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. Nitrogen is a fertilizer in the water. Since there is a lot of nitrogen, it causes algae to grow out of control. Pictured below is a pond covered with algae ( Figure below ). Algae use up carbon dioxide in the water. After the algae die, decomposers break down the dead tissue. The decomposers 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 ( Figure below ). The U.S. states outlined on the map have rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico. The rivers drain vast agricultural lands. The water carries fertilizer from these areas into the Gulf. I am facing a new situation today: Bobby and Kenny are two prolific farmers from Arkansas who have ponds located down stream from their farm sites. Bobby recently received a large order of potatoes from a neighboring city. Because of this order, Bobby has dramatically increased the amount of fertilizer he is using on his farm. Kenny mainly grows tomatoes, which are not in season right now, so his use of fertilizer is currently low. Over the past month there has been a large amount of rain falling on both Bobby and Kenny's farms. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Who will cause more fertilizer to end up in the ponds near their farm?
----
Answer: Bobby
Q: I read this background article the other day: Plates include both oceanic crust and continental crust. Stable subduction zones involve the oceanic lithosphere of one plate sliding beneath the continental or oceanic lithosphere of another plate due to the higher density of the oceanic lithosphere. That is, the subducted lithosphere is always oceanic while the overriding lithosphere may or may not be oceanic. Subduction zones are sites that usually have a high rate of volcanism and earthquakes.[2][better source needed] Furthermore, subduction zones develop belts of deformation and metamorphism in the subducting crust, whose exhumation is part of orogeny and also leads to mountain building in addition to collisional thickening. I am facing a new situation today: David is interested in geology. One day he was studying about how the earth's crust works. He specifically noticed two lithosphere, lithosphere A an lithosphere B. Lithosphere A is an oceanic lithosphere while lithosphere B is an overriding lithosphere. He also noticed two distinct zones, zone A an zone B. Zone A is a subduction zone, but zone B is not a subduction zone. Just reading about geology made David excited. Now, he wants to visit places with high volcanic activity. For that he chose place C. To compare with place C geology he would also visit place D, which does not have any volcanic activity. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would zone B develop or not develop belts of deformation?
A: not develop
Question: I read this background article the other day: About 10% of sedimentary rocks are limestones. The solubility of limestone in water and weak acid solutions leads to karst landscapes, in which water erodes the limestone over thousands to millions of years. Most cave systems are through limestone bedrock. I am facing a new situation today: The Berg mountains in Berg county are of a volcanic nature, very massive, few caves. The Gorge mountains in Gorge county are made of sedimentary rocks, predominantly limestone. They were exposed to water and that lead to karst lanscapes, caves, blue holes, stalactites and stalagmites. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which of the two mountains eroded slower over time?
Answer: Berg
[Q]: I read this background article the other day: Continued heating of the water after the ice has completely melted will now increase the kinetic energy of the liquid molecules and the temperature will rise. Assuming that the atmospheric pressure is standard, the temperature will rise steadily until it reaches 100C. At this point, the added energy from the heat will cause the liquid to begin to vaporize. As with the previous state change, the temperature will remain at 100C while the water molecules are going from the liquid to the gas or vapor state. Once all the liquid has completely boiled away, continued heating of the steam (remember the container is closed) will increase its temperature above 100C. I am facing a new situation today: Chris decides he is going to make some pasta for dinner tonight. He gets a large pot, fills it with water and puts it on the stove. He sets the stove to 99 degrees C. After a while he comes back and sees that the water is hot but it isnt boiling. He sets the temperature to 100 degrees C and walks away. He forgets he was heating up the water and comes back to an empty pot. The water got too hot, turned into is gas form, steam, leaving an empty pot Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Given a pot of water is heated to 85 degrees C, will the water remain a liquid or become a gas?
****
[A]: liquid
input: Please answer the following: I read this background article the other day: A comet tailand comaare features visible in comets when they are illuminated by the Sun and may become visible from Earth when a comet passes through the inner Solar System. As a comet approaches the inner Solar System, solar radiation causes the volatile materials within the comet to vaporize and stream out of the nucleus, carrying dust away with them. Separate tails are formed of dust and gases, becoming visible through different phenomena; the dust reflects sunlight directly and the gases glow from ionisation. Most comets are too faint to be visible without the aid of a telescope, but a few each decade become bright enough to be visible to the naked eye. I am facing a new situation today: Stargazers across the world wait for 2020 when newly discovered very bright Neil's comet would start to pass through the inner solar system On December 21, 2020. After December 27, 2020 the comet would leave the inner solar system. Like many other enthusiasts Ken bought a telescope for the event. His friend Mike is interested in that event too, but is too busy to buy a telescope. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would voaltiles materials in Neil's Comet be vaporized or not not vapor on Decembe 21, 2020?
++++++++++
output: vaporized
I read this background article the other day: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. I am facing a new situation today: John studies how chemicals affect environment. He traveled to the Amish country to see their traditional ways of farming. He noticed they don't use any fertilizers or pesticides. He labeled this part of the study as case A. Then he visited a modern farming facility where they use tons of fertilizers and pesticides. He labeled this part of the study as case B. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would case A see more or less growth of algae than case B?
----
Answer:
less