This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the rain collector design are collecting at least 1 gallon, keeping out dirt and leaves, and not overflowing or spilling. These criteria are good because students can measure volume, check for cleanliness, and observe for overflows. Choice A is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: collects at least 1 gallon, the water stays clean, and it does not overflow or spill. Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice B represents subjective or aesthetic elements. Students who choose this may think any description of the solution counts as criteria. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, 'must fly 20 feet' is better than 'must fly well' because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the lunch tray carrier design are holding a tray, milk, and utensils, keeping items from sliding while walking, and fitting through the doorway; these criteria are good because students can observe holding, test by walking, and measure doorway fit. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: hold tray, milk, and utensils, keep items from sliding while walking, and fit through the doorway; each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice D represents a building method instead of success; students who choose this may think any description of the solution counts as criteria. To help students: Ask 'How would you CHECK if this design works?' for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ('works well') as specific, measurable ones ('holds 10 items without tipping over'). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the paper airplane are: fly at least 15 feet, land gently, and be made from 1 sheet of paper in under 5 minutes. These criteria are good because students can measure the distance, observe the landing, and check materials and time. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: fly 15 feet, land gently, and be finished in under 5 minutes using 1 sheet. Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice A represents describing the method instead of success. Students who choose this may think instructions for building are the same as criteria for success. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the paper airplane challenge are flying at least 15 feet, landing gently without crashing, and being made from 1 sheet in under 5 minutes. These criteria are good because students can measure the distance with a tape, observe the landing, and time the building process. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: flies at least 15 feet, lands gently, and uses 1 sheet in under 5 minutes. Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice A represents describes method instead of success. Students who choose this may confuse the building process with success standards. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the bird feeder are: birds use it, holds seeds for 3 birds, and seeds stay dry after rain. These criteria are good because students can observe birds feeding, count how many can feed at once, and test with water to check dryness. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: seeds stay dry after rain (testable), birds use it (observable), and holds seeds for 3 birds (countable). Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice D represents criteria that are too vague and subjective. Students who choose this may think any positive description counts as criteria, not understanding that "best feeder in the whole city" cannot be objectively measured or tested. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, 'must fly 20 feet' is better than 'must fly well' because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the book organizer design are holding at least 5 books, keeping them standing, and allowing quick grabbing without moving others; these criteria are good because students can count books, observe standing, and test grabbing speed. Choice A is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: hold at least 5 books, keep them standing, and let you grab one quickly without moving others; each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice C represents subjective aesthetics instead of measurable success; students who choose this may believe criteria must be subjective feelings rather than measurable outcomes. To help students: Ask 'How would you CHECK if this design works?' for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ('works well') as specific, measurable ones ('holds 10 items without tipping over'). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the paper airplane challenge are flying at least 15 feet, landing gently, and being made from 1 sheet in under 5 minutes. These criteria are good because students can measure distance, observe landing, and time the process. Choice A is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: fly at least 15 feet, land gently, and use 1 sheet in under 5 minutes. Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice B represents describes method instead of success. Students who choose this may confuse the building process with success standards. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the paper airplane are: fly at least 15 feet, land gently, and be made from 1 sheet of paper in under 5 minutes. These criteria are good because students can measure distance, observe landing quality, and check materials/time. Choice A is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: fly 15 feet, land gently, and use 1 sheet of paper in under 5 minutes. Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice B represents describing the method instead of success. Students who choose this may think building instructions are the same as success criteria. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, 'must fly 20 feet' is better than 'must fly well' because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the rain collector design are collecting at least 1 gallon, keeping water clean with no dirt or leaves, and not overflowing or spilling; these criteria are good because students can measure volume, inspect cleanliness, and observe for spills. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: collect 1 gallon, keep water clean, and not overflow or spill during a rainstorm; each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice A represents a building method instead of success; students who choose this may confuse the construction process with success standards. To help students: Ask 'How would you CHECK if this design works?' for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ('works well') as specific, measurable ones ('holds 10 items without tipping over'). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.

This question tests understanding of success criteria in design (NGSS 3-5-ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost). Success criteria are specific standards that tell whether a design solution works well. Good criteria are observable and measurable - you can see, count, measure, or test them. For example, "must fly 20 feet" is better than "must fly well" because you can measure it with a tape measure. Criteria focus on WHAT the solution must achieve (capacity, function, performance), not HOW to build it or what constraints exist. In this scenario, the success criteria for the paper airplane are: fly 15 feet, land gently, and be folded from 1 sheet in under 5 minutes. These criteria are good because students can measure the distance, observe the landing, and time the folding process. Choice B is correct because it lists specific, observable criteria that match the passage: fly 15 feet (measurable), land gently (observable), and be folded from 1 sheet in under 5 minutes (countable and measurable). Each criterion can be checked or measured by students testing their designs, which is exactly what success criteria should do. Choice A represents the method of construction instead of success criteria. Students who choose this may confuse the building process with success standards, not understanding that criteria describe what the finished product must accomplish, not how to build it. To help students: Ask "How would you CHECK if this design works?" for each criterion. Practice rewriting vague criteria ("works well") as specific, measurable ones ("holds 10 items without tipping over"). Use the test: Can you count it, measure it, observe it, or test it? If not, make the criterion more specific.