Explain choice, markets, responsiveness, firm decisions, externalities and labor outcomes using worked and unfamiliar cases.
AP-oriented practice across major concepts, not an authorized AP course or complete Course and Exam Description coverage. Full framework crosswalk, broader cases, graph-based assessment and timed examination preparation remain necessary.
Preparation and direct entry
Read tables, compare proportions and explain a claim in ordinary language.
Units remain directly accessible; use worked examples before independent transfer when needed.
Open any lesson. Recaps explain assumed concepts without locking access.
0/28 lessons completed · 0 marked skipped. Skips do not reduce this course's completion denominator or award understanding. Shared lesson work is reused across paths; project evidence belongs to this course.
Lesson sequence
Each linked investigation opens on its own page. Your selected course stays with you as you move between lessons.
Cumulative projectSaved workspace · human review remains separate
CUMULATIVE PROJECT
AP Microeconomics practice evidence portfolio
Explain choice, markets, responsiveness, firm decisions, externalities and labor outcomes using worked and unfamiliar cases.
Evidence and review criteria
Question is narrow enough for the cited evidence.
Units, denominators, arithmetic and source context are correct.
Comparison holds relevant assumptions fixed and acknowledges missing factors.
Distribution and uncertainty remain visible alongside averages.
An independently reasoned revision is supported; submission alone is not verified mastery.
Use your lesson captures and citations. This saved workspace supports a reviewer; it does not automatically grade your writing or certify proficiency.
Review examples and quality criteria
These are authored teaching examples for practicing review, not calibrated scoring standards. Apply your course’s specific rubric above. Different conclusions can be defensible when evidence supports them; factual and numerical errors still require correction.
Claim needing revision
The model raises total surplus, so the policy will benefit everyone.
More defensible reasoning
Under the stated schedules, the modeled total rises. The next step is to calculate buyer, seller and public effects separately, identify external costs and state which behavioral assumptions drive the result. A larger total permits some losses and is not a measured real-world policy effect.
Why the revision helps
Efficiency, distribution and empirical prediction answer different questions. A completed answer must supply the actual model values and a sensitivity case.
Assess the artifact, with assistance recorded separately
Criterion
Developing evidence
Supported evidence
Well-substantiated evidence
Question and context
A broad topic or undefined population.
A focused question, time/place and relevant definitions.
A justified scope with context that changes the interpretation.
Sources and claims
Names a source but does not connect its contents to a claim.
Cites specific records and explains provenance and relevance.
Weighs limitations, corroboration and meaningful disagreement.
Mechanism and analysis
Gives a conclusion with missing steps or unclear units.
Shows a valid causal chain, calculation or interpretation.
Tests a credible alternative and explains sensitivity or uncertainty.
Transfer and revision
Repeats the worked answer despite changed facts.
Adapts the reasoning to the unfamiliar case.
Explains why the change matters and what evidence would reverse the conclusion.
Use “missing” when no relevant evidence is supplied. Do not average these descriptions into an automatic pass score. Record whether the learner followed an example, used guidance or worked independently, and review quality separately.
Locate one specific claim and its supporting source or calculation.
Check the context, units and intermediate reasoning.
Identify one plausible alternative and the evidence that distinguishes it.
Ask for a revision or an unfamiliar application; explain the reason for the request.
The saved project remains a draft or a local submission. This page does not record instructor certification or infer understanding from response length.
Separate application casesVersioned evidence · earlier work remains intact
Apply your reasoning to a separate case
These versioned cases add distinct evidence to the portfolio. Earlier drafts and local submissions remain intact. Write your explanation before revealing review notes when you want to retain a pre-feedback attempt.
Choose output when private and external costs differ
Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.
Fictional independent unit trades: buyer values are 16,13,9,6 credits. Corresponding marginal production costs are 4,7,10,13. Trades occur in that order when buyer value is at least production cost. There is no strategic price-setting in this rule.
