This manual is for PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 1, start to submission. An opening assessment in a reasoning course usually hands you somebody else's argument and grades the machinery you use on it. The assessment usually asks you to reconstruct the argument, supply what the author left unstated, and test whether the conclusion follows, and two students can disagree about the verdict and score identically. You may prefer to delegate, in which case a premium original sample reconstructing your passage in standard form returns inside 24 to 48 hours, revised free until it clears. Your courseroom may print this as PHI FPX 1200 Assessment 1 or PHI1200 Assessment 1; it is the same deliverable, and PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 1 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 PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 1 is scored
FlexPath scores each criterion by itself, on one of four levels, and the level wording is the writing brief:
| Level | What it means on an argument reconstruction |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | The strongest available version of the argument on the page, the unstated premise supplied, and the inference tested by an attempted counterexample rather than judged. |
| Proficient | The argument reconstructed accurately and evaluated correctly. Sound, and one level below the top. |
| Basic | The passage summarized and pronounced strong or weak, with the reasoning left inside the writer's head. The default first-attempt result. |
| Non-performance | A required element absent, most often the reconstruction itself. |
The distinction that costs the most marks in this course is between an argument being valid and its parts being true. Form and content are graded in separate rows, and a paper that runs them together tends to lose both. Keep them in different paragraphs and the guide becomes much easier to satisfy.
The PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 1 method, step by step
-
Read the criteria as a list of verbs
Reasoning rows are unusually literal. If a row says identify, explain and evaluate, three things are owed and an evaluator will look for all three under that heading. Students here lose more marks to unanswered instructions than to bad reasoning, because the reasoning feels hard and the instructions feel skimmable.
-
Put the argument in standard form before saying anything about it
Strip the rhetoric, number the premises, state the conclusion last. Numbering is not decoration; it is what lets you point at a specific line later instead of gesturing at the passage. Any sentence that supports nothing is background and belongs outside the reconstruction.
-
Supply the premise the author left out
In ordinary writing the unstated premise is almost always the interesting one. An argument that a policy should be adopted because it saves money relies on a premise that saving money is what should decide the matter, and once that sentence is on the page it can be examined. Mark it clearly as supplied rather than quoted.
-
Reconstruct charitably, then test the inference
Repair small gaps and take the strongest available reading, because a criterion measuring your evaluation also measures whether the argument you evaluated is the one that was made. Then run the mechanical test: can you invent a situation where every premise holds and the conclusion fails? If you can, the form is bad however reasonable the conclusion sounds.
-
Keep the truth of the premises in its own section
Once the form has been settled, ask separately whether each premise is actually true, and source anything factual. A beautifully structured argument whose second premise is simply asserted is the standard failure in this course, and it fails a different row than the form does.
-
Name the evidence that would move you, then mark your own levels
Name the evidence or the case that would move you, which is what an evaluation criterion is reaching for at the top of its scale. Then read the draft against the guide one row at a time, mark your own levels honestly, and submit early, since faculty have up to two business days on an attempt.
A structure that maps to the criteria
Word counts are our tutors' planning targets for a reconstruction of this kind, not Capella rules; follow your scoring guide wherever it asks for something else.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The passage and the conclusion | What is being argued and by whom, restated neutrally, with the conclusion identified as the conclusion. | ~140 words |
| Standard form | The premises numbered, the conclusion separated, and any supplied premise marked as supplied. | ~230 words |
| Type of reasoning | Whether the argument is deductive or inductive, and what standard therefore applies to it. | ~180 words |
| Testing the inference | A counterexample attempted, and the result reported, with validity kept apart from truth. | ~300 words |
| Truth of the premises | Each factual premise examined and sourced, with the weakest one named. | ~260 words |
| Sources and format | Logic and critical thinking scholarship for the apparatus, evidence for factual premises, current APA. | as needed |
Annotated sample excerpt
A model excerpt from our team, showing what a tested inference looks like beside an asserted one. Study the moves, then run them on the argument your own prompt handed you.
Reconstructed charitably, the argument runs: (1) during the twelve-week pilot, output per week did not fall; (2) the pilot ran a four-day schedule; (3) therefore a four-day schedule does not reduce output, and should be adopted.1 Premise (3) does two things at once and needs splitting, because the descriptive claim and the recommendation rest on different support, and the recommendation also relies on an unstated premise that maintaining output is the only consideration that bears on the decision.2 Take the descriptive half and try the test: suppose the pilot ran across a quarter when the team was working toward a launch it had chosen to be seen succeeding at, and every premise stays true while the conclusion fails, which shows the inference is inductive rather than valid and that its strength depends on a comparison the pilot did not include.3
- 1Numbers the premises and states the conclusion separately, so later sentences can point at a line rather than at a mood. Charitable reconstruction is stated as a choice, not left implied.
- 2Splits a premise doing two jobs and names the unstated assumption behind the recommendation. Surfacing the buried premise is usually where the analysis criterion actually lives.
- 3Runs the counterexample as a procedure, reports what it shows about the form, and names the missing comparison. Testing rather than declaring is the move that separates the top two columns.
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
- A valid argument treated as a true one. Form and content are graded in separate rows, and merging them loses both at once.
- An argument rebuilt in its weakest available form. Beating an argument the author never made satisfies no row and reads as a dodge.
- The unstated premise left buried. The assumption the author did not write down is usually the one the whole argument turns on.
- Strength declared instead of tested. Calling an inference strong is a claim; attempting a counterexample and reporting the result is the evidence for it.
- A factual premise asserted. Anything the argument says about the world needs its own source, and the neatest structure will not carry an unsourced number.
Pre-submission checklist
- Every criterion has its own labeled section, and each verb in it is answered
- Premises numbered, conclusion separated, supplied premises marked as supplied
- The type of reasoning is named and the right standard applied to it
- A counterexample is attempted and its result reported
- Each factual premise is sourced, and the weakest one is named
- APA matched both ways, self-scored at the top column, submitted early in the week
Reasoning assessment due and the argument will not sit still?
Send the criteria and the passage, article or workplace argument you were handed. The sample comes back with the premises numbered, the unstated premise supplied and every inference tested rather than declared. Eight people work the file, delivery runs 24 to 48 hours, and revision is free until the guide clears.