This manual is for COM-FPX1150 Assessment 2, start to submission. The middle deliverable in Introduction to Digital Information and Literacy usually hands you a claim that is circulating and asks whether it holds. The criteria are not asking whether the source looks professional; they are asking whether you left the page to find out who is behind it and where the number started. What our tutors do with a claim like that is next, with a section order from the rows and one excerpt marked up. Rather have the checking done for you? A premium original evaluation written to your own scoring guide comes back within 24 to 48 hours, with revisions at no charge until the rows clear. Your courseroom may print this as COM FPX 1150 Assessment 2 or COM1150 Assessment 2; it is the same deliverable, and COM-FPX1150 Assessment 2 is what this manual walks through.
One honesty note before the manual: Capella revises courses and scoring guides over time, so always write to the exact scoring guide attached to your assessment in the courseroom. The course identity above is verified on capella.edu; the method and structure below are our tutors' approach to it, not Capella's official rubric text.
How COM-FPX1150 Assessment 2 is scored
Each criterion is marked on its own at one of four levels, and nothing about the process produces a letter grade. The level wording is your brief:
| Level | What it means on a source credibility evaluation |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | The claim is traced to the document that first reported it, the publisher and funder are identified by leaving the page, the method behind the number is described, better coverage of the same claim is located, and the verdict is stated with the ground it rests on. The column names the step past Proficient, so treat its wording as the instruction it is. |
| Proficient | Sources checked accurately, authority and currency addressed, a defensible verdict reached. Careful work, one move below the top row. |
| Basic | A checklist filled in from the page itself: the site has an author, a date and a professional appearance, so it is credible. The most common outcome for a first attempt. |
| Non-performance | A required element is absent, most often the trace back to the original, or a verdict with no ground under it. |
A general education course cannot assume you know the field a claim comes from, and that is exactly the point of the method. Lateral reading is a procedure a stranger to any subject can run, which is why the row rewards the procedure rather than the subject knowledge.
The COM-FPX1150 Assessment 2 method, step by step
-
Turn the rows into headings and mark the verbs
Paste the criteria into an empty file, drop the Distinguished wording under each, and underline the verb, because it decides the shape of your answer. Evaluate wants grounds and a verdict, trace wants a sequence of steps, and explain wants a mechanism rather than a label. Sections built from anything other than the rows cannot be scored.
-
Stop before you react, then leave the page
Notice when a number makes you want to repeat it, and treat that feeling as the signal to check. Then leave the site entirely and find out what other people say about the publisher, because an About page is written by the party you are investigating. Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew reported in 2019 that professional fact checkers work this way while students stay put and are persuaded by design.
-
Trace the claim to the document that first made it
Search the sentence, not the topic. A figure that nine out of ten hiring managers reject an application over a typo will usually resolve to a press release, then to a commissioned survey, then to a panel of respondents who opted in. Keep clicking until you reach something with a method section or until the trail ends, and say in the paper where it ended.
-
Describe the method, then decide what the number can mean
Who was asked, how many, how they were recruited, what question wording was used, and when. A poll of 214 self-selected respondents commissioned by a company selling resume services is not a measurement of hiring behavior, and saying that precisely is worth more than calling the source biased.
-
Find better coverage of the same claim
Look for the same idea measured by somebody with no product to sell: a federal survey, a peer reviewed study reached through the Capella library, or an association publishing its own method. You may end up reporting a smaller and duller figure with its sample and its year attached, and that paragraph outscores the confident one every time.
-
Write the verdict with its ground, then score yourself
A verdict is a sentence with a because in it: this claim cannot support the paper because the only measurement behind it is a self-selected vendor poll with no published question wording. Then check that every link in your own reference list still opens, mark each row N, B, P or D yourself, and submit early in the week.
A structure that maps to the criteria
The numbers below are planning targets our tutors use for an undergraduate credibility check, not requirements from Capella; where the guide asks for more, write more.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The claim as it circulates | The claim in the words it is spreading in, and where you met it. | ~130 words |
| Who is behind it | Publisher, author, funder and interest, established by leaving the page rather than by reading it. | ~220 words |
| The trace | Each step back toward the original document, ending either at a method or at the point the trail stops. | ~300 words |
| The method examined | Sample, recruitment, question wording, date, and what the number can and cannot support. | ~250 words |
| Better coverage | The same claim measured by a source with no stake in it, with its figure, its sample and its year. | ~230 words |
| Verdict and references | The judgment with its ground, plus current APA entries with every link opened and confirmed. | as needed |
Annotated sample excerpt
A model section from our team, chosen because it is the section first attempts skip. Study how far the trace goes, then run the same procedure on your own claim.
The claim that nine out of ten hiring managers discard an application over a single typo appears on four career advice sites, none of which cites a study.1 Searching the sentence rather than the topic leads to a 2023 press release from a resume writing service, which credits its own online poll of 214 respondents recruited through the company's newsletter, with no question wording published and no comparison group.2 The trail ends there, so the claim cannot support a sentence about hiring behavior; the nearest measurement with a published method is an employer survey by a professional association, which asked about screening criteria and reported spelling as one factor among nine.3
- 1The claim is quoted as it circulates and the absence of a citation is reported as a finding rather than assumed.
- 2The trace names each step and stops where the evidence stops, with the recruitment method and the missing question wording both stated.
- 3The verdict arrives with its ground attached and is followed by better coverage, which is what turns a rejection into a usable paragraph.
The full premium sample for your exact assessment, written fresh to your scoring guide and issue, is free to request. Study it, revise it into your own voice, and submit work you understand.
The five mistakes that cost Distinguished
- Judging the source by its appearance. A clean layout, a padlock and a logo are inexpensive and predict nothing about accuracy.
- Reading the About page as evidence. An organization's own description of itself is the claim under examination, not the check on it.
- Citing the site that quoted the study. The study is the source and the site is a relay, and the row is watching which one you opened.
- A percentage with no denominator. A figure with no sample, no date and no question wording behind it can be repeated but not evaluated.
- Bias asserted instead of interest shown. Naming the product the publisher sells is checkable; calling a source biased is not.
Pre-submission checklist
- The claim is quoted in the form it circulates in, with where you met it
- Publisher, author and funder established from outside the page
- Every step of the trace recorded, and the end of the trail named
- Sample, recruitment, question wording and date reported for the original
- Better coverage located, with its own figure, sample and year
- The verdict carries a ground, every link opens, current APA, self-scored D throughout
Handed a statistic you cannot verify?
Send us the claim itself, the prompt, and the criteria you were given. A team of eight, including a research analyst and two QA reviewers, returns a premium original evaluation in 24 to 48 hours with the trace written out, the method described, and every link opened before delivery.