All English 4U · CELPIP Writing · Set 8 · Practice Test 2
A Useful Start with Shared Tools
Give constructive feedback on a borrowed repair kit, then recommend one collection schedule for a community cooperative. Practise two original writing tasks, compare six learning examples and revise your own responses. Completion checks support self-review and do not award a language score.
Write both responses, review each checklist, then check completion.
Your draft stays in this browser when storage is available. Export a copy to keep it.
0 of 2 tasks checked
This practice uses self-review. It does not automatically grade language or award an official score.
Task 1 · Writing an Email
27 minutes · 150–200 words
Your situation
The Maple Lane Tool Cooperative is a volunteer-run group that lends household tools to neighbourhood residents. The cooperative’s newsletter announced a new beginner repair kit with a screwdriver set, measuring tape, small level and illustrated guide. You borrowed the kit on Tuesday, October 20, to fix a loose cupboard handle. The guide was clear, but the screwdriver handle was too large for your hand and the kit lacked a short screwdriver bit suitable for the limited space behind the cupboard handle. You returned the kit the next day. The cooperative is collecting feedback before deciding what to include in future kits.
Write an email of 150–200 words to the cooperative coordinator. In your email:
- Identify the kit you borrowed, when you used it and the repair you intended to make.
- Explain which parts of the kit helped and what made the repair difficult.
- Suggest a practical change to the kit or its guide for beginner users.
- Ask how residents can find out when the revised kit is available to borrow.
The timer is a practice aid. At zero, your writing stays editable. Starting the other timer pauses this one.
Plan this response
- Open with the kit name, borrowing date and cupboard-handle repair so the coordinator can identify your feedback.
- Separate what worked from the obstacles: the illustrated guide helped, while the large screwdriver grip and missing short bit made your repair harder.
- Suggest a smaller screwdriver grip or a selection of short bits. A contents list could help borrowers check what is included. Do not imply that a revised kit has already been approved.
- Ask how the newsletter or cooperative noticeboard will announce an updated kit. Do not assume a release date or promise that a change will be made.
- Use a courteous tone, organise the four points in paragraphs, then check the 150–200 word range and proofread.
Models viewed. Compare the ideas, then write in your own words.
Original All English 4U learning examples. These labels describe writing features; they are not certified CELPIP scores. Several answers are possible.
Developing: explains the difficulty · 185 words
Subject: Feedback on the beginner repair kit
Dear Cooperative Coordinator,
I borrowed the new beginner repair kit on Tuesday, October 20, because I wanted to tighten a loose handle on a kitchen cupboard. The illustrated guide was useful and showed the steps in a clear order. I felt more confident starting the job after reading it.
However, I had trouble using the screwdriver. Its handle was too large for my hand, and the kit did not have a short bit suitable for the space behind the cupboard handle. I could not turn the screw comfortably, so the repair took longer than I expected. I returned everything on Wednesday.
Could future kits includes a smaller screwdriver handle and a short bit? A small note in the guide could also remind borrowers to check which bits are included before they begin. These changes might makes the set easier for first-time users.
Please let me know how residents can find out when an updated kit is ready to borrow. Is there a noticeboard or newsletter announcement I should check?
Thank you for inviting feedback.
Kind regards,
Morgan Lee
What to notice: All four requirements are covered: the loan and task, useful guidance and tool difficulties, a practical suggestion, and a request about availability. Exactly two errors are deliberate: “Could future kits includes” should be “Could future kits include”; “might makes” should be “might make”. Both modal verbs take a base-form verb.
First draft: These changes might makes the set easier for first-time users.
Revision: These changes might make the set easier for first-time users.
After might, use the base verb make. The other intentional error, “Could future kits includes”, requires include after could. The suggestions remain proposals.
Clear: gives specific feedback · 181 words
Subject: Suggestion for the beginner kit
Dear Tool Cooperative Coordinator,
I am writing about the beginner repair kit I borrowed on Tuesday, October 20. I used it to tighten a loose cupboard handle. The illustrated guide was helpful because its numbered steps made the task easy to follow.
The screwdriver was less suitable for me. Its broad handle was difficult to grip, and the kit did not contain a short bit suitable for the restricted space behind this particular handle. I returned the kit the following day, but I wanted to share what I learned while using it.
Would you consider adding a compact handle and a few short bits in common sizes? A contents list in the guide could show borrowers which bit lengths are included. That would help beginners check what they are borrowing without implying that every cupboard needs the same tools.
I would also like to borrow the kit again if it is updated. Could you tell residents where to look for an announcement about its availability?
