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: Alexander is conducting reactions in his college chemistry class. In his first reaction, reaction A, he uses a high strength burner so the temperature of the reaction is high. In the second reaction, reaction B, he uses a weaker model of burner, so the temperature of the reaction is low. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which reaction will proceed faster?

A: reaction A

Problem: I read this background article the other day: Circles of latitude are often called parallels because they are parallel to each other; that is, any two circles are always the same distance apart. A location's position along a circle of latitude is given by its longitude. Circles of latitude are unlike circles of longitude, which are all great circles with the centre of Earth in the middle, as the circles of latitude get smaller as the distance from the Equator increases. Their length can be calculated by a common sine or cosine function. The 60th parallel north or south is half as long as the Equator (disregarding Earth's minor flattening by 0.3%). A circle of latitude is perpendicular to all meridians. I am facing a new situation today: The city of Riga is situated at 56 degrees N, and its sister city Kobe, Japan is situated at 34 degrees N, on a different circle of latitude. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which city is situated farther from the North Pole?

A: Kobe

Problem: I read this background article the other day: More than 170 million years ago, Antarctica was part of the supercontinent Gondwana. Over time, Gondwana gradually broke apart, and Antarctica as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago. Antarctica was not always cold, dry, and covered in ice sheets. At a number of points in its long history, it was farther north, experienced a tropical or temperate climate, was covered in forests, and inhabited by various ancient life forms. I am facing a new situation today: John was reading about a fascinating story of a scientist in a science fiction book. In that novel the scientist met with a mysterious wormhole while visiting Antarctica. First, the wormhole started the time travel in present day, which was designated as point A. Then it sent the scientist to 170 million years in the past, which was designated as point B. The scientist had the rare experience of visiting Antarctica in two different time periods, 170 million years apart. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would there be less or more life forms in point A than in point B?

A: less

Problem: I read this background article the other day: Catalytic converters in cars increase the rates of several important reactions. Unburned hydrocarbons can more easily be converted to carbon dioxide and water in the presence of a catalyst. Additionally, carbon monoxide (a harmful gas produced by incomplete combustion of fuel) is further oxidized to carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide compounds (which contribute to smog and acid rain) are transformed back into nitrogen and oxygen gases. By passing car exhaust over these catalysts before their release into the air, the emissions from a combustion engine are made into much less harmful substances, resulting in a much cleaner atmosphere. I am facing a new situation today: John is an automotive enthusiast. He was visiting the auto show in his city. Two cars caught his attention, car A and car B. Car A was newer and it had catalytic converter. On the contrary, car B was older and didn't have catalytic converter. But he found the design of older car more attractive. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which car would contribute to less cleaner atmosphere, car A or car B?

A:
car B