CELPIP Speaking Task 7 Template: Expressing Opinions

Task 7 gives you a debatable statement — usually about work, education, technology, or daily life — then 30 seconds to prepare and 90 seconds to speak. That 90 seconds is the longest speaking window on the test, which changes the problem completely. Most test-takers can produce a good opinion for 40 seconds. The task is built to find out what you do with the other 50.

Use this as a shape to fill, not a script to memorise. Scoring covers Content/Coherence, Vocabulary, Listenability, and Task Fulfillment, and Task Fulfillment here means one specific thing: you committed to a side.

The five-part structure

Those parts total 90 seconds because each one has a job. If you drop the concession, you have roughly 70 seconds of material and 20 seconds of silence or padding — which is exactly where most answers lose marks.

Step 1 — Pick a side in your first sentence

The recording starts and you have ten seconds. Do not weigh the options aloud. Do not open with "well, this is a difficult question." Say which side you are on.

In my opinion, [side of the statement you are taking], mainly because [one-clause preview].

Applied:

In my opinion, working from home is better for most people, mainly because of what it does to your time and your focus.

"It depends" is the single most damaging opening in Task 7. It reads as an unwillingness to answer the question, and no amount of good vocabulary after it repairs Task Fulfillment. If you genuinely see both sides, pick the one you can support with examples fastest — you are being scored on how you argue, not on which side is correct.

During your 30 seconds of prep, do not write sentences. Write four words: your side, reason one, reason two, and one example. That is enough to talk from.

Step 2 — Build reason one around one specific example

A reason stated abstractly takes eight seconds. A reason with an example attached takes twenty-five, and it earns Content/Coherence marks the abstract version does not.

My first reason is [category of reason — practical, financial, personal]. [State the reason.] For example, [something specific from your own life or observation].

Applied:

My first reason is practical. Commuting eats a real part of the day that nobody counts as work. For example, a friend of mine spent about ninety minutes a day getting to an office downtown, and once that stopped, he started using that time to actually cook dinner instead of buying it.

Personal examples are allowed and they work well. You do not need statistics, and you should not invent any — a made-up number is easier to hear as fake than a real detail from your own week.

Step 3 — Make reason two come from a different angle

This is where answers quietly collapse. If reason one is about saving time and reason two is about having more free time, you have not made two points, you have made one point twice. The examiner hears the repetition even if you do not.

Before you start reason two, ask yourself what category reason one belonged to, then choose a different one:

Second, there's also [different category]. [State the reason.] I've seen this myself when [brief situation].

Applied:

Second, there's also the effect on the work itself. Open offices are noisy in a way people underestimate, and at home I can put an hour into one problem without three interruptions. I noticed this when I was studying for an exam — I got more done in one quiet morning than in a whole afternoon at a shared desk.

Step 4 — Concede something real

Around the 60-second mark, turn toward the other side. This is the part that fills the last third of the response without repetition, and it is the easiest twenty seconds of content on the entire task.

The concession has to be genuine. "Some people disagree, but they are wrong" is not a concession — it adds no content and sounds dismissive. Grant the opposing view an actual point, then explain why your position survives it.

That said, I understand why [opposing side has a point] — [the real strength of their argument]. But I'd argue [why your position still holds], because [distinction that resolves it].

Applied:

That said, I understand why people worry about isolation — working alone all week genuinely does wear on some people, and I won't pretend it doesn't. But I'd argue that's an argument for a few days in the office rather than five, because the problem is total isolation, not the flexibility itself.

The strongest move is the one in that last clause: draw a distinction that lets the other side be partly right without making you wrong.

Step 5 — Close in different words

Ten seconds. Restate your position, but do not reuse the sentence you opened with — repeating your first line word for word is heard as running out of things to say.

So overall, I still come down on the side of [your position], [one short reason why].

Worked walkthrough

Here is the whole process on one prompt, from a blank screen to a finished answer.

Prompt: Some people think large cities should make public transit free for everyone. Others think riders should keep paying fares. What is your opinion?

1. Read it for who, what, and the ask.
It's a debatable statement, and Task Fulfillment here means one thing: commit to a side and defend it for the full window — "it depends" fails.

2. Plan — notes only.
In your 30 seconds of prep, write four words: your side, reason one, reason two, and one example.

3. Turn each note into a line.

Position:

In my opinion, large cities should make public transit free, mainly because of what it does for the roads and for people who are being priced out of getting around.

Reason one:

My first reason is practical. Every person who takes a bus instead of driving is one less car in traffic and one less parking spot needed downtown. For example, on a free-fare day my city ran a couple of winters ago, the buses I took were fuller than I'd ever seen them, and people who normally drove told me they'd left the car at home simply because they didn't have to dig for change.

