A team member who has gone quiet — one of the most frequently appearing CASPer collaboration scenarios, fully analyzed by a former evaluator.
This is a collaboration scenario — one of the nine core aspects assessed in CASPer. Collaboration questions explore how you work with others, particularly when the group dynamic is under strain. In this case, the strain is a team member who has gone missing, and a group that wants to escalate immediately.
Programs use scenarios like this because teamwork is fundamental to every professional environment you will enter. Whether you are working with colleagues on a project, in a team setting, or across an organization, you will need to navigate situations where people are not pulling their weight — and how you handle those situations reveals a great deal about your character and professional judgment.
What evaluators are looking for here is not whether you take the group's side or Alex's side. They want to see whether you can hold the complexity — the group's frustration is legitimate, and Alex's silence could mean anything — and respond in a way that is fair, constructive, and thoughtful.
You are working on a major group project worth 40% of your final grade. There are four people in your group, and one member — Alex — has missed the last two meetings and hasn't completed any of the tasks they agreed to. The deadline is in one week. The rest of the group is frustrated and wants to tell the professor.
Alex hasn't responded to the group chat in four days and hasn't offered any explanation for their absence.
Before you read the analysis below, try it yourself. In the real test you get 60 seconds to read and reflect, then 3 minutes 30 seconds to answer both questions. Read the scenario above, give yourself a moment to think, then start the timer and write your responses. Come back and see how your thinking compares.
Do you think it would be appropriate for the group to tell the professor at this stage? Why or why not?
🟪 JudgmentAssume that Alex is currently going through a stressful period and was more affected by the group's frustration than you realized. How, if at all, would this impact your response to the previous question? Explain your reasoning.
🟪 JudgmentBoth questions in this version are judgment questions. That means the focus is not simply on what you would do, but on how well you weigh competing responsibilities.
Question 1 asks whether escalation is appropriate. A strong answer recognizes the group's legitimate concern about the deadline and workload, while also considering whether Alex has been given a fair chance to explain what is happening.
Question 2 adds new emotional context. A strong answer explains what would change, what would stay the same, and why compassion for Alex still needs to be balanced with accountability to the group.
Use these as examples of the kind of judgment and reasoning a strong response might show. They are not scripts to memorize.
The group has valid concerns about fairness, workload, and the deadline, but escalation without context could be premature and unfair to Alex.
Reporting may protect the group's grade and create a formal record of the issue, especially because the project is worth a significant portion of the final grade. However, going straight to the professor risks assuming Alex is careless when there may be a serious reason for their silence. A fairer first step would be one direct, time-limited attempt to contact Alex, explain the impact, and ask whether they can realistically contribute.
If Alex remains unreachable or cannot complete the work, involving the professor becomes appropriate to protect the whole group.
Learning that Alex is under significant stress would make compassion more central, but it would not erase the group's legitimate concerns.
I would adjust my response by approaching Alex more gently, avoiding blame, and asking what support or reduced role might be realistic. I would also be careful not to share Alex's personal situation without permission. However, the deadline and unequal workload still matter, so I would help the group create a practical backup plan and, if needed, speak to the professor in a way that protects Alex's privacy.
The fairest response balances empathy for Alex with accountability to the group and the shared academic outcome.
Evaluators notice how well you engage with the scenario, whether you consider multiple perspectives, and how thoroughly you address the core issues. Here is what separates low, medium, and high responses on this scenario.
Collaboration scenarios look simple on the surface — someone isn't doing their share, so you deal with it. But the real test is in how you deal with it. The group wants to escalate, and that pressure can make escalation feel like the obvious answer. Many students go along with the group's instinct without pausing to think.
What makes this scenario harder is the ambiguity around Alex. Four days of silence could mean anything — a personal crisis, a family emergency, or genuine disengagement. A high-scoring response recognizes that you don't actually know which it is, and that this uncertainty should shape how you act. Assuming the worst about Alex without trying to understand the situation is a low-scoring move, even if it feels decisive.
The second question is also trickier than it appears because the new information changes the emotional landscape without removing the deadline or the group's concerns. A strong response does not abandon accountability, but it does adjust the tone, timing, and level of support offered to Alex.
Collaboration scenarios are not about finding one perfect answer or taking one person's side. They are designed to test whether you can stay fair, calm, and thoughtful when a group dynamic becomes tense.
Strong responses usually show three things: you understand the pressure on the group, you avoid making assumptions about the person who has gone quiet, and you explain a fair next step. In this scenario, that means recognizing both the deadline pressure and the possibility that Alex may have a valid reason for not responding.
The best preparation is to practice explaining your reasoning clearly. Don't just say what you would do. Show why your approach protects fairness, communication, accountability, and the working relationship within the group.
There is no word count requirement in CASPer. Evaluators are not counting words — they are reading for quality of thinking.
Very short responses almost always score lower because they don't give the evaluator enough to work with. Equally, padding a response with repetition doesn't help. The most practical approach is to aim for responses that fully address what the question is asking — no more, no less. If you've acknowledged the perspectives involved, explained your actions, and connected them to why they matter, the length will take care of itself.
Collaboration scenarios assess how you work with others toward a shared goal — particularly when things aren't going smoothly. Evaluators want to see that you can manage conflict constructively, consider the perspectives of all team members, and take action that is fair and effective rather than reactive.
There is no single right answer. What evaluators are looking for is whether you have considered all perspectives and can justify your approach. Jumping straight to reporting without attempting direct communication first is often seen as reactive. High-scoring responses typically show that you would first try to understand the situation before escalating.
For judgment questions, acknowledge that both options have merit, analyze the pros and cons of each clearly, and then reach a considered position on which approach is fairest or most effective. Evaluators want to see you explain a reasoned conclusion while still recognizing the complexity of the situation.
For each scenario you get 60 seconds to read and reflect, followed by 3 minutes and 30 seconds to answer both questions. Practicing under timed conditions helps you learn how to split your time effectively between the two questions.
The nine core aspects assessed in CASPer are: Collaboration, Communication, Empathy, Fairness, Ethics, Motivation, Problem-Solving, Resilience, and Self-Awareness. Each scenario is linked to one or more of these aspects.
Practice with a realistic CASPer-style scenario and get free feedback on your response.
Practice Free With Feedback →No pressure. Just practice, submit, and see how your response lands.