Thank you for collecting users’ comments.
Best regards,
Riley Chen
What to notice: The email identifies the loan and repair, balances a useful guide with two specific tool difficulties, suggests a compact driver and contents list, and asks where availability will be announced. All four requirements receive attention; suggested additions are not presented as confirmed decisions.
First draft: That would help beginners check what they are borrowing without implying that every cupboard needs the same tools.
Revision: A clear list would help beginners check the kit before borrowing it.
The shorter version states the immediate benefit. The original sentence also explains why the kit cannot cover every possible repair.
Strong: connects feedback to access · 195 words
Subject: Making the beginner repair kit easier to use
Dear Coordinator,
I borrowed the cooperative’s beginner repair kit on Tuesday, October 20, to tighten a loose handle on a kitchen cupboard. The illustrated guide made the sequence of steps easy to understand, which was reassuring because I had not attempted this small repair before.
The tools themselves presented a challenge. I found the screwdriver grip too large to hold securely, and there was no short bit suitable for the space behind the cupboard handle. As a result, I could not complete the job as smoothly as the guide suggested, although the instructions were clear.
For a future version, perhaps the kit could include a smaller-grip driver and a selection of short bits. A labelled tray showing bit lengths could help borrowers choose. Since this feedback concerns one handle, inviting users to report other missing sizes could help the cooperative decide what is useful.
Could you let me know where the cooperative would announce a revised kit if one is introduced? I would be glad to check the newsletter or another source before planning a second loan.
Thank you for considering this feedback.
Sincerely,
Jordan Patel
What to notice: The model develops a specific user experience into a measured improvement proposal. It distinguishes one person's observation from a universal need and asks for a way to follow the kit's availability without presuming the cooperative's decision.
First draft: A labelled tray showing bit lengths could help borrowers choose.
Revision: A tray labelled with bit lengths could help borrowers choose.
Placing “with bit lengths” directly after labelled makes the purpose of the proposed labels explicit. Both versions are grammatical.
Task 2 · Responding to Survey Questions
26 minutes · 150–200 words
Your situation
The Maple Lane Tool Cooperative has a fixed budget for staffing its collection point for its beginner repair kit. It is asking residents to choose which schedule it should offer: evening collection hours on one weekday, or weekend collection hours on one day. Both proposals would use the same budget and each collection period would be staffed. The cooperative can select only one schedule for this trial; it cannot combine evening and weekend hours. It has not chosen a day or published opening times.
Choose Option A or Option B and explain your preference in 150–200 words. Give relevant reasons and examples, and consider the other option. The cooperative has a fixed budget and will choose one schedule only; do not propose combining the schedules.
The timer is a practice aid. At zero, your writing stays editable. Starting the other timer pauses this one.
Plan this response
- State Option A or Option B clearly near the beginning, and maintain that choice throughout.
- Explain a realistic resident need: weekday evenings may fit people who are occupied during daytime hours; weekend hours may allow more time for a planned collection.
- Give a concrete example while presenting it as a possibility, not a claim about all residents or the cooperative's current schedule.
- Acknowledge one fair advantage of the other schedule, then explain why your preferred single schedule should be selected within the fixed budget.
- End with a clear recommendation. Do not suggest combining the options or inventing an opening day, time or budget amount.
Models viewed. Compare the ideas, then write in your own words.
Original All English 4U learning examples. These labels describe writing features; they are not certified CELPIP scores. Several answers are possible.
Developing: supports Option A · Option A · 186 words
I support Option A, evening staffed collection hours on one weekday. Some residents may be busy with work or appointments during the day, so an evening collection could give them another practical time to pick up the beginner repair kit.
For example, someone who finishes work in the late afternoon might visit the staffed point on the way home. They could ask a volunteer to confirm which pieces are included and how the illustrated guide is arranged. That short conversation could help a first-time borrower feel prepared before taking the kit home.
Weekend hours have an advantage too. A resident might have more time to plan a collection when other responsibilities are lighter. Still, the budget are fixed, and the cooperative must choose one schedule for this trial. I would prioritise a weekday evening because it may serve people whose daytime commitments otherwise make collection difficult.
After the trial, the cooperative could ask borrowers whether the evening period suit their routines. My recommendation is to use the available staffing budget for Option A and tell residents where to find the confirmed hours once they are set.
What to notice: The response consistently supports A, develops a possible after-work collection and recognises a benefit of weekend hours. It respects the single-schedule limit. Exactly two errors are intentional: “the budget are fixed” needs “the budget is fixed”; “the evening period suit their routines” needs “the evening period suits their routines”. Budget and period are singular nouns.
