Reading Guide
CELPIP Reading Part 4: Viewpoints and Opinions Strategy
Last updated: June 2026
By Mark Wilson · Updated June 2026
Part 4 at a glance
Part 4 presents two letters or short articles expressing opposing viewpoints on a topic. You answer 8–9 questions requiring you to distinguish between the two authors' positions, identify opinion vs. fact, and recognise agreement/disagreement. Most test-takers find this the hardest part of Reading.
Why Part 4 is difficult
Part 4 is challenging for two reasons. First, you are managing two texts simultaneously — you need to remember which author said what, which is easy to confuse under time pressure. Second, the questions often use paraphrased language rather than quoting the text directly, so a literal word-match approach does not work.
Most test-takers who score CLB 7 in Reading but CLB 5–6 on Part 4 specifically are making one of three errors: (1) confusing Author A's position with Author B's, (2) treating inferred opinions as stated facts, or (3) spending too long on Part 4 and rushing the rest.
Recommended approach for Part 4
Step 1: Read the questions before reading the texts
Before reading either text, skim the questions. You are looking for two things: (a) which author is being asked about in each question, and (b) what topic or keyword is referenced. This prevents you from reading the texts passively — you will read with purpose.
Step 2: Label each paragraph by author as you read
As you read Text A and Text B, mentally label each paragraph's main point with a one-word note: "agrees", "disagrees", "concedes", "argues", "criticises". When a question asks "What does Author A imply about X?", you will know which paragraph to return to.
Step 3: Use the agree/disagree scaffold
Many Part 4 questions follow a predictable pattern:
- "Both authors agree that..." → find a point where both texts share a position
- "Author B disagrees with Author A's claim that..." → find where one text explicitly or implicitly contradicts the other
- "Author A implies that..." → look for hedged language (might, could, arguably, it seems)
- "Which of the following is NOT mentioned by Author A?" → process of elimination against the text
Step 4: Eliminate extremes
Wrong answers in Part 4 typically fall into one of two traps: they are too absolute ("Author A believes X is completely wrong") when the text says something more measured, or they attribute to Author A something that only Author B says. When in doubt, choose the answer that most closely mirrors the language in the text — paraphrased but not distorted.
Common question types and how to handle them
Identifying the main argument
Usually in the first or last paragraph of each text. Authors tend to state their central position early and restate it at the end.
Fact vs. opinion
Facts are stated without hedging ('The program costs $4 million'). Opinions use hedging language ('arguably', 'in my view', 'it seems that'). The question will often ask you to identify which type of claim is being made.
Author's purpose
Why did they write this? Options usually include: to criticise, to propose a solution, to compare, to warn, to inform. Choose based on tone — critical language signals criticism, not balanced informing.
Inference questions
These ask what an author implies but does not state. The answer will be logically supported by the text but not directly quoted. Avoid answers that go further than the text supports.
Time allocation
CELPIP Reading has 47–53 minutes for all four parts. Part 4 should take no more than 14 minutes. If you are consistently going over, the issue is usually re-reading — each sentence twice because you did not read the questions first. Fixing Step 1 above typically brings Part 4 time down by 3–4 minutes without reducing accuracy.
Vocabulary that signals opinion in CELPIP Part 4
These words in the texts typically signal that the statement is the author's opinion, not a fact — which affects how you answer fact/opinion questions:
- Hedging: arguably, seemingly, apparently, in my view, it appears that, one might suggest
- Probability: likely, possibly, probably, may, might, could
- Attribution: according to some, critics argue, proponents claim, the evidence suggests