear from the response. An argument for cleaners must recognize the budget. An argument for staff cleaning must recognize employees' work schedules. Neither option is automatically correct; the explanation has to show why the preference makes sense in this situation.

Identify whose benefit matters

“Professional cleaners would have more customers” describes a benefit to a cleaning business. It does not explain why the office should purchase that service. The decision concerns the company and its employees, so the argument needs to connect to them.

“Hiring cleaners would allow employees to focus on their work” provides a clearer topic sentence than “This would be more efficient.” The specific version identifies who benefits and what the paragraph will explain.

The connection then needs development. Employees who leave an assigned task to clean have less time for that work. A cleaning service could handle the lunchroom while employees continue their responsibilities. An example of an employee approaching a project deadline makes the interruption easier to understand. These steps explain the claimed productivity benefit instead of merely repeating the word productivity.

Build the paragraph in meaningful steps

The paragraph can develop in three steps:

Hiring cleaners would allow employees to focus on their work.

This means that less time will be spent organizing cleaning duties.

For instance, employees approaching a project deadline would not have to interrupt their work to clean the lunchroom.

The first establishes the point. The second explains a connection. The third gives a relevant example. A sentence about attractive lunchroom furniture would not develop this topic, even if it were true.

“This means that…” must be followed by a complete thought. A formal-sounding opening is not enough if the clause after it remains unfinished. Subject–verb agreement, singular and plural forms, and complete sentences still require attention. For the written response, use full forms such as do not and cannot rather than conversational contractions.

Keep the claim proportionate

Practical effects—interruptions, time spent organizing a roster, or the cost of a service—are easier to develop than a large unsupported claim. Predicting a lawsuit would require a clear explanation of how that consequence follows. It does not make the argument stronger merely by sounding serious.

Broad descriptions also need support. If something is expensive, convenient or time-consuming, explain the relevant cost, arrangement or task. Choose a concrete detail that explains the cost or inconvenience, while keeping the conditions in the question unchanged.

Check that the example matches the topic. A paragraph about cost needs cost-related support. An example showing only that a place is nearby explains distance or convenience instead. Either revise the topic sentence to express the actual point or replace the example with one that supports the intended reason.

Compare without losing the preferred option

Start with the benefit of the chosen arrangement, then use a relevant contrast if it helps. A paragraph about protecting working time can contrast a cleaning service with employees interrupting their duties. If the paragraph becomes mostly a complaint about staff cleaning, however, the positive reason has been displaced.

The alternative should be described reasonably. There is no need to say that everyone would be furious or that the plan is ridiculous. An uneven distribution of cleaning work or difficulty scheduling it is a practical concern that can be explained.

Two reasons should also remain distinct. “Employees would have more time” and “Employees would spend fewer minutes cleaning” may be the same argument in different words. Their details reveal the overlap. A second paragraph needs another relevant concern, not another label for the first one. For an employee-cleaning response, cost and how the work is shared could provide two different areas to develop.

Keep the introduction and conclusion consistent

This opening acknowledges the survey and states the choice:

Thank you for asking employees about the new lunchroom cleaning plan. Personally, I would prefer hiring professional cleaners rather than asking staff to organize and carry out the cleaning. I will explain why.

The conclusion returns to that position while retaining the budget constraint:

For these reasons, I would prefer the company to hire professional cleaners, provided the service can be arranged within its budget.

An optional thanks can follow if space permits. A new reason should not first appear in the conclusion. The final lines should complete the response already developed, rather than change its direction.

6. Extend a reason without changing the question: toy policies

The question

A kindergarten is reviewing its rules on toys brought from home. Some children enjoy sharing their toys, but teachers have reported disagreements and interruptions during classroom activities. Parents are asked which rule they prefer for the coming term.

• Option A: Children should not bring their own toys to kindergarten.
• Option B: Personal toys should be allowed, with play restricted to outdoor or designated areas.

Choose the option you prefer and explain your reasons in about 150–200 words.

The restriction in Option B is essential. It is not permission to play with personal toys anywhere at any time. An argument against unlimited toy use during lessons would misrepresent the alternative.

Follow a benefit through its effect

For a no-personal-toys policy, “fewer interruptions” can lead to a concrete explanation: a lesson continues without stopping for a disagreement over a child's toy, and children return to the shared activity. For designated play, the benefit of sharing becomes clearer through children taking turns and playing together in the permitted space.

The examples show what each benefit would look like in practice. Keep the example connected to the reason instead of letting it grow into an unrelated story.

Closely related effects may belong in the same paragraph. “Children experience fewer interruptions” and “Teachers stop lessons less often” are not necessarily two independent reasons. The second can explain the consequence of the first. A genuinely different second point must be supported by different reasoning.

Keep every comparison relevant

Both policies apply at the same kindergarten. Its distance from home therefore does not distinguish the options. The meaningful difference is whether personal toys are allowed and where they can be used. A feature shared by both options does not explain why one should be preferred.

Open details can be developed; fixed conditions cannot be removed. A writer may illustrate how children could share in a designated area, but cannot claim that Option B allows unrestricted play during lessons. The same discipline applies to the pool's funding requirement, the company's payment for the outing and the lunchroom's limited budget.