First draft: the budget are fixed, and the cooperative must choose one schedule for this trial.
Revision: the budget is fixed, and the cooperative must choose one schedule for this trial.
Use is with the singular noun budget. The second intentional error is suit after the singular subject period; use suits. Both corrections preserve the recommendation.
Clear: supports Option B · Option B · 196 words
I would choose Option B, a staffed collection period on one weekend day. A weekend schedule could suit residents who prefer to plan a visit when they are not moving directly between daytime commitments. Since a volunteer would be present, borrowers could also ask a quick question before taking the kit away.
Imagine a resident who wants to repair a loose shelf bracket but is unsure whether the beginner kit contains a suitable screwdriver. During a staffed weekend collection, that person could check the contents and read the relevant guide page before leaving. This would make the borrowing process feel more considered without assuming that the volunteer can provide repair instruction.
A weekday evening could be easier for someone who already travels near the collection point after work. That is a reasonable advantage, and the cooperative should recognise that some residents cannot visit on weekends. However, with its fixed budget allowing only one schedule, I favour the weekend period because it may give borrowers more time to collect the kit and review its contents.
The cooperative could gather feedback after the trial. For now, I recommend selecting Option B and publishing the confirmed staffed hours clearly.
What to notice: The position is consistently Option B. The model offers a practical collection example, avoids suggesting repair advice from volunteers, and acknowledges why weekday evenings may suit other residents.
First draft: This would make the borrowing process feel more considered without assuming that the volunteer can provide repair instruction.
Revision: Borrowers could check the kit before leaving without expecting the volunteer to teach the repair.
The revision makes the boundary and the benefit more direct.
Strong: supports Option A · Option A · 197 words
Option A, a staffed collection period on one weekday evening, should be selected for the trial. Its main advantage is that it could make the beginner repair kit accessible to residents whose daytime hours are already committed. A staffed point also gives borrowers a chance to check the kit before leaving.
Consider a resident who finishes work and then plans a small repair at home. If the collection period falls during an evening, that person may be able to collect the kit on a regular journey rather than setting aside part of a weekend. A volunteer could point out the illustrated contents list, helping the borrower notice whether a tool is missing before signing out the kit.
Weekend collection has a clear strength: people may have more flexibility to travel at a time that suits their household. Yet the cooperative cannot fund both schedules, so it must choose one. I would prioritise the weekday evening because residents with fixed daytime commitments may otherwise face a narrower opportunity to borrow.
After the trial, a short resident survey could show whether that choice met a real need. The cooperative should announce the confirmed hours through its newsletter and noticeboard.
What to notice: This model connects the schedule to a specific resident routine, recognises the weekend's benefit, and makes one recommendation consistent with the fixed budget. It frames the example and expected benefit as possibilities rather than guaranteed outcomes.
First draft: Its main advantage is that it could make the beginner repair kit accessible to residents whose daytime hours are already committed.
Revision: An evening period could give residents with daytime commitments another opportunity to collect the beginner repair kit.
The revised version states the schedule's possible benefit in concrete terms.
Writing guide · plan, develop and revise
Report what you experienced
In the email, identify the beginner kit, the borrowing date and the cupboard-handle repair. Separate the feature that helped you from the tool or fit problem. Describe your own experience without claiming every beginner will face the same difficulty.
Make practical requests
Suggest a specific kit or guide adjustment, then ask where residents can find an availability announcement. Phrase ideas as suggestions, since the cooperative has not confirmed a change or release date. In the survey response, explain how your chosen staffed schedule could help a resident.
Support one choice within the budget
Name Option A or B early and keep the choice consistent. Compare the two schedules fairly, but recommend only one because the cooperative can fund one trial schedule. Do not combine evening and weekend hours or invent the day, times or amount available.
Four lenses for self-review
Content and coherence — Develop relevant details and connect examples and reasons clearly to the email's purpose or the survey recommendation.
Vocabulary — Use precise, natural wording for a neighbourhood cooperative, tools, collection schedules and the intended reader.
Readability — Organise ideas into clear paragraphs and review sentence structure, grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Task fulfilment — Address all four email requirements or select and support one survey option, respect the fixed-budget constraint and meet the practice word range.
This practice counts groups of letters or numbers as words; contractions and hyphenated forms count as one. Times such as 6:00 count as two number groups. Subject lines, greetings and sign-offs are included. This is a practice counter, not a statement about examination software. Completion checks confirm only word range and your own checklist.