Q: I read this background article the other day: Another important physical property of water, is adhesion . In terms of water, adhesion is the bonding of a water molecule to another substance, such as the sides of a leaf's veins. This process happens because hydrogen bonds are special in that they break and reform with great frequency. This constant rearranging of hydrogen bonds allows a percentage of all the molecules in a given sample to bond to another substance. This grip-like characteristic that water molecules form causes capillary action , the ability of a liquid to flow against gravity in a narrow space. An example of capillary action is when you place a straw into a glass of water. The water seems to climb up the straw before you even place your mouth on the straw. The water has created hydrogen bonds with the surface of the straw, causing the water to adhere to the sides of the straw. As the hydrogen bonds keep interchanging with the straw's surface, the water molecules interchange positions and some begin to ascend the straw. I am facing a new situation today: Andrew is drinking a glass of cold water. He gets a straw and puts it in the water then gets back to work. After a while he looks over and notices water has begun to group under the bend in the straw even though the bend is above the surface of the water. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Will the hydrogen bonds in water break frequently on infrequently?
A: frequently

Q: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity is determined by many things, and one of them is abiotic stress. If an environment is highly stressful, biodiversity tends to be low. If abiotic stress does not have a strong presence in an area, the biodiversity will be much higher.This idea leads into the understanding of how abiotic stress and endangered species are related. It has been observed through a variety of environments that as the level of abiotic stress increases, the number of species decreases. This means that species are more likely to become population threatened, endangered, and even extinct, when and where abiotic stress is especially harsh. I am facing a new situation today: Two neighboring regions were exposed to different levels of abiotic stress. Eastern region was exposed to high levels of abiotic stress, while Western region was almost stress-free. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which region had more endangered species inhabiting it?
A: Eastern

Q: I read this background article the other day: During the Cold War, the Arctic became a place where the United States, Canada, and the Soviet Union performed significant research that has been essential to the study of climate change in recent years. A major reason why research in the Arctic is essential for the study of climate change is because the effects of climate change will be felt more quickly and more drastically in higher latitudes of the world as above average temperatures are predicted for Northwest Canada and Alaska. From an anthropological point of view, researchers study the native Inuit peoples of Alaska as they have become extremely accustomed to adapting to ecological and climate variability.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Two countries situated at different latitudes are exposed to climate change. Iceland is located closer to the North Pole, while Ecuador is located near the Equator. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which country's people will become less adaptable to climate variability?
A: Ecuador

Q: I read this background article the other day: In the U.S., the majority of electricity is produced by burning coal or other fossil fuels. This causes air pollution that harms the health of living things. The air pollution also causes acid rain and contributes to global warming. In addition, fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, so if we keep using them, they will eventually run out. The main advantage of nuclear energy is that it doesn't release air pollution or cause the other environmental problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels. On the other other hand, radioactive elements are nonrenewable like fossil fuels and could eventually be used up. I am facing a new situation today: There are two cities, Chien and Marisol, in France that are leaders in the amount of wine they export to the rest of the world. Although they both export the same amount of wine, they use different sources of power to generate their electricity. Chien uses coal to power the city and Marisol uses nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The citizens of both cities are voting on whether to continue their current method of electricity generation. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Does Chien or Marisol contribute less to global warming?
A:
Marisol