Word choice should support the intended benefit. If the point concerns cooperation, phrases such as taking turns and playing together communicate it directly. A stronger-sounding word is unhelpful when it changes the meaning. Likewise, a further consequence should follow closely from the first: fewer toy-related arguments can help a teacher continue an activity, but does not justify a sweeping prediction about every child's future.

A two-column plan can hold both benefits and limitations. The final response does not need to include the entire plan. Select the reasons that give the clearest case for the chosen policy, put the positive reason first, and compare only where the contrast strengthens that reason.

7. Revise sentences so their logic is visible

Sentence variety does not mean joining as many ideas as possible. A long sentence may work when its structure is controlled; a shorter sequence may work better when each idea needs its own space. The following three revisions show how to keep the information while making its relationships clearer.

Remove repetition while retaining the information

The first draft repeats the significance of the commuting time:

Lastly, you know I was accepted by a big company downtown, and it only takes thirty minutes from downtown to this house. It is not a very long time for a daily commute.

The revised version is more precise:

I accepted a position at a large law firm downtown, a thirty-minute commute from this house.

The job, location and travel time remain. The extra sentence explaining that thirty minutes is not very long is unnecessary. Revision has improved the wording and removed repetition rather than simply adding language.

Separate the reason, deadline and consequence

The second example involves an urgent project, an important client, a meeting and a two-day deadline. The revised sequence makes their relationship clear:

Since the meeting is for an urgent project for our VIP client, I need to prioritize this meeting. She has asked us to complete the project in two days. If we cannot meet the deadline, we will lose the client.

Since introduces the reason for prioritizing the meeting. The next sentence specifies the deadline. If connects failure to meet it with the consequence. Dividing the information has preserved the logic rather than disconnected the ideas.

Break a chain of “and” into readable parts

The third revision separates arrangements for an outing:

On the contrary, we just have to walk to the aquarium and purchase the group ticket when we get there. The ticket also includes lunch for the kids. The children do not even have to prepare lunch by themselves.

Travel and ticket arrangements come first, followed by the lunch information and its implication. The reader no longer has to hold every detail inside a single chain. “On the contrary” belongs to the contrast in this example; a connector should always match the relationship in the surrounding response.

The purpose is clarity, not a ban on long or complex sentences. During proofreading, identify where one thought ends and what the next one contributes. Repeated and can be a useful signal to inspect the structure, but the decision to split should follow the meaning.

8. Write the opening and ending without overloading them

An introduction can acknowledge the survey, state the preference in new wording and lead into the explanation. Choose an opening that fits the situation:

• Thank you for conducting the survey… or Thank you for asking for our opinions…, followed by the topic and preference.
• I was recently informed that…, followed by the organization and decision under consideration.
• While some residents think everyone should contribute, I feel that charging pool users is more suitable. This briefly recognizes the alternative before stating a position.

Personally, I prefer… can express the choice, with over or rather than linking the alternatives where appropriate. I will explain why can lead into the body. The wording should preserve the option's meaning without simply copying every word from the prompt.

A conclusion can begin with Therefore or For these reasons. It should return to the choice already explained and, where useful, reconnect it to the survey's purpose. “Thank you for taking our preferences into consideration” is an optional final line. Neither an extended introduction nor a decorative closing should take space away from the reasons.

Match the closing phrase to the actual decision. “I prefer…to alleviate…” can link the choice to a concern it would reduce. When the preferred option keeps an existing arrangement, “I strongly urge you not to change the status quo” expresses that position. Status quo means the current arrangement, so this ending only fits a choice that really preserves it.

The overall tone is professional or semi-formal: a manager, building representative or organization is asking for a reasoned preference. A firm position does not require angry language. The explanation becomes persuasive when the reader can follow the relationship between the decision, the people affected and the benefit described.

9. A final revision pass

Check the response at three levels. First, return to the question: have the background, options and fixed conditions been preserved? Second, examine the paragraphs: are there two distinct reasons, and does each explanation or example support its topic sentence? Third, inspect the sentences: are the relationships clear, the grammar complete and the tone consistent?

Questions such as who, what, when, why and how can expose a reason that needs more development. They can also reveal an unnecessary detail. If a sentence does not explain the preference or help the reader understand the situation, it may not need to be there.

Review repeated wording throughout the response. Change a verb or adjective when you know a natural alternative, but keep an essential term when replacing it would distort the meaning. Similar-looking words may serve different purposes: reserve can mean booking something for later use, while preserve means keeping or protecting what already exists. Choose by meaning and context.

The final check is consistency. The option selected in the task, the preference in the introduction and the choice in the conclusion should all agree. A developed argument keeps that position in view while showing, step by step, why it fits the decision being made.

When you receive corrections, bring them together in a revised response and compare it with your first draft. Notice what changed: the development of the idea, a word choice, a sentence structure or the connection between sentences. Keep useful structures and practise using them yourself. Memorizing a corrected answer without understanding those changes leaves the same difficulty in place for the next question.