Each traded unit causes 5 credits of uncompensated harm to others. The private trade rule ignores it. Treat harms as additive and certain for this exercise.
A revised estimate makes external harm 10 per unit. The production and value schedules do not change. No tax or enforcement mechanism has been implemented.
This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.
Loading application evidence…
NEW APPLICATION · VERSION 1
Audit an archive access and fairness brief
Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.
A fictional town proposes a digital historical archive. Once created, anyone can read its openly accessible files; assume spare server capacity, no access restrictions and no reduction in other readers' service from one additional reader. Separately, the town offers four reservable scanning-machine appointments each afternoon. A reservation code can exclude nonholders, and one person using a machine prevents another from using that slot. Public ownership applies to both services.
Five storefronts offer commercial scanning nearby. Three share one owner; each remaining store is independently owned. Prices, location and service quality differ. Customers may use a mail-in service, but switching patterns and entry costs are unknown. A council brief says: "Five stores prove perfect competition, so every supplier must take the same price."
For one period, creating the open archive uses 90 credits of real resources. Three exhaustive, nonoverlapping user groups have aggregate benefits of 45, 35 and 25 credits under the teaching assumptions. These are benefits of the same archive, not competing purchases. A compulsory financing proposal charges the groups 30 each. Collecting these charges uses a further 12 credits of resources, paid from a separate public budget; no other effects are included. A voluntary contribution survey collects pledges totaling only 40. The brief calls the archive worthless because pledges are below its creation cost.
A separate fictional access survey covers four households with sizes 2, 4, 1 and 3 people. Annual incomes are 18, 35, 12 and 30 credits; corresponding teaching poverty cutoffs are 20, 32, 15 and 30. All household members count as poor only when their household income is strictly below its cutoff. Nobody is counted twice. These are not official thresholds. An audit later finds the second household's income unverified; household size remains known. The brief reports that "half the population is poor" and treats the unverified income as zero.
This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.
Loading application evidence…
NEW APPLICATION · VERSION 1
Audit a workshop hiring and wage-policy brief
Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.
A fictional workshop chooses 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 workers for one day. Extra revenue from the first through fourth workers is respectively 14, 12, 10 and 8 credits. These are incremental revenues, not cumulative totals. No fifth worker can be hired in this case. There are no variable costs other than wages.
To attract L workers without a wage floor, the workshop must pay every hired worker the same daily wage: 2 + 2L credits. With a floor F, the common wage is whichever is larger: F or 2 + 2L. The floor does not require any hires. Compare F=0, F=8 and F=12. All hiring choices are feasible if this pay rule is met; no discrimination between workers in pay is allowed.
A 9-credit equipment fee is already contractually committed for this day. It is payable even if the workshop hires no workers, and cannot be recovered by closing today. Profit for each choice equals total revenue minus the whole wage bill minus this fee. The owner maximizes this one-day profit. Do not invent a tie-breaking preference. Next month a different equipment contract could be avoidable; that is not the current decision.
Separate fictional observational records report employment across ten tracked businesses in policy district A rising from 40 to 44 workers, and across ten tracked businesses in comparison district B rising from 50 to 60 in the same interval. All twenty businesses are tracked in both periods. A introduced a wage floor; B did not. No prior trends, hours, worker earnings, industry composition, other policy changes or uncertainty estimates are supplied. These district totals are not the single workshop’s model outputs.
A proposed brief states: use the new worker’s wage as the entire incremental hiring cost; at a floor of 12 the workshop must close because every plan loses money; and A’s four added jobs prove the floor created jobs and improved everyone’s welfare. The brief gives no evidence beyond these records.
This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.
Record market
Citation ID:
social:independent:microeconomics:v1-marketFictional independent unit trades: buyer values are 16,13,9,6 credits. Corresponding marginal production costs are 4,7,10,13. Trades occur in that order when buyer value is at least production cost. There is no strategic price-setting in this rule.