10 Letter Practice Questions with Answers | Cambridge C2 Proficiency
In Part 2 of the Cambridge C2 Proficiency (CPE) Writing paper, you choose one task from a list, and a letter or email is one of the options. You read a situation, then write a formal letter of 280 to 320 words that explains a problem, sets out its consequences, and makes clear requests. This post gives you 10 C2 Proficiency letter practice questions with model answers. Each answer is written at C2 level and shows how to open with the right greeting, build a clear and formal argument, make precise requests, and close with a matched sign-off.
Letter 1
An academic journal has printed the reference list from another article beneath your article, making your citations inaccurate in both its issue and downloadable file. Write to the production editor explaining the scholarly consequences, requesting a corrected digital issue and reader notice, and recommending production safeguards against recurrence.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Production Editor,
I am writing about my article in the journal's latest issue. The text and numbered citations are mine, but the reference list printed beneath it belongs to the preceding article. The same error appears in the downloadable issue and in the separate article file.
This is not a cosmetic problem. Readers cannot identify or verify any source I cite, while several authors whose work does not appear in my article are incorrectly associated with it. A colleague has already asked whether two references were omitted deliberately. If libraries archive the present file, the error may persist after the journal website is corrected. Citation databases may also import inaccurate information from the article.
Please replace the separate article file and the complete digital issue with corrected, clearly dated versions. The article page should carry a prominent correction notice explaining exactly which files were affected and when they were replaced. Subscribers and indexing services that received the original version should be notified directly. I would also appreciate a final proof of the restored reference list before publication, together with confirmation that its links and citation numbers have been checked. For the printed issue, the next available number should include a formal correction that supplies the correct list.
To prevent recurrence, references should remain attached to their article by a persistent production identifier rather than by position within a combined document. Automated checks could compare the authors named in citations with the corresponding list and flag an unexpected complete change between proof and publication. Most importantly, authors should receive the assembled final article, including references, not only the main text, for approval.
I recognise that production errors can occur, but prompt and transparent correction is essential to protect readers, cited researchers and the journal's record. Please confirm the proposed timetable and the person responsible for contacting archives and indexing services.
Yours faithfully,
A. Writer
Letter 2
A bicycle-share docking point accepted and locked your bicycle, but the service continued charging you and later reported the bicycle as missing. Write to the operations director explaining the evidence and financial consequences, requesting correction and reimbursement, and recommending reliable return confirmation and fault reporting.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Operations Director,
I am writing about a hired bicycle that your own docking point accepted and locked, but which your service has continued to charge for and has now reported as missing.
On the evening of 3 May I returned bicycle number 4471 to the Riverside station. The docking arm engaged, the lock light turned green, and the unit displayed a return confirmation. Despite this, the app has gone on billing me by the minute, and yesterday I received an automated notice holding me liable for a bicycle that was "not returned". I have kept a time-stamped photograph of the docked bicycle, the green indicator and the on-screen confirmation, together with the station identifier.
The consequences are not trivial. My account has accrued several days of continuous hire charges, and the missing-bicycle notice threatens a replacement fee that far exceeds them. More seriously, such a notice may be recorded against my membership and shared with the payment provider, damaging my standing for a fault that lies entirely with the equipment or its data.
I would be grateful if you would cancel every charge accrued after the confirmed return, withdraw the missing-bicycle report, and reimburse any sum already taken. I would also ask for written confirmation that no adverse note remains on my account.
To prevent recurrence, a successful docking should trigger an immediate confirmation to the rider, by message as well as on screen, and should close the hire in your billing system at that same moment rather than through a separate reconciliation. A visible fault-reporting option at each station, issuing a reference number on submission, would let riders flag a discrepancy before any penalty is generated.
Please confirm the corrections and the timetable for reimbursement.
Yours sincerely,
R. Alvarez
Letter 3
Your professional association's journal has published salary survey findings without defining the sample, occupational categories or calculation method. Write a letter to the editor explaining how the figures may be misused, requesting a methodological note and any necessary correction, and recommending minimum standards for future survey reports.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Editor,
I am writing about the salary survey reported in the July issue. The article states that members' average pay has risen by 11 per cent and that one specialism now earns substantially more than another. It does not define the sample, occupational categories or calculation used.
