Practice scenarios
CASPer Policy Questions: 5 Examples and Answer Strategies
To answer a CASPer policy or opinion question, explain what the proposed rule is trying to achieve, weigh its effects on the people involved, and reach a clear position. Then show how you would make that position workable. The five original exercises below help you practise that reasoning without memorising a script.
What are CASPer policy and opinion questions?
A policy prompt asks whether a rule or approach is reasonable: should a school require attendance, or should a club allocate places by lottery? An opinion prompt may ask what you value or how you interpret a statement. Your task is to explain a judgement, rather than simply describe your next conversation.
Compare three requests about the same event: “What would you do about a late teammate?” asks for action; “Should the group penalise all late work?” asks for a policy judgement; “Tell us about a time you missed a deadline” asks for personal reflection. Read the actual question before choosing an answer structure.
Acuity describes CASPer as an open-response situational judgement test with no single correct answer to each question. The categories here organise practice; they do not predict which questions you will receive or give you an official scoring rubric.
How to answer a policy question without sitting on the fence
- Name the purpose. Identify the problem the policy aims to solve before criticising its method.
- Weigh the consequences. Explain who benefits, who bears a cost, and which uncertainties matter. Two relevant perspectives are more useful than a long list of hypothetical stakeholders.
- Choose a position. Support, reject, or modify the proposal and explain why. A qualified conclusion is still a conclusion.
- Make it workable. Suggest a safeguard, exception process, or review. Say what new information could change your position.
This is a CasperCoach practice method. Use it flexibly alongside the answer-structure guide. A narrow follow-up about implementation does not need another full debate about the original policy.
1. Mandatory cameras in online tutorials
Original practice prompt
A university proposes requiring everyone to keep their camera on throughout online tutorials. Instructors say this will improve participation. Students raise concerns about shared rooms, unreliable connections, and being judged on their surroundings.
- Would you support the proposed policy? Why or why not?
- How would you find out whether your preferred approach works?
Compare sample answers for 1. mandatory cameras in online tutorials
A response to improve
Everyone should turn their camera on because university is preparation for professional life. People with a problem can explain it to the class.
Stronger sample answers
Question 1: I support active participation, but not a blanket camera requirement. A visible face does not necessarily show engagement, and requiring students to explain private circumstances publicly creates another barrier. I would offer participation through discussion, chat, or short written contributions, with cameras encouraged when practical. If a particular activity genuinely needs video, I would explain why and arrange an accessible alternative privately.
Question 2: I would trial the options for a defined period and ask students and instructors whether meaningful contributions improve. I would look at who still cannot participate, rather than counting camera use alone. If the alternatives leave some students disconnected, I would adjust the activities or offer smaller groups before assuming those students are unmotivated.
Why this reasoning is stronger
The first answer separates the educational goal from the proposed enforcement method. The second supplies a way to evaluate the alternative and respond to evidence instead of treating the initial opinion as final.
Another defensible position: A limited camera requirement for a clearly explained interactive exercise could also be defended if equipment support, private exceptions, and equivalent participation options are available. The justification must explain why video is needed for that activity.
Change one fact: The tutorial is a short demonstration of a physical skill that the instructor must observe. What extra information would you need before deciding whether a camera requirement is appropriate?
2. First-come access to campus equipment
Original practice prompt
A campus media lab has six cameras. They are booked online at 8 AM every Monday and are usually reserved within minutes. Some students have classes or paid shifts then. The lab proposes keeping the system because it treats every account identically.
- Is the booking system fair?
- What would you recommend if there are still more requests than cameras?
Compare sample answers for 2. first-come access to campus equipment
A response to improve
It is fair because everyone gets the same chance. Students who care enough will find a way to book at 8 AM.
Stronger sample answers
Question 1: The same booking time does not give everyone a realistic opportunity. I would ask how often students miss out and whether required coursework depends on access. I would favour a request window followed by a transparent allocation process, with reasonable booking limits so a small group cannot reserve all the equipment. That keeps the rules consistent while addressing a barrier the current system creates.
Question 2: I would publish priorities in advance, such as essential course deadlines, and use a rotation or lottery among equally eligible requests. I would keep a waitlist and a simple cancellation process so unused bookings return to the pool. I would explain that no system can guarantee everyone's first choice, then review usage before proposing more equipment.
Why this reasoning is stronger
This distinguishes identical rules from practical access, then deals honestly with scarcity. It does not promise resources that the lab does not have or invent a reason to favour a particular student.
Change one fact: One student needs a camera for a required assessment tomorrow, but another already has a confirmed booking. How would you seek a solution without quietly cancelling a legitimate reservation?
3. Volunteering as a graduation requirement
Original practice prompt
A school wants every student to complete 40 volunteer hours before graduation. Supporters say it encourages community involvement. Other students already spend substantial time caring for family members or working to cover living costs.
- Should volunteering be compulsory?
- How could the school encourage community participation without creating avoidable barriers?
Compare sample answers for 3. volunteering as a graduation requirement
A response to improve
Volunteering makes people compassionate, so 40 hours should be mandatory. It is only a small amount of time.
Stronger sample answers
Question 1: I support opportunities to contribute, but I would not adopt a fixed requirement without checking whether students can reasonably meet it. Forty hours may be manageable for one student and a serious burden for another. I would prefer supported community learning with flexible ways to participate, rather than making graduation depend on access to unpaid work. I would also ask community partners what help they actually need.
