Mark-by-mark. What you earned. What you missed. And exactly what to read next.
Some farms in the Midwestern United States practice no-till agriculture to reduce soil erosion. Explain TWO ways no-till agriculture reduces soil erosion, and describe ONE environmental trade-off of widely adopting this practice.
No-till farming does not turn over the soil, so there is less disturbance. The soil stays in place and doesn't blow away in the wind. Also the plant material from the previous crop stays on the surface which holds water and soil together. One trade-off is that farmers use more herbicides to control weeds which can run off into rivers.
Clear link between not tilling and soil staying in place. +1
You got the idea (residue holds water + soil) but didn't name the wind / water erosion mechanism explicitly. A clearer link would earn full credit.
You identified herbicide use + runoff, but stopped there. To earn this point you need to name a downstream environmental consequence: e.g. 'herbicide runoff contaminates surface water, reducing aquatic biodiversity.' The mechanism chain is what scorers look for.
A personal plan from what we found in your response — not a template.
Mechanism-chain framing for runoff problems is covered top-to-bottom here.
"Describe" vs "Explain" vs "Justify" — these carry different mark ceilings.
Condensed pass, 7-minute read.
Send us your first APES test. We’ll mark it for free.
Marking is AI-assisted, designed as a coaching aid — not an official AP score. The answer on this page is a teaching mock, not real student work.