Question: I read this background article the other day: Rain dissolves fertilizer in the soil. Runoff carries it away. The fertilizer ends up in bodies of water, from ponds to oceans. The nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water bodies. Since there is a lot of nitrogen it causes algae to grow out of control. Figure below shows a pond covered with algae. Algae may use up so much oxygen in the water that nothing else can grow. Soon, even the algae die out. Decomposers break down the dead tissue and use up all the oxygen in the water. This creates a dead zone. A dead zone is an area in a body of water where nothing grows because there is too little oxygen. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. You can see it Figure below . I am facing a new situation today: Leaf farm and Plum farm provided the neighboring counties with quality produce year-round. plum farm used conventional farming methods such as fertilizer and pesticides, while Leaf farm used alternative eco-friendly methods only. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which farm caused fewer decomposers to break down dead algae?
Answer: Leaf

Question: I read this background article the other day: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] I am facing a new situation today: Rob is an environmental scientist. He is studying the effect of insect species on environment. For his study he chose four locations, location A, location B, location C and the entire globe, which he denoted as location D. He noticed location A's loss of biodiversity is temporary , but location B's loss is permanent. Location C's loss of biodiversity yet to be determined. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would ecological restoration be helpful or not helpful for location A?
Answer: helpful

Question: I read this background article the other day: The Figure below shows decibel levels of several different sounds. As decibel levels get higher, sound waves have greater intensity and sounds are louder. For every 10-decibel increase in the intensity of sound, loudness is 10 times greater. Therefore, a 30-decibel "quiet" room is 10 times louder than a 20-decibel whisper, and a 40-decibel light rainfall is 100 times louder than the whisper. High-decibel sounds are dangerous. They can damage the ears and cause loss of hearing. I am facing a new situation today: Mark was attending the music festival in his city. First, he went to stage one, where the music was playing in high decibel. Then he went to stage two. There the music was playing in low decibel. He kind of liked the latter one. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would stage two be louder or quieter than stage one?
Answer:
quieter