How many questions are in Reading Part 4?

Paragon's test-format page lists 10 questions for Reading for Viewpoints. Many of them depend on understanding a writer's opinion, which is why this list focuses on stance words rather than topic words.

What if the article uses words I have never seen?

Paragon advises working out unfamiliar words from context instead of stopping. In opinion writing, the sentence after a hard word often restates the same idea more simply, so read on before deciding what it means.

How can I tell a writer's opinion when they never say "I think"?

Look at their word choices. Calling a plan misguided or shortsighted shows disapproval, while saying a council deserves credit shows support. Words that describe a plan often reveal the stance more clearly than any opinion phrase.

Reading Part 4: Reading for Viewpoints

Reading Part 4: Reading for Viewpoints belongs to the Reading component of CELPIP. The task gives you 10 questions and 13 minutes. Your result counts the questions you answer correctly.

Questions: 10
Time: 13 minutes
Prompts here: 28 published

Who thinks what, and how strongly

Our method for this task — study advice, not an official rule.

1
Note each writer's position before the questions
A few words on what the article argues and what the response argues. With the sides fixed, the questions stop blurring together.
2
Watch the attitude words
Approval, doubt, irony and concern are often carried by a single word, and questions here ask how someone feels about an idea as well as what they said.
3
Keep the same attitude when you choose a word
A neutral option in place of a critical one changes the writer's meaning, even when the dictionary meaning is close.

The question is what the writer believes, never what you believe.

Your own opinion on the topic is not evidence.

Viewpoint texts are built from opinions: an article argues a position and readers respond with their own. These entries help you recognise who supports what, how strongly they feel, and where a writer quietly softens or sharpens a claim, with examples that sound like op-eds and reader comments.

As you read, label each paragraph or comment with a quick stance: for, against or mixed. Pay close attention to small softening and hedging words such as hardly, not necessarily and it remains to be seen, because they often decide whether an answer option is too strong or exactly right.

CELPIP · Reading

Vaccination and Public Policy

From a bank of 28 prompts · free to read, no account needed

Vaccination campaigns are often described as a straightforward exchange: an individual accepts a small, immediate inconvenience in return for a reduced risk of serious illness. That description captures part of the rationale, but it can obscure the more complicated social conditions under which vaccination decisions are made. People assess not only a vaccine's potential benefits and risks, but also the credibility of the institutions recommending it, the accessibility of appointments, and the consequences they believe may follow from accepting or declining it. Public discussion frequently treats hesitancy as a single attitude, yet reluctance can arise from quite different sources. One person may have unresolved questions about side effects; another may intend to be vaccinated but face inflexible work hours, transportation difficulties, or a shortage of nearby appointments. A third may distrust public institutions because previous encounters have left them feeling dismissed. Treating all three as simply uninformed can lead to interventions that are poorly matched to the obstacle. More information may help the first person, practical support may help the second, and sustained engagement may be necessary for the third. Trust is not established merely by repeating a recommendation more forcefully. It depends partly on whether institutions communicate uncertainty honestly, acknowledge the limits of available evidence, and correct mistakes without appearing to conceal them. A message that presents a vaccine as incapable of causing adverse effects may sound reassuring initially, but a later report of a rare reaction can undermine confidence far beyond the specific claim that proved inaccurate. Calibrated communication—one that distinguishes common temporary effects from uncommon serious events, and explains how safety signals are investigated—may be less absolute but more durable. At the same time, respect for individual decision-making does not mean that vaccination is exclusively a private matter. Infectious diseases can spread through networks, and the consequences of an outbreak are not distributed evenly. People who are medically unable to receive a particular vaccine, or whose immune response is limited, may depend more heavily on the reduced circulation of disease around them. This creates a legitimate public interest in high vaccination coverage, although the strength and form of any policy response must still be assessed in light of the disease, the vaccine, the setting, and the available alternatives. Mandates are therefore neither automatically justified nor inherently illegitimate. In a high-risk environment, a narrowly designed requirement may be defensible if less restrictive measures are inadequate and exemptions are handled fairly. In other circumstances, improving access, offering paid time off, or communicating through trusted local professionals may address the problem with fewer costs to autonomy and institutional trust. A policy that is proportionate on paper can also fail in practice if its burdens fall disproportionately on people with limited resources or if its rationale is not clearly explained. Ultimately, effective vaccination policy requires more than choosing between persuasion and compulsion. It requires identifying the actual barrier, evaluating the quality of the evidence, and considering who bears the costs of both action and inaction. Public confidence is not a substitute for scientific evaluation, but neither can scientific evidence alone determine how a policy should be implemented. The challenge is to protect health while maintaining the credibility, fairness, and practical accessibility on which lasting participation depends.

