This question aligns with the 1-PS4-2 standard, where students make observations to construct an evidence-based account that objects can be seen only when illuminated, focusing on using evidence to explain and support claims. A claim is a statement someone says is true, like 'We need light to see objects.' Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not, and supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. To evaluate a claim, we check: does the evidence prove it? Yuki's claim is: 'We need light to see objects.' The evidence includes: A) could not see shoes in dark closet, B) turned on flashlight and saw shoes, C) shoes are black, D) at night with no lights, cannot see. Evidence A, B, and D are supporting because they show objects invisible in dark, visible in light; evidence C is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to light-visibility connection. The correct answer says 'Evidence A, B, and D support the claim' which correctly identifies which evidence supports the claim. Specific supporting evidence like A, B, D show the pattern: cannot see without light, can see with light - this proves objects need light to be visible; irrelevant evidence like C might be true but doesn't tell us about light's role. A distractor like 'Evidence C supports the claim because the shoes are black' is wrong because it includes irrelevant evidence as support. Students might choose this if they can't distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, focus on interesting details rather than claim-related evidence, or think all true statements support any claim. Practice identifying support by asking: 'Does this observation show we need light?' Help students distinguish: Relevant (about light and seeing) vs Irrelevant (about color, size, other topics). Use explicit connections: 'This evidence supports the claim because...' Model thinking: 'Evidence A says she couldn't see in dark - does this prove we need light? Yes! If no light = cannot see, then we need light to see.' Create simple evidence charts: Evidence | Does it relate to light? | Does it support claim? Watch for: students who treat all factual statements as evidence for any claim, or who focus on interesting but irrelevant details.

This question aligns with the 1-PS4-2 standard, where students make observations to construct an evidence-based account that objects can be seen only when illuminated, focusing on using evidence to explain and support claims. A claim is a statement someone says is true, like 'You cannot see things in the dark.' Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not, and supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. To evaluate a claim, we check: does the evidence prove it? Maya's claim is: 'You cannot see things in the dark.' The evidence includes: 1) toy car in dark room—could not see it, 2) toy car with flashlight—could see it, 3) toy car in daylight—could see it. Evidence 1, 2, and 3 are supporting because they show objects invisible in dark, visible in light; there is no irrelevant evidence here. The correct answer says 'Yes, she could not see it in the dark' which correctly identifies that evidence proves the claim. Specific supporting evidence like 1, 2, 3 show the pattern: cannot see without light, can see with light - this proves objects need light to be visible. A distractor like 'No, because she saw it with a flashlight' is wrong because it claims evidence contradicts when it supports. Students might choose this if they can't distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, don't see how observation connects to claim, or focus on interesting details rather than claim-related evidence. Practice identifying support by asking: 'Does this observation show we need light?' Help students distinguish: Relevant (about light and seeing) vs Irrelevant (about color, size, other topics). Use explicit connections: 'This evidence supports the claim because...' Model thinking: 'Evidence A says she couldn't see in dark - does this prove we need light? Yes! If no light = cannot see, then we need light to see.' Create simple evidence charts: Evidence | Does it relate to light? | Does it support claim? Watch for: students who treat all factual statements as evidence for any claim, or who focus on interesting but irrelevant details.

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("We need light to see objects"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Yuki's claim is: "We need light to see objects." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see shoes in dark closet, B) saw shoes with flashlight, C) shoes are black, D) cannot see at night without lights. Evidence A, B, and D are supporting because they show objects are invisible in darkness but visible with light. Evidence C is irrelevant because the color of shoes doesn't relate to the light-visibility connection. The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, and D support the claim; C is not about light" which correctly identifies that A, B, and D show the pattern: cannot see without light, can see with light - this proves objects need light to be visible. Evidence C about shoe color is true but doesn't tell us about light's role. An error like "Only Evidence C supports the claim because shoes are black" is wrong because it focuses on an irrelevant detail (color) rather than the light-visibility relationship. Students might choose this if they can't distinguish relevant from irrelevant information or focus on interesting details rather than claim-related evidence. Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this observation show we need light?" Help students distinguish: Relevant (about light and seeing) vs Irrelevant (about color, size, other topics). Model thinking: "Evidence A says she couldn't see in dark - does this prove we need light? Yes! If no light = cannot see, then we need light to see."