Question 2: The school could provide opportunities during scheduled learning time, cover transport costs, and offer a choice of projects. It should consider how existing caring responsibilities can be recognised without demanding intrusive personal evidence. Students could reflect on what they learned and how their work helped, while partners could report whether the projects were useful.
Why this reasoning is stronger
The answer weighs the policy's purpose against unequal costs. The proposed alternatives also consider the community receiving the volunteers, not just the students collecting hours.
Change one fact: The school funds transport and provides all 40 hours within the normal timetable. Which objection becomes less important, and what would you still want to know?
4. A blanket late-work penalty
Original practice prompt
An instructor plans to deduct 20% for any assignment submitted after the deadline, regardless of the reason. They want to reduce repeated extension requests and be fair to students who submit on time.
- Do you agree with the policy?
- How would you address concerns that flexibility could be exploited?
Compare sample answers for 4. a blanket late-work penalty
A response to improve
There should be no deadlines because everybody has different problems. The instructor should trust every request.
Stronger sample answers
Question 1: Clear deadlines help students plan and allow timely feedback, but an identical penalty for every delay may be disproportionate. I would suggest a published late-work policy with a modest grace period and a separate process for exceptional circumstances. The instructor could explain when a deadline is essential, such as when answers will be released, and provide an alternative assessment where appropriate.
Question 2: I would make the ordinary flexibility predictable and limited, rather than deciding by who argues most persuasively. Repeated difficulties could trigger a private support conversation and a plan, while exceptional requests follow the school's process. I would review whether the policy affects timely feedback and student access before changing it further.
Why this reasoning is stronger
The response respects the instructor's workload and the students' circumstances. It proposes limits and follow-up rather than treating compassion and consistent expectations as incompatible.
Change one fact: The assignment is a live group presentation, and one person's delay affects the whole team. Explain why the same grace-period solution may no longer work.
5. Anonymous peer feedback
Original practice prompt
A student society wants to collect anonymous feedback about its committee members. Some members think anonymity will make criticism more honest. Others worry that personal attacks will be treated as evidence of poor performance.
- Would you allow anonymous feedback?
- How should the society respond to a serious allegation in an anonymous submission?
Compare sample answers for 5. anonymous peer feedback
A response to improve
Anonymous feedback is always more truthful. If several people criticise someone, that person should lose their position.
Stronger sample answers
Question 1: I would allow it as one way to raise concerns, with clear expectations for specific, respectful feedback. Anonymity can make it easier to speak when there is a power imbalance, but it does not establish accuracy. I would use structured questions about behaviour and have a neutral person identify actionable themes. Committee members should have a fair chance to respond without exposing contributors unnecessarily.
Question 2: I would take a serious concern seriously without treating it as a proven finding. The society should use its appropriate reporting process, preserve the information carefully, and seek enough detail to assess any immediate risk. If someone may be in danger, the responsible authority should be involved promptly. I would avoid public accusations and promises of confidentiality that the process cannot keep.
Why this reasoning is stronger
The answer separates listening from making a finding. It protects the ability to raise concerns while preserving fair procedures and a proportionate response to risk.
Change one fact: The feedback form allows an optional confidential follow-up conversation. How could this improve the process, and what privacy limits should be explained?
A timed drill and self-review checklist
For the 2026–27 typed section, Acuity gives 3.5 minutes for two questions. Read a practice prompt, allow yourself a short reflection, then answer both questions within that shared time. The examples explain reasoning; they are not a required word count.
After the timer, underline your conclusion. If you cannot find it, revise the opening sentence. Circle the specific trade-off you considered. If the same answer could fit any policy, add a detail from this prompt. Finally, check that question two contributes something new rather than repeating question one.
- Did I answer the question asked?
- Did I explain why a consequence matters, rather than only naming it?
- Did I acknowledge uncertainty without avoiding a decision?
- Could my proposed safeguard work within the stated resources?
- Did I avoid claiming that my preferred outcome is guaranteed?
Repeat the exercise with the changed fact. Revising a conclusion when the evidence changes is useful practice. For a broader session, use the free CASPer practice test; for interpersonal ethical choices, continue with ethical dilemma questions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need detailed healthcare-policy knowledge?+
These exercises focus on explaining judgement from the information given. Do not invent legal rules, statistics, or specialist facts to sound informed. If a missing fact would change your decision, identify it and explain your conditional approach.
Do I have to agree with the sample answer?+
No. The samples illustrate reasoning, not an official answer key. A different position can be defensible when it addresses the question, considers the relevant consequences, and explains its limits.
Should I always discuss both sides?+
Consider meaningful competing concerns, but do not manufacture an equally persuasive case for every option. Explain which concern carries more weight in this situation and give a clear conclusion.
Are policy questions a separate CASPer section?+
No separate policy section is established by these practice labels. Acuity describes video-response and typed-response sections. Follow the actual prompt and the response method shown on screen.
Related guides
Sources checked September 22, 2026: Acuity Insights' overview and format guide, linked above. All five scenarios and sample answers are original CasperCoach learning exercises, not official, recalled, or scored test content. AI practice feedback is not an official CASPer result.