Instructions

Read the following article from a website.
Complete each statement by selecting the best option according to the information on the website.
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.

The reply to complete

I support vaccination programs, but I think public agencies sometimes make a strategic mistake when they assume that every hesitant person needs the same intervention. If the obstacle is a lack of convenient appointments, another information campaign may ___6___. Institutions also need to communicate about safety with care. If they promise certainty where the evidence supports only a strong but qualified conclusion, they risk ___7___ when new information emerges. Of course, individual choice does not erase the effects that infectious disease can have on others, particularly people who cannot rely on vaccination themselves. That is why a policy may reasonably pursue high coverage, but any restriction should be ___8___. Even a mandate that looks proportionate on paper could ___9___ if its burdens fall mainly on people with limited resources. In the long run, I would rather see officials identify the actual obstacle, explain the evidence honestly, and choose the least burdensome measure likely to work. This would make the policy both more credible and ___10___.

Questions & answer key10 questions

Your Reading result comes from how many questions you get right; there is no rubric, only the text. Each question below shows its answer with an explanation.

1Gap 6 in the reply
1. ✓leave the practical barrier unresolved
2. Bmake appointments easier to book
3. Csettle people's lingering concerns about side effects
4. Dreplace sustained engagement
Answer
A
The article matches information to the person with questions and "practical support" to the person facing a "shortage of nearby appointments." Information does nothing for a lack of appointments, so the barrier stays. Making booking easier is exactly what an information campaign cannot do. Side-effect concerns belong to a different person, and sustained engagement is the response to distrust, which this sentence does not address.
2Gap 7 in the reply
1. Aexaggerating the risk of side effects
2. Bslowing down safety investigations
3. Cdiscouraging people from asking questions
4. ✓undermining trust in later statements
Answer
D
The article warns that after an overconfident message, a rare reaction "can undermine confidence far beyond the specific claim that proved inaccurate." Promising certainty does the opposite of exaggerating risk. Safety investigations are something institutions should explain, not something this mistake slows down. And the article does not discuss discouraging questions.
3Gap 8 in the reply
1. Aapplied identically in every setting
2. ✓proportionate to the risk and alternatives
3. Capproved by a public vote before it applies
4. Dlimited to people who refuse information
Answer
B
Any policy response must be judged "in light of the disease, the vaccine, the setting, and the available alternatives" — that is, it must be proportionate. Applying it identically everywhere ignores the setting. A public vote is never mentioned. And targeting "people who refuse information" repeats the mistake of treating everyone as "simply uninformed."
4Gap 9 in the reply
1. Alose its legal basis
2. Bneed stricter enforcement
3. ✓fail in practice
4. Dbecome easier to justify
Answer
C
The article says a policy that is "proportionate on paper can also fail in practice if its burdens fall disproportionately on people with limited resources." The words "on paper" set up the contrast with how the policy works in practice. Legal basis and enforcement are not discussed, and an unfair burden makes a policy harder to justify, not easier.
5Gap 10 in the reply
1. ✓more responsive to people's circumstances
2. Bless dependent on whether the public trusts it
3. Cquicker to put in place
4. Dimmune to later criticism
Answer
A
Identifying "the actual obstacle" and choosing a measure that fits it means responding to the conditions people actually face — the "practical accessibility" the article ties to lasting participation. The approach depends on trust rather than reducing the need for it. Speed is never claimed. No policy is said to be beyond criticism.
6What is the main argument of the article?
1. AVaccination campaigns should rely mainly on legal requirements rather than voluntary participation.
2. BPublic confidence matters more than scientific evidence.
3. ✓Policy should address people's actual barriers while balancing health and fairness.
4. DPeople who hesitate about vaccination generally lack accurate information about its risks.
Answer
C
The article calls for "identifying the actual barrier" and protecting health "while maintaining the credibility, fairness, and practical accessibility" that participation depends on. It says mandates are "neither automatically justified nor inherently illegitimate," so it does not favour relying on them. It states that "Public confidence is not a substitute for scientific evaluation." And it warns against "Treating all three as simply uninformed."
7Why does the author describe three different sources of reluctance?
1. ✓To show that different obstacles call for different responses
2. BTo argue that access problems matter less than distrust
3. CTo recommend simpler vaccine information for everyone
4. DTo suggest that people who distrust institutions cannot be persuaded
Answer
A
The paragraph ends: "More information may help the first person, practical support may help the second, and sustained engagement may be necessary for the third." The three barriers are never ranked. Simpler information for everyone is the one-size approach the author criticizes. And distrust is said to need "sustained engagement," which implies it can be addressed, not that it is hopeless.
8What does the author suggest about communicating rare adverse effects?
1. AThey should be discussed only after a person has been vaccinated, to avoid causing unnecessary alarm.
2. BReports of them show that vaccine recommendations are unreliable.
3. CMentioning them usually discourages people from being vaccinated.
4. ✓Acknowledging them accurately can protect credibility better than absolute reassurance.
Answer
D
A message presenting a vaccine "as incapable of causing adverse effects" can backfire when "a later report of a rare reaction" appears, whereas calibrated communication "may be less absolute but more durable." Nothing suggests holding the information back until after vaccination. A rare reaction damages trust because of the overstated claim, not because recommendations are unreliable. And the author never says honest disclosure discourages vaccination.
9Under what circumstances does the author suggest a mandate may be defensible?
1. AWhen a majority of the public supports the requirement
2. ✓When the setting is high-risk, milder measures are inadequate, and exemptions are fair
3. CWhen vaccination rates fall below the target that health officials prefer
4. DWhen a vaccine has been shown in trials to cause no adverse effects of any kind
Answer
B
The article names three conditions: "In a high-risk environment, a narrowly designed requirement may be defensible if less restrictive measures are inadequate and exemptions are handled fairly." Public support is never given as a test. A falling rate on its own would make the mandate automatic, which the author rejects. And the article treats a vaccine "incapable of causing adverse effects" as an unrealistic claim, not a condition.
10Why does the author mention people who are medically unable to receive a particular vaccine?
1. ATo argue that mandates should not include exemptions
2. BTo illustrate a group whose reluctance comes from distrust of public institutions
3. ✓To explain why the public has a legitimate interest in high coverage
4. DTo show that vaccination is mainly a private decision
Answer
C
These people "may depend more heavily on the reduced circulation of disease around them," and the author concludes: "This creates a legitimate public interest in high vaccination coverage." The article insists elsewhere that exemptions be "handled fairly," not removed. These people are medically unable to be vaccinated; they are not reluctant. And the example is used to show that vaccination is not "exclusively a private matter."