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("You need light to see things"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct. To evaluate a claim, we check: does the evidence prove it? Chen's claim is: "You need light to see things." The evidence includes: morning sunny—saw 10 objects, afternoon sunny—saw 10 objects, evening dark—saw 0 objects, evening with lights—saw 10 objects again. All observations support the claim by showing a clear pattern: with light (sun or artificial) = can see objects, without light = cannot see objects. The correct answer says "Yes, seeing changed with light and darkness each time" which correctly identifies that the evidence proves the claim through consistent results. The pattern shows that visibility depends entirely on the presence or absence of light, not on time of day. An error like "No, because evening is always a different time" is wrong because it focuses on time rather than light conditions. The evidence shows that evening with lights allows seeing just like daytime. Students might choose this if they confuse correlation (time) with causation (light) or don't recognize that artificial light works like sunlight. Practice identifying patterns by asking: "What changed - time or light?" Help students see that the number of visible objects depends on light, not time. Use data tables: Time | Light condition | Objects seen | What determines visibility? Model thinking: "Evening dark = 0 objects, evening with lights = 10 objects. What's different? The light!"

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("We need light to see a book"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Emma's claim is: "We need light to see a book." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see book under blanket, B) saw book with lamp on, C) book has blue cover, D) couldn't see book in dark room. Evidence A, B, and D are supporting because they show books are invisible without light but visible with light. Evidence C is irrelevant because the book's color doesn't relate to needing light to see it. The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, and D support the claim; C is not about light" which correctly identifies that A, B, and D demonstrate the pattern: no light = cannot see book, light = can see book. Evidence C about the blue cover is descriptive but doesn't provide evidence about light's necessity. An error like "Only Evidence C supports the claim because blue is bright" is wrong because it confuses color brightness with light sources. Blue is a color property, not a light source. Students might choose this if they think bright colors create light or don't distinguish between object properties and light sources. Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this show we need light to see?" Help students distinguish: Light sources (lamps, sun) vs Object properties (color, size). Model thinking: "Evidence C says the cover is blue - does this prove we need light? No, it just describes the book." Use sorting activities to separate evidence about light from descriptions of objects.

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("Objects can only be seen when there is light"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct. To evaluate a claim, we check: does the evidence prove it? Carlos's claim is: "Objects can only be seen when there is light." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see chair in dark room, B) could see chair with lamp on, C) can see outside during day with sunlight, D) need lights to see inside at night. All evidence A, B, C, and D are supporting because they show objects cannot be seen without light (A, D) and can be seen with light (B, C). The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, C, and D all support the claim" which correctly identifies that all four pieces of evidence demonstrate the pattern: darkness = cannot see, light = can see. This proves objects need light to be visible. An error like "Evidence B and C support the claim; A and D contradict it" is wrong because it misunderstands that showing "cannot see in dark" actually supports the claim that light is needed. Students might choose this if they think evidence must only show positive examples, not understanding that "cannot see without light" proves "need light to see." Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this observation show we need light?" Help students see that both "can't see in dark" AND "can see with light" support the same claim. Use explicit connections: "This evidence supports the claim because..." Create simple evidence charts: Evidence | What happened | Does it support claim? Watch for: students who think negative examples contradict rather than support claims about necessity.

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("We can see objects because light shines on them"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Sofia's claim is: "We can see objects because light shines on them." The evidence includes: A) saw ball in sunlight, B) ball is favorite toy, C) couldn't see ball in dark, D) saw ball with flashlight. Evidence A, C, and D are supporting because they show the light-visibility connection. Evidence B is irrelevant because liking a toy doesn't relate to how light makes it visible. The correct answer says "Evidence B is not relevant because it is about liking" which correctly identifies that personal preferences don't provide evidence about light and visibility. Evidence B might be true but doesn't tell us anything about light's role in seeing objects. An error like "Evidence A is not relevant because it is about the sun" is wrong because sunlight is a source of light that directly relates to the claim. Students might choose this if they focus on specific words rather than understanding relationships between light sources and visibility. Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this tell us about light and seeing?" Help students distinguish: Relevant (about light sources and visibility) vs Irrelevant (about preferences, colors, or other topics). Model thinking: "Evidence B says it's her favorite - does this show light helps us see? No, it's about feelings, not light." Create sorting activities: Statement | About light/seeing? | Relevant to claim?

