Practical design application

The single most-repeated Paper-1 fault: writing specification points that re-state what the question already gives ("it must be portable", "must hold three coins"). These score nothing. A spec point must be ADDITIONAL and SPECIFIC — a new, measurable requirement tied to the user and environment, not a restatement of the brief.

Adding specification points, candidates write GENERIC statements — "nice", "cheap", "easy to use" — that fit almost any product and score nothing. A useful point is specific, measurable and tied to the user: not "easy to hold" but "handle diameter suits a child's hand span of about 45 mm"; not "strong" but "supports a 10 kg load".

Asked to name a material, candidates write a GENERIC name — "metal", "wood", "plastic" — which scores nothing. The mark needs a SPECIFIC material (mild steel, aluminium, acrylic, MDF) with a property reason ("acrylic because it is rigid and weatherproof"). Naming a consumable like "paint" (a finish, not a material) also fails.

Candidates DESCRIBE a proposal ("it has a wide base") instead of EVALUATING it — weighing positive AND negative features against the specification and reaching a justified judgement ("the wide base makes it stable but adds weight"). Two linked slips: the SAME evaluation for every idea, and unjustified assertions ("it works well").

Where a question wants THREE design ideas, a recurring lost mark is producing only two, or three that are essentially the same. Ideas must also meet ALL requirements — one satisfying only part of the brief (a rack for many bikes when one upright bike was required) is capped. Generate three genuinely different ideas, each meeting every requirement.

Two linked wrong beliefs. First, that "mass production" means the product's SIZE — it does not; it means a very large QUANTITY made continuously (drinks bottles are small yet mass-produced). Second, that more items cost more each — the opposite: as quantity rises to mass, UNIT cost falls because high tooling cost spreads over many items.

Treating anthropometrics and ergonomics as the same word. Anthropometrics is the DATA — body measurements (hand span, seat height, reach, grip diameter), given as population ranges. Ergonomics is the DESIGN ACTIVITY — using that data, with comfort, efficiency and safety, so the product fits the user. Defining ergonomics as just "comfort" loses the mark.