CELPIP Reading Part 4: Reading for Viewpoints | Complete Guide

At a Glance

CELPIP Reading Part 4 is the section that separates good readers from great ones. The companion book is direct about this: “Part 4 is typically the hardest Reading section. You read a text where the author expresses opinions, makes arguments, or presents multiple viewpoints on an issue. Questions test whether you understand the author’s stance, can distinguish facts from opinions, and can recognise rhetorical strategies.”

This guide walks you through the structure of Part 4, the critical-reading approach you need, the trap of confusing reported views with the author’s view, and how Part 4 differs from anything you may have seen on IELTS or PTE.

What is CELPIP Reading Part 4?

Part 4 is called Reading for Viewpoints. You read an argumentative or opinion-based text and answer 10 multiple-choice questions. The text may be:

• An editorial from a Canadian newspaper
• An opinion column on a current social issue
• A persuasive essay arguing for or against a policy
• A reflective piece in which the author works through an issue and reaches a conclusion

The questions test four core skills:

1. Identifying the author’s main argument
2. Distinguishing the author’s view from views the author mentions
3. Understanding tone, attitude, and bias
4. Recognising rhetorical structures (concession, counter-argument, qualification)

Why Part 4 is hardest

The companion book frames it precisely: “The challenge here isn’t vocabulary or grammar. It’s critical reading. The author might present two sides of an argument before revealing their own position. Questions ask: ‘What is the author’s main argument?’ ‘Which statement would the author most likely agree with?’”

You cannot use surface skimming for Part 4. You must read for meaning, structure, and intent.

The Exact Format

You see one opinion text on the screen. Sometimes the text is paired with a short response from a reader, but the main text is the focus. The questions appear on the right side and require careful analysis.

Worked example: Editorial on screen time limits for children

Text:

Should Schools Limit Screen Time? A Necessary Conversation

The recent push from several Canadian school boards to impose strict limits on classroom screen time has reignited debate among educators, parents, and policymakers. Supporters of the limits, including some pediatric associations, argue that excessive device use is undermining attention spans, sleep quality, and social development in children. They point to studies showing that students who spend more than three hours daily on screens display higher rates of anxiety and lower academic performance. From this perspective, classroom limits seem an obvious safeguard.

Critics, however, have raised legitimate concerns. They argue that strict limits ignore the reality of modern education, where research, collaboration, and creative work increasingly happen on digital platforms. Banning screens during long stretches of the school day, they suggest, may leave students under-prepared for university and the workplace. Some educators also note that the heavy-handed approach treats all screen time as equivalent, when in fact a forty-minute coding lesson differs fundamentally from forty minutes of passive video consumption.

Both arguments contain valid points, but I believe the critics have the stronger case. Outright limits are a blunt tool for a problem that requires precision. The real issue is not screen time as a quantity but screen content as a quality - what students are doing with the devices, and whether the activity has educational value. A blanket two-hour cap punishes a class engaged in collaborative coding the same way it punishes a class watching unrelated YouTube videos. That makes no pedagogical sense.

What schools need is a more nuanced policy: clear guidelines on the types of screen activities that count as learning, paired with required breaks from passive consumption. Teachers should be empowered to use technology when it advances the curriculum and to set it aside when it does not. Asking school boards to enforce a single time limit across all subjects and ages is asking them to solve the wrong problem with the wrong instrument. We should hold our schools to a higher standard of pedagogical thinking - one that engages with how children actually learn in 2026 rather than retreating to a simpler era that no longer exists.

Sample questions

Q1. What is the author’s main argument?

A) Schools should ban screens entirely B) Screen time limits are a poor solution; nuanced content-based policies are better C) Pediatric associations exaggerate the risks of screen time D) Teachers should have no involvement in screen policies

The correct answer is B. The author’s argument is clearly stated in paragraphs 3 and 4: limits are blunt, content matters more than time, and nuanced policy is needed. Option A is the extreme position the author rejects. Option C misreads the author’s tone - they acknowledge pediatric concerns but disagree with the proposed solution. Option D contradicts paragraph 4, where the author wants teachers empowered.

Q2. What does the author concede about the supporters of screen time limits?

A) Their evidence is invented B) Their concerns about attention spans and sleep are valid C) Their proposed limits are the only reasonable solution D) Pediatricians have no role in this debate

The correct answer is B. The author concedes that the concerns are real but disagrees with the solution. Look at “Both arguments contain valid points.” This is a classic concession move.

Q3. Which statement would the author most likely agree with?

A) All screen time in schools should be eliminated by 2030 B) A forty-minute coding lesson has different educational value than forty minutes of video watching C) Pediatric associations should set classroom screen policy D) Teachers should not be trusted to make technology decisions

The correct answer is B. This is almost a direct paraphrase of the author’s third paragraph. The author would strongly disagree with A, C, and D.