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("We need light to see a ball"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Marcus's claim is: "We need light to see a ball." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see ball in dark, B) saw ball with room light, C) ball bounced high, D) saw ball in sunlight. Evidence A, B, and D are supporting because they show the ball is invisible without light but visible with various light sources. Evidence C is irrelevant because how high a ball bounces doesn't relate to needing light to see it. The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, and D support the claim; C is not about light" which correctly identifies that A, B, and D demonstrate: no light = cannot see ball, light (room or sun) = can see ball. Evidence C about bouncing is about the ball's physical properties, not visibility. An error like "Evidence C supports the claim because bouncing makes it visible" is wrong because it confuses motion with light. Movement doesn't create light or make objects visible in darkness. Students might choose this if they think moving objects are easier to see, not understanding that movement still requires light to be visible. Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this evidence involve light?" Help students distinguish: Light-related evidence vs Other properties (movement, size, color). Model thinking: "Evidence C says it bounced high - does bouncing create light? No, you still need light to see it bounce." Create categories: Evidence about light/darkness vs Evidence about object properties.

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("Light helps my eyes see"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Keisha's claim is: "Light helps my eyes see." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see backpack in dark room, B) saw backpack with flashlight, C) backpack has two straps, D) saw less when lights went off. Evidence A, B, and D are supporting because they show how light presence or absence affects what eyes can see. Evidence C is irrelevant because the number of straps doesn't relate to how light helps vision. The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, and D support the claim; C is not about light" which correctly identifies that A, B, and D show the pattern: light helps eyes work, no light means eyes cannot see well. Evidence C about straps is a physical description unrelated to light and vision. An error like "Only Evidence B supports the claim because flashlights are bright" is wrong because it ignores other supporting evidence and focuses too narrowly on one light source. Students might choose this if they think only positive examples count or don't recognize how "cannot see in dark" supports "light helps see." Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this show light helping eyes?" Help students see both positive (light helps) and negative (no light = no seeing) evidence. Model thinking: "Evidence D says saw less without lights - this proves light helps eyes see more." Watch for: students who only count direct positive examples as support.

This question tests the skill of using evidence to support claims about light and visibility (1-PS4-2). A claim is a statement someone says is true ("If it is dark, you cannot see toys"). Evidence is observations or facts that show whether the claim is true or not. Supporting evidence proves the claim is correct, while irrelevant evidence might be true but doesn't relate to the claim. Amir's claim is: "If it is dark, you cannot see toys." The evidence includes: A) couldn't see blocks in dark, B) could see blocks with nightlight, C) blocks are square, D) could see blocks in sunlight. Evidence A directly supports the claim by showing darkness prevents seeing. Evidence B and D also support by showing the contrast - with light sources, toys become visible. Evidence C is irrelevant because shape doesn't relate to the darkness-visibility connection. The correct answer says "Evidence A, B, and D support the claim; C is not about light" which correctly identifies that A shows the claim is true (dark = no seeing), while B and D support by showing the opposite condition (light = seeing). Evidence C about square shape doesn't relate to visibility in darkness. An error like "Only Evidence A supports the claim; B and D contradict it" is wrong because it misunderstands that showing "can see with light" actually supports a claim about "cannot see without light" by demonstrating the contrast. Students might choose this if they think only direct examples support claims, not understanding how contrasting conditions strengthen evidence. Practice identifying support by asking: "Does this relate to darkness and seeing?" Model thinking: "Evidence B shows light helps see - this supports that darkness prevents seeing." Create comparison charts showing how opposite conditions both support the same claim about necessity.