These omissions make the figures unsafe to interpret. A mean based on a small number of very highly paid respondents could rise while most salaries remain unchanged. If the latest survey reached more senior members than the previous one, the reported increase may reflect composition rather than improved pay. The categories are equally important: readers cannot know whether part-time work, management responsibility, region or self-employment has been treated consistently. Employers are already repeating the headline online, while job applicants may use it to judge offers that are not comparable.
Please publish a methodological note stating the invitation method, response count, relevant membership population and response rate. It should define each occupational group, reference period and treatment of missing, part-time and extreme values. Both median and mean should be supplied with the number of responses behind each comparison. If the two surveys used materially different samples, the claim of an 11 per cent rise should be corrected rather than merely qualified.
Future survey reports should place these details beside the findings, not behind an unlabelled link. Every chart should show its base, measure and currency period. Comparisons across years should identify changes in questionnaire or classification, and small groups should be suppressed or combined to protect confidentiality and prevent unstable conclusions. A short independent methods review before publication would also be proportionate.
Salary evidence can support fair negotiation only when readers can see what has been measured. Transparency will strengthen, rather than distract from, the journal's reporting.
Yours faithfully,
A concerned association member
Letter 4
A community orchestra advertised a rehearsal as open to everyone, but you and a younger companion were refused entry because of an age restriction that appeared nowhere in the publicity. Write a letter to the orchestra manager explaining the personal and community impact, requesting an appropriate remedy, and recommending a transparent entry policy for future rehearsals.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Orchestra Manager,
I am writing about the open rehearsal advertised for last Saturday, which my young companion and I were turned away from on arrival because of an age restriction that appeared nowhere in the publicity.
The rehearsal was promoted, in print and online, as "open to everyone", with no mention of a minimum age or any condition of entry. On that understanding I travelled across the city with a twelve-year-old who had been looking forward to hearing a full orchestra rehearse for the first time. We were refused at the door, without explanation beyond a rule that no notice had disclosed. The disappointment was acute, and being turned back in front of other arrivals was needlessly embarrassing for a child.
The wider consequence matters more than our single wasted evening. An orchestra that presents itself as a community resource, and that depends on public goodwill and future audiences, cannot advertise open access and then apply an unpublished bar at the door. Families who hear of such an experience will not risk a second one, and the young listeners most worth attracting are precisely the ones an unannounced age limit turns away.
I would be grateful if you would offer a genuine remedy: reserved places for the two of us at a future rehearsal we may actually attend, and an acknowledgement that the advertised terms were not honoured.
To prevent this recurring, any condition of entry, including an age limit and the reason for it, should be stated plainly in every advertisement and on the booking page, not held in reserve for the door. Where a rehearsal genuinely suits all ages, the publicity should say so without qualification.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
H. Okonkwo
Letter 5
A museum label presents an uncertain story from your family's oral history as a confirmed fact about a donated object. Write a letter to the museum's interpretation editor explaining how the label distorts the account. Request a correction, and recommend how contributors, attribution and uncertainty should be handled in future labels.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Interpretation Editor,
I am writing about the label accompanying my family's donated workshop gauge. It states that my great-grandmother used the instrument while supervising wartime aircraft production. Our recorded interview offered this only as a possibility. She worked at the factory, but no surviving relative knows her exact role or whether this particular gauge was there.
The current wording turns a valuable uncertainty into an attractive certainty. Visitors cannot distinguish what the object demonstrates from what the family remembers, and future researchers may cite the label as evidence. The problem is not that oral history is unreliable; it is that the source and degree of confidence have disappeared.
Please replace the sentence with wording such as: “The donor's family associates this gauge with her great-grandmother's wartime factory work, although her role and the instrument's use are not documented.” The online catalogue should be corrected as well, with the earlier text retained in the internal revision record. Until correction, the gallery should add a temporary notice making clear that the account is a family recollection rather than documented provenance. I would appreciate confirmation before the new wording is printed.
For future donations, labels should identify whether a claim comes from an object record, published research or a contributor's recollection. Phrases indicating uncertainty need not weaken a display; they show visitors how historical knowledge is assembled. Contributors should receive the factual section for review, while curators retain responsibility for interpretation. Where accounts conflict, the disagreement should be stated rather than silently resolved.