Q4. The author’s overall tone can best be described as:

A) Hostile and dismissive B) Uncertain and conflicted C) Measured and persuasive D) Sarcastic and angry

The correct answer is C. The author acknowledges both sides, gives credit to opposing concerns, and argues calmly for a specific position. “Hostile” or “sarcastic” overstates the tone. “Uncertain” underplays the clear argumentative position.

The Critical Reading Strategy

Part 4 requires a different approach from Parts 1, 2, and 3. You cannot just locate facts. You must follow the author’s logic.

Step 1: Read the title and opening paragraph slowly

The opening paragraph often introduces the issue and may hint at the author’s position. In our example, “the recent push from several Canadian school boards to impose strict limits” presents the topic neutrally, but the author’s position will emerge later.

Step 2: Identify the structure

Most Part 4 texts follow one of three patterns:

Pattern A: Two views, then resolution

• Paragraph 1: Introduce the issue and Side A
• Paragraph 2: Present Side B
• Paragraph 3-4: Author’s position with reasoning

Pattern B: Author position first, then defence

• Paragraph 1: Author states position
• Paragraph 2-3: Reasons supporting position
• Paragraph 4: Address counter-arguments, conclude

Pattern C: Build through evidence

• Paragraph 1: Set up the question
• Paragraph 2-3: Evidence and analysis
• Paragraph 4: Conclusion that reveals the author’s stance

Our example follows Pattern A. The author waits until paragraph 3 to commit (“I believe the critics have the stronger case”).

Step 3: Mark the author’s commitment words

Look for first-person statements and evaluative language.

In our example, “I believe the critics have the stronger case” is unmistakable author voice. “Critics, however, have raised legitimate concerns” is a reported view.

Step 4: Watch concession structures

A concession is when an author admits a point to the opposing side before disagreeing. Concessions are everywhere in Part 4.

• “Both arguments contain valid points, but…”
• “While supporters make a fair point, they overlook…”
• “Although the concerns are real, the proposed solution misses…”

When you see a concession, the author is not endorsing the conceded point. They are acknowledging it to set up their disagreement.

Step 5: Verify each answer with the text

For every question, find the specific sentence or paragraph that supports your answer. Do not rely on overall impressions.

The Big Trap: Reported View vs Author View

This is where Part 4 marks are lost.

A test-taker reads paragraph 1 about screen-time limit supporters and assumes the author is on that side. Then in paragraph 3, the author says “I believe the critics have the stronger case.” Suddenly the answers the test-taker has chosen based on paragraph 1 are all wrong.

How to avoid this trap

1. Never commit to the author’s view until you have read the whole text.
2. Look for attribution phrases: “according to,” “some argue,” “supporters say.” Anything attributed to others is NOT necessarily the author’s view.
3. Look for evaluative language about the views. If the author calls a view “valid” but then disagrees, it is still not their view.
4. The author’s view is usually clearest in the final paragraph.

The companion warns explicitly: “The author might present two sides of an argument before revealing their own position. Don’t assume the first viewpoint mentioned is the author’s position.”

Tone and Attitude Questions

About two questions in every Part 4 ask about tone. Tone is the author’s attitude towards the subject, revealed through word choice.

Common Part 4 tones

• Measured: balanced, careful, considers multiple sides
• Persuasive: clearly arguing for a position
• Sceptical: doubts the prevailing view
• Concerned: worried about a trend or outcome
• Optimistic: hopeful about a development
• Critical: disagrees with a proposal or argument
• Reflective: thinking through an issue without a strong position

Words that signal tone

In our example, the author’s tone is measured and persuasive: they consider both sides, give credit to opposing concerns, and argue calmly for a specific position. “Critical” and “concerned” are too negative for this author.

Common Trap Patterns

Trap 1: Confusing reported with stated

The text mentions that critics argue X. A question asks what the author believes. You pick X. But the author argues against X, or the author endorses Y, or the author is neutral. Always trace the view to its source.

Trap 2: Extreme answers

The author argues for a nuanced policy. An option says “the author wants to ban all screens.” Extreme answers are usually wrong. CELPIP authors prefer moderate, qualified positions.

Trap 3: Personal opinion bias

You agree with screen-time limits, so you pick the option that supports them. But the author argues against them. Set your own views aside and read what the author actually says.

Trap 4: Half-true options

An option contains one true claim and one false claim about the author’s view. Both must be true. Read the full option carefully.

Trap 5: Misreading concession

The author says “Both arguments contain valid points.” A test-taker picks an option that says “the author supports both arguments equally.” But the author then commits to one side. Concession is not endorsement.

Trap 6: Last-paragraph oversight

A test-taker reads through the first three paragraphs, decides on the author’s view, and stops. They miss the final paragraph where the author qualifies or extends their argument. The companion warns: “Skip the last paragraph - it often contains the author’s conclusion and true stance.”