Where answers slip

1Answering from your own view of the issue.
2Confusing two writers whose positions sit close together.
3Choosing a synonym that drops the writer's approval or criticism.

Try one yourself, under the clock

This page shows the key. Practice under the timer shows which kinds of question you keep missing — and that is the part worth fixing.

Start with a free account

Practise on questions built like the real test, have your Writing and Speaking marked by AI, and see how far you are from the CLB you need.

Create your free account →

See pricing

Common questions

How many questions are in Reading Part 4?: Paragon's test-format page lists 10 questions for Reading for Viewpoints. Many of them depend on understanding a writer's opinion, which is why this list focuses on stance words rather than topic words.
What if the article uses words I have never seen?: Paragon advises working out unfamiliar words from context instead of stopping. In opinion writing, the sentence after a hard word often restates the same idea more simply, so read on before deciding what it means.
How can I tell a writer's opinion when they never say "I think"?: Look at their word choices. Calling a plan misguided or shortsighted shows disapproval, while saying a council deserves credit shows support. Words that describe a plan often reveal the stance more clearly than any opinion phrase.

27 more Viewpoints prompts in the bank0 free

·Employee Tracking
·Cell Phones in Class
·Caring for the Elderly
·Banning Trans Fats
·Basic Income: Safety Net or Costly Experiment?
·Employee Tracking at Work
·Advertising to Children
·Caring for the Elderly
·The Debate Over Gun Control
·Advances in Cancer Research in Canada
·Medical Assistance in Dying
·Animal Testing: Scientific Progress and Ethical Limits
·Key Graduated Licensing Changes in B.C.
·Why Do We Dream?
·Modernizing Canada's Military Justice System
·Why Do Superstitions Survive?
·Should Canada Ban Plastic Bags?
·The Culture of Consumerism
·Composting in Canada
·Rethinking Retirement Savings
·The Modern Canadian Wedding
·Peer Pressure Among Canadian Teenagers
·The Hidden Cost of Fast Fashion in Canada
·Mom-and-Pop Shops in Canada
·Vanishing Honeybees
·Medical Tourism
·Distracted Driving in Canada

← All Reading practice Viewpoints vocabulary →CELPIP Reading format →Full mock exams →