CAEL Writing: Two Tasks, Data Interpretation, and Source Integration
CAEL Writing is 60 minutes and has two tasks. Task 1 (about 20 minutes, roughly 150 words) asks you to describe and interpret a graph, table, or chart. Task 2 (about 40 minutes, roughly 300–350 words) asks for an academic essay that responds to a prompt and draws on the Reading and Listening material from the same theme. Both tasks are scored for task fulfilment, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy.
Core rules
- Task 1: open with an overview sentence, then select the two or three most significant features; compare, group, and use approximate figures. Do not give opinions or explanations you cannot support from the visual.
- Task 2: state a clear position in the introduction, develop it in body paragraphs, and use evidence from both the reading and the lecture. Paraphrase source material; general attribution (“the reading argues,” “the lecturer points out”) is enough.
- Both tasks: use paragraphing, topic sentences, and linking devices; leave time to check subject-verb agreement, articles, and word forms.
Worked example: Task 2 reasoning
Prompt: “Should cities charge drivers to enter the downtown core?” Reading: congestion pricing reduced traffic 20% in Stockholm but hurt low-income drivers. Lecture: a Vancouver planner says revenue can fund transit, but warns that without exemptions, pricing is regressive. Weak thesis: “Congestion pricing has pros and cons.” Strong thesis: “Congestion pricing can reduce downtown traffic, but it is only fair if revenue funds transit and low-income drivers receive exemptions.” Reasoning: the strong thesis takes a position, integrates both sources, and sets up the essay’s structure (effectiveness plus equity condition).
Traps
- Task 1: listing every data point and never stating an overview.
- Task 2: ignoring the listening source and using only the reading.
- Overquoting long passages instead of paraphrasing.
- Writing a one-sided essay when the prompt asks you to consider both sources.
- Going far under the word count, which limits development and loses marks.