Reason two:

Second, there's the fairness side, which is a different issue entirely. For someone on a tight income, a daily fare is a real decision — the bus to a job interview, or that money kept for groceries. I've stood behind people counting coins at the fare box and clearly coming up short, and that shouldn't be what decides whether someone gets to work.

Concession:

That said, I understand the worry about cost — free transit isn't actually free, and the money has to come from taxes, so it's fair to ask who pays. I don't think that concern is imaginary. But I'd argue we already fund roads, sidewalks and libraries the same way, as shared public goods, and a system that moves far more people for the money is exactly the kind of thing worth paying for collectively.

Close:

So overall, I'd make it free, and treat it as basic city infrastructure rather than a service that has to pay for itself at the door.

4. Read it back.

In my opinion, large cities should make public transit free, mainly because of what it does for the roads and for people who are being priced out of getting around.

My first reason is practical. Every person who takes a bus instead of driving is one less car in traffic and one less parking spot needed downtown. For example, on a free-fare day my city ran a couple of winters ago, the buses I took were fuller than I'd ever seen them, and people who normally drove told me they'd left the car at home simply because they didn't have to dig for change.

Second, there's the fairness side, which is a different issue entirely. For someone on a tight income, a daily fare is a real decision — the bus to a job interview, or that money kept for groceries. I've stood behind people counting coins at the fare box and clearly coming up short, and that shouldn't be what decides whether someone gets to work.

That said, I understand the worry about cost — free transit isn't actually free, and the money has to come from taxes, so it's fair to ask who pays. I don't think that concern is imaginary. But I'd argue we already fund roads, sidewalks and libraries the same way, as shared public goods, and a system that moves far more people for the money is exactly the kind of thing worth paying for collectively.

So overall, I'd make it free, and treat it as basic city infrastructure rather than a service that has to pay for itself at the door.

5. Check before you stop speaking.

• The side is clear in sentence one — no "it depends".
• The two reasons come from different categories — practical, then fairness — and each carries a real example.
• The concession grants a genuine point (someone has to pay) and the rebuttal draws a distinction rather than dismissing it.
• Nothing is invented data, the close uses fresh words, and the content fills the full 90 seconds without racing.

Full model answer

Prompt: Some people think students should be required to take part in extracurricular activities such as sports or clubs. Others think students should be free to focus only on their academic subjects. What is your opinion?

I think schools should require some kind of extracurricular activity, mainly because of what students learn there that they can't learn in a classroom.

My first reason is about skills. Group activities teach you how to work with people you didn't choose, how to lose, and how to keep showing up when something is hard. When I played on a school volleyball team, I was easily the weakest player, and sticking with that season taught me more about persistence than any assignment did.

Second, there's the social side, which matters especially for students who struggle to make friends on their own. A club gives you a reason to be in a room with the same people every week, and friendships form out of that almost automatically. I've watched quieter classmates become much more confident after joining a drama group — not because anyone told them to be confident, but because they had somewhere to go.

That said, I understand the argument on the other side. Some students are carrying serious academic pressure, or working part-time to help their families, and adding a mandatory commitment to that is genuinely unfair. I don't think that concern is imaginary at all. But I'd say the answer is flexibility in what counts — a school club, a volunteer shift, a music lesson — rather than dropping the requirement completely, because the students who most need the social benefit are usually the ones who would never sign up voluntarily.

So overall, I'd keep it required, just defined broadly enough that everyone can find something that fits their life.

Why this scores well: the position lands in the first sentence, the two reasons come from clearly different angles (skills and social life) and each carries a real example, the concession names a genuine hardship instead of a straw man, the rebuttal draws a distinction rather than dismissing, and the close restates the view in fresh words. It also runs the full 90 seconds on content, not filler.

Before you speak

• Your side is clear in sentence one — no "it depends"
• Reason one has one concrete example attached
• Reason two is from a different category, not a rewording of reason one
• The concession grants the other side something real
• The rebuttal explains why your view still holds
• The closing line uses different words from the opening line
• Nothing in the answer is invented data or a fake statistic

Common mistakes

• Sitting on the fence. Presenting both sides evenly and never choosing is the fastest way to lose Task Fulfillment, no matter how fluent the delivery is.
• Two reasons that are one reason. "It saves money" and "it's cheaper" are the same point. Check the category before you start reason two.
• Padding to reach 90 seconds. Repeating yourself in slightly different words hurts Vocabulary and Coherence at once. Add the concession instead — that is what it is there for.
• A long windup. "That's an interesting question, there are many perspectives, some people say…" burns fifteen seconds before any content starts, and those seconds are not returned.
• Dismissing the other side. A concession that gives the opposing view nothing is not a concession, and it costs you the easiest content in the task.
• Racing. With 90 seconds you can speak at a normal, controlled pace. Speeding up to fit everything in damages Listenability — clear delivery is scored, and there is more time here than you think.