user: Please answer this: I read this background article the other day: The benefits provided by no-tillage to predators may lead to larger predator populations, which is a good way to control pests (biological control), but also can facilitate predation of the crop itself. In corn crops, for instance, predation by caterpillars can be higher in no-till than in conventional tillage fields.In places with rigorous winter, untilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates. Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the prior year's crops lying on the surface of untilled fields can provide a favorable environment to pathogens, helping to increase the risk of transmitting diseases to the future crop. And because no-till farming provides good environment for pathogens, insects and weeds, it can lead farmers to a more intensive use of chemicals for pest control. Other disadvantages of no-till include underground rot, low soil temperatures and high moisture.Based on the balance of these factors, and because each farm has different problems, agroecologists will not attest that only no-till or complete tillage is the right way of farming. Yet, these are not the only possible choices regarding soil preparation, since there are intermediate practices such as strip-till, mulch-till and ridge-till, all of them – just as no-till – categorized as conservation tillage. Agroecologists, then, will evaluate the need of different practices for the contexts in which each farm is inserted.  I am facing a new situation today: Barb and Jill practiced small scale farming. Jill farmed the conventional way, while barb used the no-tillage method.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farmer didn't have soil which may delay planting to less ideal dates?
++++++++
Answer: Jill
Problem: I read this background article the other day: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in matter. In everyday usage, temperature indicates a measure of how hot or cold an object is. Temperature is an important parameter in chemistry. When a substance changes from solid to liquid, it is because there was an increase in the temperature of the material. Chemical reactions usually proceed faster if the temperature is increased. Many unstable materials (such as enzymes) will be viable longer at lower temperatures.  I am facing a new situation today: John is a scientist. Yesterday, he conducted several tests, test A, test B, test C, test D, test E, and test F. In test A he kept a substance in solid state. Then in test B he changed the same substance to liquid state. In test C he conducted a chemical reaction in room temperature. Then in test D he conducted the same chemical reaction in higher temperature. In test E he kept some enzymes in high temperature. Finally, in test F he kept the same enzymes in lower temperature.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which test would see higher temperature, test A or test B?

A: test B
Problem: Given the question: I read this background article the other day: Around 5.4 billion years from now, the core of the Sun will become hot enough to trigger hydrogen fusion in its surrounding shell. This will cause the outer layers of the star to expand greatly, and the star will enter a phase of its life in which it is called a red giant. Within 7.5 billion years, the Sun will have expanded to a radius of 1.2 AU—256 times its current size. At the tip of the red giant branch, as a result of the vastly increased surface area, the Sun's surface will be much cooler (about 2600 K) than now and its luminosity much higher—up to 2,700 current solar luminosities. For part of its red giant life, the Sun will have a strong stellar wind that will carry away around 33% of its mass. During these times, it is possible that Saturn's moon Titan could achieve surface temperatures necessary to support life.As the Sun expands, it will swallow the planets Mercury and Venus. Earth's fate is less clear; although the Sun will envelop Earth's current orbit, the star's loss of mass (and thus weaker gravity) will cause the planets' orbits to move farther out. If it were only for this, Venus and Earth would probably escape incineration, but a 2008 study suggests that Earth will likely be swallowed up as a result of tidal interactions with the Sun's weakly bound outer envelope.Gradually, the hydrogen burning in the shell around the solar core will increase the mass of the core until it reaches about 45% of the present solar mass. At this point the density and temperature will become so high that the fusion of helium into carbon will begin, leading to a helium flash; the Sun will shrink from around 250 to 11 times its present (main-sequence) radius. Consequently, its luminosity will decrease from around 3,000 to 54 times its current level, and its surface temperature will increase to about 4770 K. The Sun will become a horizontal giant, burning helium in its core in a stable fashion much like it burns hydrogen today. The helium-fusing stage will last only 100 million years. Eventually, it will have to...  I am facing a new situation today: Keith was playing a simulation game. In the game he could travel around the Sun in the future. He started the game in  present time, which was denoted as time A. Then he traveled 5.4 billion years into the future, which was denoted as time B. Finally, he reached 7.5 billion years into the future, which was denoted as time C. He was amazed to find how the Sun would change over time.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: When would the Sun's surface be hotter, time A or time C?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
time A
Q: I read this background article the other day: Sand mining is a direct cause of erosion, and impacts the local wildlife.[2] Various animals depend on sandy beaches for nesting clutches, and mining has led to the near extinction of gharials (a species of crocodile) in India. Disturbance of underwater and coastal sand causes turbidity in the water, which is harmful for organisms like coral that need sunlight. It can also destroy fisheries, financially harming their operators.  Removal of physical coastal barriers, such as dunes, sometimes leads to flooding of beachside communities, and the destruction of picturesque beaches causes tourism to dissipate. Sand mining is regulated by law in many places, but is often done illegally.[3] Globally, it is a $70 billion industry, with sand selling at up to $90 per cubic yard.[4]  I am facing a new situation today: Two coastal Canadian towns, Hammond and Soundville decided to start sand mining to bring more money to their budgets. A few months later however, Hammond decided to stop all mining operations and find other sources of income. they wanted to protect the environment.  Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which village harmed fewer corals?
A:

assistant: Hammond