Our family is pleased that the gauge is displayed. We ask only that its significance comes from the evidence it genuinely carries. Accurate attribution would respect both the museum's visitors and the tentative, collaborative nature of the memory we shared.
Yours faithfully, The donor's representative
Letter 6
You purchased a scholarly e-book whose linked footnotes have since been changed without a visible version history. Some quotations and page references in your work can no longer be verified against the edition you used. Write a letter to the publisher's digital editions director explaining the academic consequences, requesting restoration or access to the earlier version, and recommending how future updates should be recorded and communicated.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Digital Editions Director,
I am writing about the electronic edition of Methods in Coastal History that I purchased in March. The linked footnotes have since been altered, but the file still displays the same publication date and contains no version record.
This has created a serious academic problem. My forthcoming article quotes two notes and cites their electronic locations. Those links now lead to rewritten text, while one source formerly listed there has disappeared. A reader checking my references could reasonably conclude that I quoted inaccurately. Because the platform automatically replaces the earlier file, I cannot demonstrate which edition informed my work. The absence of this evidence also weakens confidence in every unchanged note, since readers cannot distinguish stability from unnoticed revision.
I ask the publisher to restore access to the version supplied at purchase, either within my account or as an archived file. The current edition should display a revision date, a stable version identifier and a concise list of substantive changes. Please also confirm whether the deleted source was removed as a correction or accidentally omitted.
Future updates should not silently overwrite scholarly evidence. Minor typographical repairs may be noted in a cumulative log, but changes to citations, quotations or interpretation require a new version. Existing purchasers should receive notice and retain access to the file they originally used. Each footnote link should resolve within a specified version rather than point to text that can change while the citation remains apparently stable.
Digital publication can correct errors more quickly than print, but that advantage depends on preserving the route by which earlier readers reached their conclusions. Such a record is essential for reliable academic citation. I would appreciate confirmation of the restoration timetable and the version policy you intend to adopt.
Yours faithfully,
A concerned reader and researcher
Letter 7
A museum you support has replaced website and desk membership renewals with a smartphone application, without consulting existing members. Write to the membership director explaining the access, privacy and payment problems this creates, requesting equivalent renewal channels, and recommending how future changes should be communicated and tested.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Membership Director,
I am writing as a long-standing member to raise serious concerns about the decision to move all membership renewals to a smartphone application, withdrawing both the website and the desk as renewal options without any consultation of existing members.
The change assumes that every member owns a recent smartphone and is willing to install and trust a single app. Many are not. Older members and those without a compatible device can no longer renew through any channel they can use, and the loss of the staffed desk removes the one route that offered help in person. For anyone who relied on the website from a shared or public computer, renewal has simply disappeared.
The application also raises questions that were never put to us. It requests permissions and account details well beyond what a renewal requires, and it is not clear what is collected, where it is stored, or whether membership can be maintained without agreeing to them. Concentrating payment in a single app, with card details retained by default, narrows choice and increases exposure should the system be compromised.
I would be grateful if you would restore equivalent renewal channels, namely renewal through the website and renewal at the desk, and keep them available alongside the application rather than in place of it.
For future changes, I would ask that members be consulted before a channel is withdrawn, not after, and that any new system be tested with a representative group, including members who do not use smartphones, before it becomes the only option. A clear notice of what is changing, why, and what alternatives remain would preserve the trust on which membership depends.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
M. Petrova
Letter 8
A community festival advertised pay-what-you-can tickets, but its online checkout added a substantial default contribution that was difficult to remove. Write an email to the ticketing manager explaining why the experience was misleading and how it could affect access, requesting an appropriate correction for current buyers, and recommending a genuinely transparent payment design.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Ticketing Manager,
I am writing about the festival's pay-what-you-can booking page. The advertised flexibility encouraged me to book for a group whose members have different incomes. At checkout, however, a contribution of 30 per ticket was added automatically. Removing it required opening a faint secondary link and entering a custom amount twice.
This design contradicts the scheme's stated purpose. A buyer may assume the default is a required minimum, particularly because the final total appears before any explanation. Someone booking quickly or using a small screen could pay more than intended, while a person unable to afford the default may abandon the booking rather than disclose difficulty. The page therefore turns an inclusive offer into a test of digital confidence.
