CELPIP Speaking Task 7 · Expressing Opinions · question 10 of 10
Apartment Buildings Banning Pets
A CELPIP Speaking Task 7 practice question (Expressing Opinions), with a model answer below. No sign-up needed. Read the task, take 30 seconds to prepare, then speak for 90 seconds, out loud, as you would on the test.
The task
Do you think apartment buildings should be allowed to ban pets?
- Decide yes or no and give your opinion.
- Explain your reasons.
Original CELPIP-style practice question, not an official CELPIP test item. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Paragon Testing Enterprises. The CLB level of each sample answer was reviewed by a TESOL-certified instructor. It is not an official CELPIP score.
- Preparation
- 30 seconds
- Speaking time
- 90 seconds
- Question
- 10 of 10
How to structure it
- Pick yes or no quickly. Rental rules differ by province (in Ontario, for example, a no-pet clause in a lease is void), so argue from experience rather than quoting a law.
- Think about the people involved: pet owners, neighbours with allergies, and the building owner.
- If you say no, show how a building could still deal with noise or damage; if you say yes, admit what it costs pet owners.
Model answer · CLB 7
109 words · no sign-upNo, they shouldn't ban pets. For a lot of people, the pet is a family member, like a child. If you have to choose your pet or your home, it's very sad, very sad. It happened with my cousin, she gave her cat to her friend because of new building, and she cried for days. Also, to find apartment is already hard. If many buildings say no pets, people with animals have very few choice. Yes, some dogs are noisy or damage things. But most pets are quiet, most pets, cats, fish... no problem. The owner can ask a deposit for the damage. So no, I'm against the ban.
Why this answer works
- Content/Coherence: two plain reasons (pets as family, finding a home) with a brief family example; the conclusion is brief.
- Vocabulary: basic words; "damage things" is understandable but loose.
- Listenability: a trailing list ("cats, fish... no problem"), missing articles ("because of new building", "to find apartment") and "very few choice"; still clear.
- Task Fulfillment: a clear no with a small suggestion.
Model answer · CLB 9
151 words · no sign-upYes, I think building owners should be allowed to ban pets if they choose. First, some tenants have serious allergies. My roommate in my last building had to use her inhaler almost every time she took the elevator, because the dog next door shed everywhere. She actually moved out because of it. Second, apartments share walls and hallways, so a dog barking all day while its owner is at work affects ten other households, not just one. And third, the owner is responsible for the building, and things like scratched floors and smells in the carpet are expensive to fix. I've seen a landlord repaint a whole unit after one tenant moved out. I do realize this makes it harder for pet owners to find a place, and that's not a small thing. But if some buildings allow pets and others don't, people on both sides can choose what suits them.
Why this answer works
- Content/Coherence: three reasons, a specific example (the roommate's inhaler) and a short counterpoint about pet owners.
- Vocabulary: "tenants", "shed" and "what suits them" are accurate.
- Listenability: the three reasons are clearly signposted, and "I do realize" softens the counterpoint without slowing the pace.
- Task Fulfillment: a clear yes with a fair final point.
Model answer · CLB 11
162 words · no sign-upNo, I don't think buildings should be allowed to do that. They should be able to set strict conditions, because the real problem is behaviour, not animals. Landlords say they can't predict which pet will cause trouble, so a blanket rule is the only simple option. I understand that. It's quick, and nobody has to argue about who's responsible. But it punishes the quiet cat owner for what a neglected dog upstairs does. When I lived in a twelve-unit building in Nanaimo, the only real complaint in three years was about one dog left alone ten hours a day. The landlord didn't evict anyone; he required the owner to hire a dog walker, and the barking stopped within a week. Everyone kept their pets, and the neighbours were happy. So I'd let buildings require a pet deposit, a reference from a previous landlord, and a written warning system. That protects landlords without forcing people to choose between a home and a pet.
Why this answer works
- Content/Coherence: a flat no, then the landlords' case weighed and answered with strict conditions and supports it with a precise example.
- Vocabulary: "a blanket rule", "neglected" and "a written warning system" are precise.
- Listenability: the Nanaimo story has a clear before and after ("the barking stopped within a week"), so the listener hears the proof for the position.
- Task Fulfillment: a clear no with a practical alternative.
Level reviewed by a TESOL-certified instructor. Not an official CELPIP score.
The most common mistake
Arguing only about whether you like dogs or cats; the question is whether a building should be allowed to ban them.
Get your own answer scored by AI: free account, no card
The model answer shows the target. To find out where your own recording lands, answer this question in the practice runner and get a CLB level for each criterion. A free account includes 3 AI-scored answers every 30 days.