This is an ethics scenario — one of the nine core aspects assessed in CASPer. Ethics questions explore how you navigate situations where doing the right thing comes at a personal cost. In this case, that cost is your friendship with Jamie.

Programs use scenarios like this because the professional environments you're entering require people who can act with integrity even when it's uncomfortable. Witnessing potential misconduct and choosing how to respond is directly relevant to any setting where fairness to colleagues and institutional trust are at stake.

This scenario isn't testing your rule knowledge. It's asking whether you can hold multiple perspectives at once — Jamie's circumstances, the fairness owed to other students, and your own values — and reach a thoughtful, reasoned response under time pressure.

CASPer scenarios always include two questions, and they are usually different question types. Understanding the difference matters because each type requires a different approach.

Question 1 is situational — it asks what you would do. The focus here is on action and decision-making. A strong answer acknowledges the perspectives of everyone involved before explaining what steps you would take and why your approach matters.

Question 2 is a judgment question — it asks you to weigh two options against each other. The focus is on analysis and reasoning. A strong answer doesn't just list pros and cons; it reaches a considered position on which approach is fairest and explains why.

Many students make the mistake of answering both questions the same way. Recognising what each question type is asking for — and adjusting your response accordingly — is one of the clearest signs of a well-prepared applicant.

Ethics scenarios are harder than they look. Most applicants know that academic dishonesty is wrong — that's not what's being tested. What trips people up is the human layer: Jamie is a friend, Jamie has been struggling, and what you saw was ambiguous. You didn't see Jamie copy an answer. You saw Jamie glance at something under the desk.

Weaker responses tend to collapse this complexity into a simple binary: report or don't report. Stronger responses hold the tension between loyalty and integrity, acknowledge that the situation is not clear-cut, and still manage to take a principled position. That balance, empathy and action together, is exactly what competitive programs are looking for.

The second question adds another layer. Students often treat the pros-and-cons format as an invitation to stay neutral. But a strong answer reaches a conclusion. Being able to weigh competing approaches and commit to a reasoned position is a core professional skill.

There is no word count requirement in CASPer. You have 3 minutes 30 seconds to answer both questions, so quality of thinking matters more than word count.

That said, very short responses tend to fall flat because they don't give the reader enough to work with. A response of two or three sentences rarely has room for the depth, reasoning, and perspective-taking a strong answer needs. Equally, padding a response with repetition or filler doesn't help; it just dilutes the quality of what you've written.

The most practical approach is to aim for responses that fully address what the question is asking — no more, no less. For a situational question, that means acknowledging the situation, explaining your actions, and connecting them to why they matter. For a judgment question, it means validating both options, analysing the trade-offs, and reaching a position. If you've done all of that clearly, the length will take care of itself.