Please contact purchasers who paid the default contribution, explain that other amounts were available and offer a simple partial refund where the payment did not reflect their choice. The booking page should be corrected before further promotion.
A transparent design would begin with an unselected set of clearly labelled options, including a free or minimum-cost ticket, a standard contribution and a supporter amount. A custom field should be equally visible. No option should be described as more generous in a way that pressures buyers, although the page can explain factually how additional contributions support access. The selected amount must remain visible beside each ticket throughout checkout. A genuinely optional contribution should remain understandable without forcing buyers to compare the interface with promotional claims.
The festival should also publish an accessibility contact for anyone unable to use the revised checkout. Pay-what-you-can works only when the person paying makes a real choice. I hope the festival will treat this as an opportunity to align the booking process with the inclusive principle used in its publicity.
Yours sincerely,
A festival visitor
Letter 9
Your local council has disabled the audible signals at several pedestrian crossings overnight after nearby residents complained about noise. Write a letter to the council's traffic accessibility officer explaining the consequences for people who rely on the signals, challenging how the change was made, and requesting both an immediate solution and a more inclusive review.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Traffic Accessibility Officer,
I am writing about the decision to disable audible signals at three pedestrian crossings between 22.00 and 06.00 following complaints from nearby residents.
For blind and partially sighted pedestrians, the signals are not an optional convenience. At night, traffic may be lighter but is often faster, and reduced background noise makes an incorrect judgement especially dangerous. The crossings concerned connect the late bus route with residential streets and a hospital entrance, so they continue to be used by shift workers and patients. Since the change, people who cannot confirm the signal visually must either wait for assistance or make a substantial detour.
Residents' concerns about repeated noise deserve a response. However, removing an access feature before consulting those who depend on it transfers the entire burden to a smaller, less visible group. The published notice gives no evidence that quieter equipment, directional sound or demand-activated operation was tested.
I request immediate restoration of the signals at their lowest safe volume while an inclusive review takes place. The review should involve access organisations, residents, traffic engineers and night-time users. It should measure sound inside nearby homes, examine collision and footfall data, and test directional speakers and rotating tactile indicators. Any trial alternative must be independently checked by people who actually use audible crossings. Clear temporary signs at each affected crossing should explain the interim setting and provide both a telephone and an online contact.
Please also publish the decision criteria and a timetable. The council should publish all tested options, including those rejected and the reasons. Accessibility adjustments should not be suspended first and investigated later.
A solution can protect residents from unnecessary noise without making independent night travel unsafe. I would welcome confirmation of the interim arrangement and how users can participate in the review.
Yours faithfully, A local resident
Letter 10
A theatre has replaced an advertised relaxed performance with a standard performance after tickets were sold, without explaining the access implications. Write to the access and operations manager explaining the consequences for your party, requesting an equivalent remedy and clear information, and recommending controls for future changes to access-designated events.
Write your letter or email in 280 to 320 words.
Model answer
Dear Access and Operations Manager,
I am writing about the performance on 9 May, which was advertised and booked as a relaxed performance but was replaced, after tickets had been sold, with a standard performance, with no explanation of what the change meant for those who had chosen it deliberately.
A relaxed performance is not a minor variant. My party booked it precisely because it promised adjusted lighting and sound, freedom to move and make noise, and a supportive atmosphere for a companion who cannot manage a conventional auditorium. Presented instead with full effects and standard expectations, we had to leave early, and an outing planned carefully around the relaxed conditions became distressing rather than enjoyable. Others who had made the same choice were, I imagine, placed in the same position.
The failure was not only the change itself but the silence around it. No one told ticket-holders that the access provisions they had booked would no longer apply, so we discovered the difference only once we were seated and committed.
I would be grateful if you would provide an equivalent remedy: seats at a genuine relaxed performance of the same production, or a full refund where no such performance can be offered, together with a clear account of why the substitution was made.
To prevent this recurring, any change to an access-designated event should require the access team's approval before it is made, and every affected ticket-holder should be informed directly, in good time, of what is changing and what alternatives exist. An access booking is a commitment to specific conditions, and it should not be altered as though it were an ordinary ticket.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
J. Whitfield