Inference Questions in Part 4

Several questions in Part 4 ask what the author would agree with, what the author implies, or what can be inferred from a specific paragraph. These require careful inference.

A good inference framework

For each option, ask:

1. Is it consistent with the author’s stated position?
2. Does it match the author’s tone and reasoning?
3. Would the author have any reason to disagree with this statement?

If the option passes all three, it is a good candidate. If it fails any, eliminate it.

Example from our text

Question: Which statement would the author most likely agree with?

• “All screen time in schools should be eliminated by 2030.” Fails check 1: the author opposes blanket limits.
• “A forty-minute coding lesson has different educational value than forty minutes of video watching.” Passes all three: the author specifically makes this distinction.
• “Pediatric associations should set classroom screen policy.” Fails check 2: the author wants teachers empowered, not pediatricians dictating policy.
• “Teachers should not be trusted to make technology decisions.” Fails check 1: the author explicitly wants teachers empowered.

Only one option passes all three checks. That is the correct answer.

CELPIP vs IELTS GT vs PTE Core

The most important difference: only CELPIP makes the reported-versus-stated distinction a routine question type. You will not have prepared for this on any other test.

Vocabulary for Part 4

Part 4 vocabulary includes argumentative language, attribution phrases, and evaluative terms.

Argument structure words

claim, argue, contend, maintain, suggest, propose, assert, dispute, refute, concede, acknowledge, qualify, clarify, advocate, oppose, endorse

Attribution phrases

according to, in the view of, as X argues, supporters of, critics of, those who believe, opponents claim, advocates suggest

Evaluative adjectives

valid, legitimate, compelling, persuasive, flawed, dubious, questionable, problematic, balanced, one-sided, nuanced, simplistic

Concession and contrast

while, although, however, on the other hand, nevertheless, despite, in spite of, that said, even so, granted that

First-person commitment

I believe, in my view, from my perspective, I would argue, it seems to me, on balance, I am convinced that

When these phrases jump out as you read, you can map the argument structure in real time.

Time Management for Part 4

Part 4 deserves the largest time budget of any reading part. Here is how to spend it.

If you run short, the companion’s tip applies: “Answer the first and last questions first. The first question usually asks about the opening, and the last often asks about the conclusion. These are quickest to answer.”

Test Day Checklist for Part 4

• Read the full text before answering any question
• Identify the structure: which paragraph contains the author’s view?
• Mark concessions: do not confuse them with endorsement
• Distinguish reported views from author views using attribution phrases
• Watch tone words: unfortunately, clearly, surprisingly
• Verify every answer with a specific sentence
• Eliminate extreme options - the author usually qualifies their position
• Skip and flag any question over two minutes
• Save 2 minutes at the end for flagged questions
• If running low on time, answer Q1 and Q10 first
• Never leave a question blank

How to Practice Part 4

Part 4 improvement comes from deep reading practice, not speed drills. Build the skill before you build the speed.

14-day Part 4 plan

Days 1-3: Read editorials slowly

Read three Canadian editorials per day from CBC, Globe and Mail opinion section, or Toronto Star. For each, identify in writing: the issue, the views presented, the author’s position, the tone. This is the core skill.

Days 4-7: Concession spotting

Take ten editorials. Underline every concession phrase (“while,” “although,” “valid point but”). Verify what the author actually believes versus what they conceded.

Days 8-11: Timed CELPIP Part 4 practice

Work through four Part 4 sets in 16 minutes each. For every wrong answer, identify which trap caught you: reported-vs-stated, concession, extreme, personal opinion, half-true.

Days 12-14: Full reading sections

Do full 55-minute sections. Save 16 minutes for Part 4 every time. If you cannot, your earlier-part pacing needs work.

When Part 4 Feels Impossible

Some Part 4 texts are dense, abstract, or on unfamiliar topics. If you open one and feel lost:

1. Take 10 seconds to breathe.
2. Read just the first and last paragraphs. The author’s position is usually there.
3. Skim the middle paragraphs for tone and structure words.
4. Answer Q1 (about the opening) and Q10 (about the conclusion) first.
5. Tackle remaining questions in the order of confidence.

You will not enjoy every Part 4 text. You do not have to. You just have to read it accurately enough to choose the right answers.

Ready to Practice CELPIP Reading Part 4?

Part 4 is the part where preparation pays the biggest dividend. The students who score CELPIP 10 or higher in Reading are almost always the ones who have done dozens of Part 4 sets and learned to spot the reported-vs-stated trap automatically.

Marvel Education’s CELPIP practice software gives you timed Part 4 drills with full explanations, including paragraph-by-paragraph mapping of the author’s argument and reported views. Build the critical reading skill that turns Part 4 from your worst section into your strongest.