Answer: April 14, 1935.

Answer: Deep-rooted native grasses.

Answer: Wheat prices were high (especially during and after World War I), and new gasoline-powered tractors let one farmer plow far more land.

Answer: taught and supported new farming methods to protect the soil

Congress created it “to teach and support new methods.”

Answer: Any two: hanging damp sheets over windows; stuffing rags into the cracks around doors; turning plates and cups upside down until the meal was served.

Answer: Human: high wheat prices and tractors led farmers to plow up millions of acres of native grassland, removing the roots that held the soil. Natural: a long drought in the 1930s dried out the soil and killed crops, and strong winds (normal on the Plains) then lifted the bare, powdery soil into huge dust storms.

Answer: It shows that drought alone was not enough to cause the Dust Bowl, so something else must have changed: the removal of the grass by plowing. It supports the claim that human choices made the disaster far worse.

Answer: Any two: contour plowing made furrows that caught water and soil instead of letting them blow or wash away; strip cropping and resting fields reduced the amount of bare soil exposed at once; returning land to grass let roots hold the soil again; shelterbelts of trees broke the force of the wind.

Answer: The calm, hopeful morning (“began as a gift”) creates a sharp contrast with the sudden darkness, which makes the storm more shocking and dramatic. It also builds suspense, drawing readers in as a feature article should.

Answer: It explains background causes, describes the effects, then explains the response and draws a lesson.

The headings move from causes (“A land made for grass”) to effects (“The soil takes flight”), the response (“Holding the land down”) and a lesson.

Answer: They make the dust seem alive, powerful and violent, like a churning liquid or wave, and help the reader picture its movement and feel its threat.

Answer: dried up and shriveled

The sentence follows the description of drought, so the crops dried up.

Answer: badly affected by trouble or disaster

The region was suffering from drought and dust storms.

Answer: It is a metaphor: the dust storms are like a written message or warning about what happens when land is mistreated. The disaster itself taught the nation a lesson about caring for the soil.

Model answer: The writer convincingly supports the claim that the Dust Bowl was “a natural disaster made far worse by human choices” by carefully separating its causes and by structuring the article to lead the reader toward this conclusion. The section “A land made for grass” first establishes that drought and fierce winds are “a normal part of life on the Plains,” and that for thousands of years native grasses held the soil in place. This background is essential because it shows that the natural forces were not new. The writer then explains the human change: high wheat prices and new tractors led farmers to plow up “millions of acres of grassland.” When the drought came, “with the grass gone there was nothing to hold the dry, powdery soil.” The most persuasive evidence comes in the final section, where the writer points out that droughts “had come to the Plains many times before without turning day into night.” This comparison isolates the human factor as the key difference. The writer strengthens the argument further by showing that human choices also helped to solve the problem: contour plowing, strip cropping and shelterbelts slowed the wind and held the soil. Language supports the argument too. The vivid opening image of “a wall of rolling, boiling dust” makes readers feel the scale of the disaster before they learn its causes, and the closing contrast, “We cannot control the wind or the rain. We can control how we treat the ground beneath our feet,” sums up the claim memorably. The argument would be even stronger with more specific data, such as how much land was plowed in Texas, but overall the writer's logical structure and well-chosen evidence make the claim convincing.