This manual is for PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 2, start to submission. A middle assessment in a reasoning course usually asks you to find what has gone wrong in a piece of real persuasion and explain it. The assessment usually wants the defect described rather than named, because a label is a claim and the claim needs the missing step spelled out under it. Hand it across instead and a premium original sample describing each defect before naming it comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, with free revision until the rows are met. Your courseroom may print this as PHI FPX 1200 Assessment 2 or PHI1200 Assessment 2; it is the same deliverable, and PHI-FPX1200 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 PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 2 is scored
Criteria are graded individually at one of four levels, and the level text tells you exactly what to produce:
| Level | What it means on a fallacy and bias analysis |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | Each defect described in the writer's own words before it is named, with the missing step identified and the bias tied to a mechanism rather than to an insult. |
| Proficient | Reasoning errors correctly identified and explained. Accurate work, one level short of the top. |
| Basic | A list of fallacy names attached to passages, with the explanation left to the label. The commonest shape a first attempt takes here. |
| Non-performance | A required element absent, usually the explanation of why the passage is defective. An unfilled row scores at the floor. |
The risk in this assessment runs the opposite way from the last one. Too little labeling leaves the row unanswered, and too much labeling answers it with vocabulary instead of reasoning. Describe the defect, then reach for the name, and keep the name only if it still fits the description.
The PHI-FPX1200 Assessment 2 method, step by step
-
Build headings from the criteria and count what each one owes
A row asking you to identify and explain fallacies owes two things per fallacy, and a row asking about bias owes a named mechanism rather than an accusation. Write the count beside each heading before drafting so nothing gets one half of a two-part answer.
-
Describe the defect before you name it
Set down the conclusion, the support offered for it, and the exact step that never arrives, all in your own words. Only then hold a name up against that description, and keep it only if the two agree. If the two disagree, keep the description, because the description is what the criterion scores.
-
Check the three pairs that get confused
An attack on a person is only fallacious when character is offered instead of a reason, and pointing out who funded a study is a legitimate question about reliability. A causal chain with evidence behind each step is an argument, not a slippery slope. An appeal to a genuine expert in the right field is not an appeal to authority.
-
Tie each bias to a mechanism
Confirmation bias, anchoring, availability and sunk cost each name a specific process, and a paper using the term as a synonym for being wrong has not used it at all. Say what the process does: which information was sought, which number set the range, which memory came to hand first, which past spending is being protected.
-
Quote long enough to be fair
When you quote a passage you intend to attack, quote it accurately and at enough length that a reader can see you have not trimmed it into something easier. A criterion measuring evaluation is also measuring whether the thing you evaluated is what was written.
-
Rebuild the argument better, then self-score
Where the guide asks for it, show what the author would have to add to make the argument work, which demonstrates that you understood the defect rather than spotted it. Then grade every row yourself and submit with room for a two-business-day review.
A structure that maps to the criteria
These lengths are planning targets our tutors use, not Capella requirements; your own scoring guide decides how long each section runs.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The passage and its conclusion | What is being urged, on whom, and in what document, quoted accurately and at length. | ~150 words |
| The reasoning as offered | The support the author actually gives, laid out in order, with nothing added yet. | ~220 words |
| The defects, described | Each flaw explained as a missing step in the writer's own words, before any label is applied. | ~330 words |
| Labels and their fit | The name for each defect, and a sentence on why the label matches the description given. | ~200 words |
| Bias and mechanism | The cognitive process at work, named, with the specific way it shaped the argument. | ~230 words |
| Repair and format | What the author would need to add for the argument to work, and current APA both ways. | ~180 words |
Annotated sample excerpt
A model excerpt from our team showing what a described defect looks like beside a named one. Learn the pattern, then run it on the passage your criteria assigned.
The newsletter argues that removing one traffic lane for a bike lane will end street parking on the avenue, and the support offered is a chain: the lane narrows the roadway, narrowing forces the city to reroute buses, rerouting requires new stops, and new stops consume the curb.1 Three of those four links have documents behind them in the city proposal, and the third does not: nothing in the record says a rerouted bus route would need stops on this avenue rather than on the parallel one that already has them, and that unsupported step is where the argument fails.2 Calling this a slippery slope would be roughly right and less useful than saying which link is empty, and the bias worth naming is not stubbornness but anchoring, because the newsletter opens with the total number of spaces on the street and every later estimate of loss is expressed as a share of that figure rather than of the spaces actually at issue.3
- 1Lays the chain out link by link before evaluating any of it, so the reader can see the argument as its author built it.
- 2Concedes the supported links and isolates the empty one. Naming which step lacks evidence is worth more than any label, and it is what the explanation row pays for.
- 3Puts the label second and treats it as approximate, then ties the bias to a mechanism visible in the text. A bias with a mechanism can be checked; a bias used as an insult cannot.
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
- Fallacy names offered with no explanation under them. The name is a claim, and the claim needs the missing step written out underneath it.
- A relevant challenge to reliability called an ad hominem. Asking who funded a study is a question about evidence, and mislabeling it costs the row that asked for accuracy.
- A causal chain with evidence called a slippery slope. The defect is an unsupported link, so if every link is supported there is no defect to report.
- Bias used as a synonym for being wrong. Each of these terms names a specific process, and a paper that does not say which process has not used the term.
- A passage trimmed until it is easier to attack. Quoting short is the fastest way to lose a criterion about fair representation, and evaluators check the original.
Pre-submission checklist
- Each criterion has a section, and every verb in it is answered separately
- Every defect is described in your own words before a label appears
- Each label is tested against the description and dropped where it does not fit
- Each bias is tied to a mechanism visible in the passage
- The passage is quoted accurately and at enough length to be fair
- APA matched both ways, self-scored at the top column before submitting
Fallacy analysis due and the labels will not stick?
Send the criteria and the article, advertisement or newsletter you were assigned. The draft describes each defect before naming it, ties every bias to a mechanism in the text, and shows what the argument would need to work. Back within 24 to 48 hours, with unlimited rework until each row is satisfied.