When everything goes wrong at once — a high-pressure CASPer problem-solving scenario, fully analysed by a former evaluator.
This is a problem-solving scenario — one of the nine core aspects assessed in CASPer. Problem-solving questions explore your ability to analyse a difficult situation, identify the most important issues, and find practical solutions — particularly when you are under time pressure and competing demands are pulling in different directions.
Scenarios like this appear because the capacity to think clearly in a crisis is one of the most valued attributes across demanding programs and professions. When things go wrong unexpectedly, the people who remain effective are those who can prioritise quickly, communicate clearly, and make decisions that balance practicality with fairness to everyone involved.
What evaluators are assessing here is not whether you have the perfect fix. They want to see how you think — what you identify as the core problem, what you consider when choosing an approach, and whether your solution takes into account the people affected, not just the logistics.
You are coordinating a major group presentation for a course that accounts for 30% of your final grade. The presentation is tomorrow morning. Tonight, you discover that a significant portion of the shared work — contributed by one team member — has been accidentally deleted and cannot be recovered. The team member responsible is distressed and apologetic.
You have roughly five hours before you need to sleep to be functional for the presentation. The rest of the group is looking to you to figure out what to do.
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.
What would you do in this situation?
🟦 SituationalWhat are the pros and cons of attempting to recreate the lost work tonight versus informing your professor immediately and requesting an extension?
🟪 JudgmentThis scenario pairs a situational question with a judgment question — a common combination in CASPer. Each requires a different approach.
Question 1 is situational — it asks what you would do. With a problem-solving scenario, a strong answer shows that you have thought through the situation systematically before acting: what the priorities are, who is affected, and what approach balances urgency with fairness to your team.
Question 2 is a judgment question — it asks you to weigh two specific options. A strong answer analyses both honestly, acknowledges the trade-offs of each, and reaches a clear position. This is not the place to hedge — evaluators want to see you commit to a reasoned conclusion.
Evaluators score each response on 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.
This scenario is designed to create pressure — and pressure reveals how people think. Many students dive straight into logistics: divide the work, pull an all-nighter, get it done. That response shows initiative, but it misses the human dimension entirely. The team member who lost the work is distressed. A group that ignores that is not functioning well as a team, even if they rebuild the slides in time.
The judgment question is where many students lose marks. Both options — recreating the work or requesting an extension — have real merit, and a good evaluator knows that. What they want to see is whether you can reason through the specific circumstances of this scenario and arrive at a considered position, rather than defaulting to whichever option feels safer or more impressive.
Strong responses also tend to think beyond the immediate crisis. What does the group communicate to the professor, regardless of which path they choose? How do they make sure the team member who made the mistake doesn't feel isolated? Those details are what separate a technically correct response from a genuinely thoughtful one.
CASPer is scored by trained evaluators who assess each response independently. There is no single right answer. What evaluators are looking for is evidence that you can engage thoughtfully with complexity — that you understand the scenario, consider the people involved, reason carefully, and communicate clearly.
For problem-solving scenarios, high scores come from responses that show structured thinking without losing the human dimension. The best problem-solvers are not the ones with the cleverest solutions — they are the ones who identify what actually matters most, consider the implications of different approaches, and communicate their reasoning clearly under pressure.
Practising a range of scenario types — problem-solving, resilience, collaboration, self-awareness — is the most effective preparation strategy. Consistency across the full test matters more than any single response.
There is no word count requirement in CASPer. Evaluators are not counting words — they are reading for quality of thinking.
For problem-solving scenarios, the temptation is to list every possible action you would take. Resist it. A focused response that clearly explains your priorities and reasoning will score better than a long list of steps without any explanation of why you chose them. Quality of thinking over quantity of actions.
Problem-solving scenarios assess your ability to analyse a challenge clearly, identify the most important issues, and find practical and fair solutions under pressure. Evaluators want to see that you can think systematically without losing sight of the people involved — that your solutions are both workable and considerate.
Start by acknowledging the full scope of the problem — what is at stake and for whom. Then identify your priorities and explain your reasoning before describing what you would do. High-scoring responses show that you have thought through the implications of your approach, not just the first solution that came to mind.
For judgment questions, acknowledge that both options have merit, analyse 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 commit to a reasoned conclusion rather than sitting on the fence.
For each scenario you get 60 seconds to read and reflect, followed by 3 minutes and 30 seconds to answer both questions. Practising 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.
Try typed and video practice with feedback — built by a former evaluator who has scored thousands of responses.
Start Practising Free →Typed practice free · Video practice with premium